Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 61

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

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Is Sol Bellel, author of knickerbockervillage.blogspot.com a reliable source? An author is trying to use this blog posting to identify the faces carved in The Forward building. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting read, and I have no doubt that he lived there when he said he did and knows a lot of people from the area, but the problem with using it as a definitive source for who those faces are is that he doesn't show his work, so to speak. How does he know? Did he find it in old architectural documents, in a library book? Or is he just making an educated guess? If it's the former we have no way to know, if it's the latter his blog fails to make an adequate case for why we should take his opinions as expert. — e. ripley\^talk 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How about if a link to the image is given in a footnote: [1]? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that I'm the editor in question here. The Bellel text wasn't being invoked in support of the identification of the depicted individuals but merely to provide a vehicle for external reference to the images themselves. Jayig deleted the text in which that was done so I added direct links to the images as external references. The underlying issue is discussed further on Talk:The Forward. --Futhark|Talk 09:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Futhark's previous edits to the article actually (and to my mind astonishingly) cited an anonymous comment made in response to the blog posting. That's what Futhark meant when he added the statement that it "includes a commentary suggesting that it may have been August Bebel." Jayjg ^(talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bridge too far for me... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I recently nominated an article I've been working on for FAC and concerns have been raised about the reliability of some of the sources. While they're not known to be unreliable, Wikipedia has apparently not before validated them as reliable. I was wondering therefore if somebody could help with this process. Below are links to the "About" pages of the sources concerned (which I consulted after being directed to this article together with the fAC and the article it concerns. Cheers. Paul Largo (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article and FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive1
• Royal National College for the Blind

Sources

• Patient UK
• Response Source
• Excellence Gateway
• Leisure Opportunities

There is no such thing as a "reliable source" in absolute terms. Each source may be reliable for some applications, and unreliable for others. So if you need input from other editors, you should describe the specific claim which you make in the article, and the source(s) you propose as support for it. Then judgment can be made whether that source is of sufficient quality and reliability to support that specific claim. Crum375 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Give me a few minutes and I'll post the relevant information. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant information

Below is the relevant information together with the sources from which it was referenced. The four references of concern are as listed above - Patient UK, Response Source, Excellence Gateway and Leisure Opportunities. Wherever possible I have added a second ref to support the information. I'm also posting these so all the facts are available here. Cheers. Paul Largo (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Patient UK

• No. of staff = 175 teaching, 56 student support (Patient UK)
• "The RNC provides both full time and shorter courses in vocational and academic subjects for approximately 200 students aged 16 and above." (Patient UK) (National Association of Specialist Colleges)
• "Courses are designed to prepare visually impaired students for progression into further education, university or employment." (Patient UK)

Response source

• Following an
  OFSTED inspection in 2005 RNC was one of only eight colleges in the UK to be awarded the prestigious Learning and Skills Beacon Status in recognition of the outstanding quality of its teaching." (Times Educational Supplement) (Response Source)
• "It is presently the only college for visually impaired students to have Beacon status, which is only given to educational establishments which have received a first-class OFSTED inspection report." (Response Source) (Worcester News)

Excellence Gateway

• "In 2009 RNC lecturer Tony Sales developed Vinux, an accessible version of the Linux operating system for the visually impaired." (Excellence Gateway)

Leisure Opportunities

• "The facility is used to help train students wishing to work in the leisure industry and was designed with visually impaired people in mind, with tactile landmarks on the stairwells, floors and skirting boards to help students navigate their way around." (Leisure Opportunities)

I think all the above claims and/or quotes are covered by the provided sources, and all of the latter would qualify in my view as reliable sources for this purpose. Crum375 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking them out. Paul Largo (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What if you have a reliable source, such as the BBC, whose reporter gets a sample of opinions relating to a story from people who would not, on their own, qualify as RS. Say, the owner of an online store who isn't a RS, but the BBC reporter thought his opinion relevant to the particular story. Can quotes from such a source be used on Wikipedia? (I mean, only as quoted by the BBC). Thanks. Fletcher (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. The only actual source here is the BBC, which is perfectly reliable. Quoting people is entirely different matter from using them as a source.

And, technically, we don't use people directly as sources but publications authored by people. So it is not meaningful to call a person a reliable or unreliable source.Factomancer (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it depends on what you want to source with that. If the BBC interviews someone who says "I saw a man with a bowler hat leave the bank quickly after the robbery", then you can mention this. If the BBC interviews a random person who says "evolution is just a belief, creation science is the truth", then you obviously can't use this in any way. Hans Adler 11:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

True. But that is not a matter that can be decided by the

WP:RS

guideline.

WP:RS

to disqualify the information; we must apply a subjective judgement to the material itself.

So there is a legitimate question of whether the opinions quoted by the BBC are notable and/or relevant to the topic of the article. But that is not a matter that can be determined by the

WP:RS guideline or this noticeboard. This noticeboard can only pass judgement on the source, not the material. Factomancer (talk

) 12:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the article that you had in mind? And I agree with everyone else. The BBC is a reliable source for the opinions of the people interviewed, but nothing more. Whether these opinions are notable or not is of course a different matter. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we were all speaking in general, (I was), but Fletcher's question was "inspired" by the discussion at Talk:Marc Garlasco and in particular the discussion of whether to keep the opinions of militaria business owners quoted by the BBC in the article. Factomancer (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

True. To clarify, you all are using "notable" in the common English sense, right? Not in some technical Wikipedia sense? So it is up to editorial consensus to decide whether the quote is worth including and it is not a matter for the RS policy. (Dang it, that's why I posted here - no consensus.) Fletcher (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

per [[2]], is it an acceptable use of a self published source to source someone's middle name if they posted a picture of their license to their own message board? since someone's middle name is uncontroversial, and they posted the information to their own website, shouldn't this should be an acceptable use of a self published source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not always the case that the middle name someone chooses for him or herself is uncontroversial: [3]. But yes, I agree that middle names are the sort of uncontroversial factual information for which we can accept self-published sources from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, I just protected the page for a few days because of excessive edit warring over the issue. In the wrong version, naturally (meaning I didn't look at which version I protected it in until after the protection, but it seems to have been the one with the middle name included). Please work this out in the article talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been some debate regarding this piece in the Washington Times. Specifically the issue revolves around using the information in the first paragraph A thousand architects and engineers want to know. The petition signatories are listed here along with full names, and license numbers in most cases. Unomi (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging from other items, the Inside the Beltway column where the assertion appears seems to be a slightly unusual fusion of reportage and comment. But this particular item is clearly reportage in a reputable newspaper, and thus I would consider it a RS. Barnabypage (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Inside the Beltway is a column that runs six days a week in the Washington Times, a source that has been taken to task on occasion for its lack of journalistic integrity. Jennifer Harper seems to be more interested in gossip, innuendo, and spectacle rather than straight reporting. I would treat this source with a fairly large grain of salt. It can be used to justify outside notice, but

talk

) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the column may tend toward the gossipy and that the Washington Times perhaps has more of an agenda than most papers. However, in these grey areas we need to consider sources on a case-by-case basis, and in this particular case virtually every assertion made in the article is attributed to the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - so unless we really believe that the writer is actually making the whole thing up (which I suggest is not credible), it's reasonable to believe that he did, in fact, say those things.

On the specific assertion concerning "a thousand architects and engineers", there's always the Website of the organisation itself - http://www.ae911truth.org. Our policy

WP:RELIABLE

says that self-published sources like this are reliable as sources of information about themselves in most circumstances, so it should be considered reliable as to the number of signatories on its petition. (It would be so easy to establish if the number was a lie that again, I suggest, it's not credible that the organisation is telling an untruth.)

Note, however, that the ae911truth Website says "1138 architectural and engineering professionals", which is not quite the same as "architects and engineers" - I haven't looked in detail at the list of signatories but it could, for example, include draughtsmen as "architectural professionals" although they are not architects. So our article's wording should maybe reflect that carefully. Barnabypage (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I found at least one software engineer on the list, and plenty of others with dubious qualifications about building and architecture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite its ordinary-sounding name, the Washington Times is not a 'reputable newspaper', it is a propaganda front for Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so sure that the Unification Church's ownership of the

talk

) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

They lack a reputation for reliability and fact-checking. Sun Myung Moon called the Washington Times "an instrument to save America and the world"[4]. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and Murdoch has said that his WSJ editorial page takes a "consistently conservative attitude": see 2:28. Looks to me to be a similar argument. Not that I'm arguing that the Washington Times is a good source: only that the owner's perspective is only one thing to consider.

talk

) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand; you agree with me (since of course I never said nor implied that the owner's perspective is only thing to consider), yet you just can't keep from arguing with me - even to the point of defending a cult-owned newspaper. BTW, having a "consistently conservative attitude" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a source is

WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk

) 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to argue, and I haven't yet stooped to

talk

) 00:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"I stand by my contention that dismissing any newspaper out-of-hand simply because it is cult-owned newspaper is not a good principle." I agree with you 100%. Again. Btw the topic here is not the Wall Street Journal or the Christian Science Monitor, it's the Washington Times. Dlabtot (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• My question is: What statement is the Washington Times item being used to support? Apparently some people made a big deal about the petition being covered in the Washington Times (see [5], [6]). However, the Times itself published an editorial shortly afterward stating that they cover a lot of "shocking" things that they don't endorse. I would say that that the original Times item is a reliable source to establish that the petition is notable and probably worth mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia, but not necessarily a reliable source to establish the number of petition signers or their occupations. Nor was the Times item intended to indicate that the Times was asserting that Richard Gage's claims about how the World Trade Center collapsed were true. All it indicates is that those are Gage's views. If Gage or his supporters were alleging that the Times misquoted him to make him look bad, that might be arguable given the Times' conservative viewpoint and opposition to the "9/11 truth movement". But if the statements in the Times item are consistent with Gage's statements printed elsewhere, then there would be nothing wrong with quoting from the item in a description of Gage's viewpoint. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Times is a real newspaper, and appears to have sufficent independence from its parent organization to be considered a secondary source. There's no reason to throw it out. Sounds more like an NPOV issue to me. But it would be adequate to show that the AE911 organization is relevant enough to mention in an article about 9/11 alternative theories. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have anything in our policies that say anything about being a 'real' newspaper. Throwing out red herrings like that really adds nothing to the discussion. Do you believe they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If so, upon what is that belief based? Dlabtot (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the "second" newspaper in DC, as a conservative counterpart to the Washington Post. It's just like the New York Post or the Boston Herald. Our article on them is full of statements like I see them get some local stories that I think the Post doesn’t have and should have had and a springboard for young reporters to jobs at The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, even the Post, and it was former president Reagan's favorite newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any comment to make concerning their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or lack thereof? Dlabtot (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How much of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does the Washington Times need for one to believe that the petition they reported on actually exists? The Times isn't vouching for the underlying statements contained in the petition, just mentioning what the petition organizer said. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing a few alleged red herrings:

• A news outlet being sufficiently independent is germane to the discussion. Being independent makes it a secondary source instead of a press release. The OP asked if a mention by the Washington Times was sufficient to mention ae911 in the article. If the WT is a newspaper, then ae911 has "been in the news" and is fair game to include. If it was a press release, it wouldn't be unless the group making the release was notable in the article topic.
• The
  WP:RS
  guideline says that mainstream news organizations are generally considered reliable. That means if something is a general-coverage newspaper in the area, the presumption is that is RS and we have to debate to deem otherwise. If something is a speciality newsletter we have to debate to show why it is RS.
• I did a Google Books search to see what is said about the WT and how often it is cited. There's a couple of books that criticize the idea of a Moon-owned newspaper. However, the WT is cited for fact very often by books about the intelligence community. And not fringe books, but serious books. It's hard to find a book about intelligence that doesn't have a few cites to WT. They do seem to have a reputation for breaking stories in that field, as well as for aggressive coverage of China. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor although I've disputed this content on

) 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The WT article doesn't claim that every single signer of the petition is an architect or registered engineer, though it does imply that many of them are. If our own statement was something like "an organization called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth circulated a petition which received over 1,000 signatures", then the WT article is an RS for that. The facts that such an organization exists and that there's 1000 signatures on the petition are hardly extraordinary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one's disputing that the petition exists and no one is disputing some people signed it. What is disputed is that a thousand architects and engineers have signed this petition. This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the claim of the WT article, not that every single signatory is, since it seems to have 8.5k signatories, but that 1k+ of those are either architects or engineers. This seems fairly easily verifiable for a newspaper since the names and in many cases the license numbers of those professionals are clearly visible on the petition site. Unomi (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi: Where did you get 8.5 from? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the claim on the AE911 site :

1149 architectural and engineering professionals and 7678 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. Unomi (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article should only say something like my above example. Even the WT article doesn't directly say that if you read closely; there are open-ended descriptions like "peers" and "a thousand architects and engineers want to know". If we use that article to source the statement "a thousand architects and engineers have signed this petition", then we're extrapolating, and that's an OR problem instead of an RS problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is what the WT article states: A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center. This clearly claims that 1k A&Es are endorsing the petition. I am slightly over it at this point tbh, but for clarity's sake I think it should be pointed out. Unomi (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

is it OK to use sources that are only preserved at google cache? The reason I ask is this edit, the source is actually here. news.mn seems to have been overhauled, and I can't locate articles from before 2010. Yaan (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, archived or cashed webpages are fine... with a caveat... archived or cashed webpages may have obsolete information that was later updated, or may have contained errors that subsequent versions corrected. Also... your citation should note

where you found the information Blueboar (talk

) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Should have thought about this indirect quote thing. Is this OK? Yaan (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Google cache often gets flushed out. I would also archive the reference so you still have it in case it does disappear. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It won't last long, and I don't think you can cache the google cache with webcite or anything else (legally). If the internet archive doesn't have it, it's kinda useless. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this or this a reliable source to say in the

- 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The first source seems to be a copy of the unsourced Pope Abraham of Alexandria. nableezy - 22:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that a claim that someone has moved a mountain is in the "red flag" category that would require quite exceptionally strong sourcing ;) But I think the sources presented could in this case support saying something along the lines of "according to tradition, (...)". --Dailycare (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The other "red flag" is that al-Muizz converted to Christianity. Both his empire and his children remained Muslim and there is not a single reliable source that says that he did convert. nableezy - 04:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The two books referenced are books of the Coptic Synexarium (tales of saints), published officially by the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Coptic Synexarium is written by a number of Coptic bishops. The version in Arabic language, 3rd edition published by Maktabet el mahaba in Cairo, has the official seal of the Coptic Orthodox Church on it. The fact that Al-Muizz did not force his empire or his children to convert has nothing to do with the issue. In fact, this is a projection of Islamic thinking on Christian thinking. In Christianity, when you convert, you convert on your own and you leave the world the worldly desires to go and worship God (which also what the sources say about Al-Muizz becoming a monk and living in a monastery for the rest of his life). If you have Ismaili sources that talk about the death of Al-Muizz or the end of his life, by all means feel free to add them to the article. To my knowledge, not such a single account exists in any Ismaili book. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that isnt how it went when the head of an empire converted, regardless of the religion. And Church doctrine is not a reliable source, or would you have me source things as fact published by the sheikhs of al-Azhar? There are thousands of sources discussing the life and reign of al-Muizz, and I have yet to find a single one that says he converted to Christianity. nableezy - 04:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly how it went when the head of an empire converted. Again, do not project Islamic thinking on Christianity. In addition, this not a doctrine. This is the official history book of the Coptic Orthodox Church. And as I said, if you have Islamic sources talking about the death of Al-Muizz or his last days, feel free to add them to the article. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly false, see

Constantine_I_and_Christianity is a fairly good indication that what Lanternix thinks of as Islamic thinking is deeply rooted in Christianity. I would not doubt that there are more instances of the empire following suit than not. Unomi (talk

) 05:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont need "Islamic sources", Ill use reall sources and in the process of doing so now. For instance, this source describes this story as a "legend" first propagated by Coptic writers and later revived by Morkos Smaika Pasha but "vehemently rejected" by Muslim historians. nableezy - 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have presented this article as a reliable source pertaining to above mentioned disputed articles. Now, I would highly appreciate, if you kindly discuss the reference is reliable or not.--119.155.39.93 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A dispute has a arisen on Avatar (2009 film) about the nationality of the film. The crux of the argument is whether the Avatar is American or not: Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Edit_request. Fox, a US based company produced the film and put up 40% of the budget. They also own the copyright. It seems convincingly American.

The problem here though is that nationality isn't consistently applied across the film artciles. A British company put up some of the budget for Avatar so it is partly produced by a British company. On the otherhand principle photography was in New Zealand and Canada, to the extent it qualifed as a NZ production and received a tax rebate.

So there is many different criteria for choosing a film's nationality. Is it American because a US company produced it? If that is so then that would make Bond films and the first Superman British, which they are not considered to be on Wikipedia. Is it copyright? Many of Stanley Kubrick's films had their copyright regsitered in Britain, but 2001 was produced and financed by MGM? Are we saying this isn't an American film at all? Is it funding? Money comes from so many different companies in many counties now that all you end up with is a paper chase.

The problem though, is because American editors outnumber editors of any other nationality there is a bias towards labelling this film American, or a film in which there was some financial input US-UK etc. Once you're outnumbered everything becomes a "consensus" or a dead horse" becaus ethey don't want to continue a discussion. What I want to know is it proper for editors to set criteria for a film's nationality? Surely any claim of a factual nature needs to be referenced so it is verifiable? We need a source to say how much money a film has grossed, so why is it not necessary to have a source that says "Avatar is American" or "Avatar is US production", or even "Avatar is US produced". I was told a source is not necessary because "you can look at the Fox logo". As I've outlined it's hardly that clear cut, and there are are many different ways to perceive a film's nationality.

By having Wikipedia set the criteria for a film's nationality it violates

since criteria is being put together to lead to a conclusion that is subject to the point of view of the person setting the criteria. You can source that Fox is a US company, you can source that Fox produced Avatar, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the logical conclusion that Avatar is American. I thought whole point of verifiability was such that all claims have to be sourced.

I would like to know your views as whether a film's nationality is a claim that must be established through a reliable source, and if not, what sets it apart from all other claims about films. This isn't really about whether Avatar is American or not, if sources are there saying it is I'm happy for them to go in and for Avatar to be American, but I don't like the culture of editors setting the criteria for a film's nationality and the fact that they don't think references are required for such a claim. There have been several discussions about this on Avatar's talk page but I just rounded on every time saying "Avatar is American", "it's obvious" etc. Personally I would like to see film nationalities established through verifiable sources like other factual claims instead of some concocted criteria by editors. There's no way I'm ever going to get through on the article talk page, so I would like an objective view please.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s.It seems a source has just been added for Avatar's nationality, but I still would welcome your thoughts in the context of all the film articles.

I would suggest that the best way to resolve this is to simply not discuss the film's "nationality"... at all. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a question that's best for

WT:FILM. - Peregrine Fisher (talk

) 04:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the Film Project that is basically the problem by setting the criteria. That's why it's important to get a viewpoint from an alternative perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that thinking that whether or not something is "American" as being a binary on-off switch (e.g. "American"<->"Not American") is not a good idea. All of the necessary particulars about how which part of the film came from there should be noted in nuance-included detail.

FWIW. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Grandma. Films don't carry passports. As with many multi-million dollar enterprises, the answer is more complex than "yes/no". I imagine there might be certain rules that it would qualify under, for various film festivals, for example, but I would also imagine those rules will vary. --GRuban (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is glbtq.com considered a reliable source? I've used them in several biographies, which is why I bring it up. They do have an editorial oversight policy, which is what I *thought* was needed, but it's come in to question recently. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to provide more information on this? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A commenter on an AFD discussion that I started (

, meaning they can't be used to verify notability. They are:

• An audio broadcast of The Political Cesspool
• A website named after Savitri Devi
• Reason Radio Network, an anti-Semitic radio network whose lineup consists mainly of the likes of Texe Marrs, Michael Collins Piper and Jeff Rense
• The Occidental Quarterly, as well as a closely-related publication called the Occidental Observer
• A German-language website called "sezession.de"

While I do not personally believe the above sources pass the RS test, I would like a second opinion on the matter, particularly in the case of [www.sezession.de]; since I can't read German, I have no way of knowing for sure whether that website is a RS or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is glbtq.com considered a reliable source? I've used them in several biographies, which is why I bring it up. They do have an editorial oversight policy, which is what I *thought* was needed, but it's come in to question recently. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to provide more information on this? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A commenter on an AFD discussion that I started (

, meaning they can't be used to verify notability. They are:

• An audio broadcast of The Political Cesspool
• A website named after Savitri Devi
• Reason Radio Network, an anti-Semitic radio network whose lineup consists mainly of the likes of Texe Marrs, Michael Collins Piper and Jeff Rense
• The Occidental Quarterly, as well as a closely-related publication called the Occidental Observer
• A German-language website called "sezession.de"

While I do not personally believe the above sources pass the RS test, I would like a second opinion on the matter, particularly in the case of [www.sezession.de]; since I can't read German, I have no way of knowing for sure whether that website is a RS or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone familar with the Caesar Rodney Institute? Do we consider it reliable? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They state on their website that their desire is to provide alternative policy solutions to problems. That suggests to me an inherent bias. However, depending upon the use of the citation, it could be acceptable. Can you offer a diff or link to the article in question? JodyB _talk 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

refers to College News, Rawstory.com, Gawker.com, DailyKos, RedState, and YouTube all as reliable sources for the factual information said in the section.

The material in that section may need to be rewritten, but that's another kettle of fish. At issue is whether or not these six websites are reliable sources. Thoughts? Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, none of them are ideal. More to the point, this issue has been covered in detail by the reputable mainstream media. I'm not sure why we would use these relatively poor-quality sources when much better sources are readily available. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article

contains the following statement: "While in Canada Tylman worked as an airbrush illustrator , his illustrations were used on billboards and in various magazines such as Time and Chatelaine and corporate annual reports and brochures including BCTel and Energy Mines and Resources Canada.[10][11][12][2] [13]". The sources are either primary, that is the magazines themselves, or self-published (a press release) or equivalent (claims in an interview). There also appears to be a Youtube video which has been deleted. I saw this video before deletion, and although it announces an exhibition of drawings Richard Tylman it does not mention any of the magazines above. Two editors checked the primary sources, and were not able to verify the claims. One editor was an anon ip, see [14] and [15]. The other editor was an editor in good standing, User:Victoriagirl who at that time tried to cleanup the article as it was reported on the COI board. See here for her findings, [16] and [17]. The question is - should we accept self-published sources in this case? And more broadly, what about other claims in the article that are only supported by self-published sources? Can we assume good faith and accept the self-published sources if editors repeatedly fail to verify the claims made in the article? Pantherskin (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article violates

Wikipedia:Self-published sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: it is self-serving, there is doubt of its authenticity and the article is based primarily on self-published sources. The Four Deuces (talk

) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Providence and the Invention of the United States"

Would the opinion of the author of this book ([18]) be considered notable? The author is a published academic on the subject so I have no problem with the text being used as a factual source, but as for an opinion on the subject I am not sure the notability of the author is sufficient to warrant that his opinion is notable. I cannot find any third party sources citing this book on indeed this author on this subject indicating that his opinion is notable. It meets the verifiability criteria, but I am not sure it meets the notability criteria. If his opinion is notable isn't it required that we should establish his notability through other third party sources? I am not sure either way, although I'm leaning towards the view his opinion isn't notable even though it is verifiable, so would appreciate any clarification you can give me. It's in relation to this edit: [19] Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a no-brainer that books published by

elsewhere. Dlabtot (talk

) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on historyplace.com

Any opinions on historyplace.com? There are hundreds of references to it on Wikipedia. Most pages are written by the site owner, who does not give much evidence of his credibility to write on such a range of topics. Given the large number of citations for a site that is at best on the edge of a reliable source, I begin to suspect linkspam.... What do others think? Bytwerk (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what matters above all else is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. If the information on their Awards page is correct[20], they may have earned such a reputation. These are just my initial thoughts. I'll do some more research... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked over those, too - few of them look to me to have real credibility. Bytwerk (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of those I don't recognize either. However, I do recognize some of them, such as Brittanica and the Discovery Channel. I don't think it's linkspam. This site is recommended or referenced by Nova,[21] the US Library of Congress,[22] LA Times,[23] The New York Times,[24] Forbes,[25] The Times,[26], Vancouver Sun,[27] American Heritage,[28] and probably more that I missed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that this means a lot, but the fact that it's cited by other articles[29] is indicative that other Wikipedia editors found this site to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam may be the wrong term.... My suspicion is that many of the links may have been added by people affiliated with the site — 160 links is a lot, considering that the site typically does not source its articles. Is there an easy way to find who added the links without digging down through the revision history? Bytwerk (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AfterElton appears to be a property of Viacom, a publisher with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This does not mean that everything written on the site is by definition reliable, but it is a strong indicator. Where is it's use being contested, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if that's a controversial statement, more in the realms of "Pope is openly Catholic^{[citation needed]}". Guy (Help!) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I created a list:

) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This list doesn't seem notable. Deletion seems like the best option here. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion? I was going to merge together the various salary lists into List of judicial salaries (United States)...but I don't see how deletion is the best option? The content is of notability in that it is a list of Supreme Court Justice salaries by year and is still verifiable via google cache.Smallman12q (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yellowslime on this. What makes the salaries earned by any specific group of people a notable topic? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints can be considered a reliable source. It's a newsletter put out by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), an Israeli think-tank based in Jerusalem (not to be confused with the much larger American non-profit Jewish Council for Public Affairs).

The specific article in question is this one by

states: "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article."

So then, should this source be cited for statements of fact, cited as a statement of the author's opinion in-text (odd as it might be to state someone's opinion on what another person's work history is), or not used at all? ← George ^talk 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Hoping to get an answer to this. ← George ^talk 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an editorial, though not a self-published one. Are the facts of the employment history controversial? If so, we should avoid it. If no one is disputing the facts in question, we can use it. Also consider using this article from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/2003/06/fallows.htm which is not an editorial, and has plenty on Shahaf.

He is a strongly built man of medium height, with graying hair combed back from his forehead. In photos he always appears stern, almost glowering, whereas in the time I spent with him he seemed to be constantly smiling, joking, having fun. Shahaf is in his middle fifties, but like many other scientists and engineers, he has the quality of seeming not quite grown up. He used to live in California, where, among other pursuits, he worked as a hang-gliding instructor. ... Before getting involved in the al-Dura case, Shahaf was known mainly as an inventor. He was only the tenth person to receive a medal from the Israeli Ministry of Science, for his work on computerized means of compressing digital video transmission.

--GRuban (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ths JCPA is led by an Israeli diplomat and many of its employees are also employed by the Israeli defence forces, so this is a clearly promotional orgenization that should primarily be used as a source for its own views, the notability of which is of course another issue entirely. Whether Nahum Shahaf should have an article on Wikipedia is also something that should be considered. --Dailycare (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's led by a former diplomat, and I suspect those people 'also employed by the Israeli defence forces' are actually just people in the reserve, like most Israelis. Also, I have no idea what 'a clearly promotional organization' even means. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tucker Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This citation http://www.quotabletuckermax.com/images/license.jpg which is said to be an archive from Max's chat site, and is said to be something he put on there is being used as a support for his middle name Tibor, it could well have been put there by the subject, I don't know. The pitrure has though clearly been altered, the chat site was removed by the subject and there have been multiple removals of this name, this appears to be the only place his middle name, tibor is citable to, also in that case and there are objections, as regards the privacy of personal information this may well be an issue too, also are citations like this wikipedia reliable to use for any content http://web.archive.org/web/20070107043843/http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=12129 please comment, thanks.

) 11:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything which can only be cited to unverified humorous messageboard postings is not something of sufficient reliability for use on articles regarding living persons. Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Already listed earlier here: see #self published source for a person's middle name. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is posted above thank you but that is the type of question that doesn't actually bring the citation for discussion, as I have presented it here it is clearly not a wikipedia reliable citation for anything at all.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

rob, i'm not sure how you've become so confused here. no one is arguing over quotabletuckermax.com anymore. the source in question is tucker's posting to tucker's message board on tucker's site. he posted under his account to his site a picture of his license. this is being used as a self published source for his middle name. this is an acceptable use of a self published source. let's not get confused an argue about sources that no one is even talking about. the source in question is http://web.archive.org/web/20070107043843/http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=12129 not quotabletuckermax.com. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the one that is confused, Theserialcomma. Rob mentioned the webarchive version of Max's message board in his initial post, so I cannot honestly imagine where you got the idea that he had his sources confused. Seth Kellerman (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is arguing about anything, other than the brief discussions here, I'm not seeing it. I'd hoped to see a lot more activity in Talk:Tucker Max. Page protection is supposed to be to give time to build consensus through discussion, not to clam up and wait for the protection to expire so the edit war can resume. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I quoted an opinion from an expert cited in The Huffington Post in the Aspartame_controversy: "Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is Professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer, including the groundbreaking 1979 The Politics of Cancer, and the 2009 Toxic Beauty." This was rejected by a few editors, claiming it wasn't reliable and they removed the following part:

"Cancer Prevention Expert Samuel S. Epstein stated that ERF's findings have been sharply challenged by the sweetener industry, major sweetener users, such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé and Monsanto, and also by the industry oriented scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Other critics included Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Defense Secretary, and earlier CEO of Searle. Epstein acknowledges the evidence on the carcinogenicity of aspartame."

They also removed a quote from The Guardian, without discussion or reason:

"In 2010, the British Food Standards Agency has launched an investigation into the artificial sweetener aspartame amid claims that some people experience side-effects after consuming the substance.[30] Immortale (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The major objection was that you repeatedly added controversial content without discussion. It was reverted by several editors. Now discuss it there. This is the wrong venue. Don't misuse this board to carry on your edit war. --

talk

) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what was I thinking? Placing controversial content in an article called CONTROVERSY. The question remains, are these reliable sources. If yes, then they should be part of the article. No need for a discussion that you never participate in anyway. You only delete every negative word being said about aspartame. Immortale (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced, even to a source of peerless reliability, is not a magic talisman. All content must be sourced but not everything which can be sourced should be included (e.g. if it gives

fringe view). As far as I can tell the challenge is not on the basis of reliability. Guy (Help!

) 13:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted in my reply to a comment by Immortale on the article's talk page, this is yet another of Immortale's deceptive distortions. The problem is edit warring material over the objections of other editors "without discussion". We work by consensus here. I have no objection to the inclusion of controversial material, and I've obviously never deleted "every negative word being said about aspartame". Get real. --

talk

) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your last revert was with : agree with KeepCalm. Discuss this on talk rather than edit war. where KC had stated The Huffington Post is not a reliable source here, and "Cancer Prevention Expert" is a bit over-the-top for an encyclopaedia. So clearly you did object to the reliability of the source, otherwise you could simply have edited to tone down the wording. Unomi (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source, and especially its presentation, does need to be discussed on the talk page, but my primary objection is the edit warring over the objections of other editors. That isn't acceptable behavior, nor is attacking other editors when they revert. Discussion is the way forward. We can discuss the reliability of the source on the talk page. This board isn't the place to immediately take content disputes when discussion hasn't been tried yet. We haven't even established to what degree there is a content dispute, only that there isn't a consensus with the way the material and source was being used and presented. Even the best of sources can be presented in an improper way. --

talk

) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This comes from a semantic discussion in Falkland Islands. There is this sentence: "As Argentina considers the Falklands to be Argentine territory, they also consider the Falkland Islanders to be Argentine citizens through the system of jus soli operated under Argentine nationality law (...)", or this proposal "Under Argentine nationality law, native Falkland Islanders are also considered native argentineans, and the rest are eligible for naturalization.", which is more specific.

The discussion is no progressing since some says it isn't sourced, is POV push towards Argentina, and its based on primary sources. My opinion is that:

1. We're exposing the position of Argentine law, so we must quote what it says. If we are to quote a POV, obviously it would need to be POV. I'm only concerned about the neutral wording, not the content.
2. As we're exposing an official position, the official sources are reliable even being primary sources, as it's allowed under certain circumstances as per
   WP:PRIMARY . The text also links to Argentine nationality law
   , which also serves as source.

The sources in question are:

Argentine Constituion, 1994 reform

The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.

Citizenship and Naturalization. National law no. 346

Artículo 1º- Son argentinos: 1. Todos los individuos nacidos, o que nazcan en el territorio de la República, sea cual fuere la nacionalidad de sus padres, con excepción de los hijos de ministros extranjeros y miembros de la legación residentes en la República.

(translation)Article 1 - Are Argentine: 1. All individuals born on the Republic territory, regardless the nationality of his parents, excepting the sons of foreign ministers and legation members residing on the Republic.

Those are primary sources, but official ones. And the context is the position by this same sources. In a simply logic deduction, and clarified in the sentences, it's implied that the Argentine law considers native islanders as Argentineans (full citizens, as if they born in Buenos Aires) since it considers the Falklands as part of its territory. As has been said it was an

, saying:

de acuerdo al Derecho Positivo de la Argentina son Ciudadanos de la Nación Argentina por el solo hecho de nacer en su territorio, siguiendo el principio de "Ius soli",

(translation)According to Argentine positive law they are citizens of Argentine Nation by the mere fact of have born in its territory, following the principle of "Jus soli"

Which constitutes a secondary, reliable source applying the previous sources in this specific context. But this is being rejected as "POV", when it shouldn't be rejected as we are needing a neutral source to expose a POV. For other information, in Argentine the Falklands are always considered as part of the territory, even if there is no sovereignty (e.g. it's specified in the last census -another official source- the exclusion of the islands -point (6)-, since it couldn't be possibly done), or this reference (quote: and dismissed the application of a man born on the Islands for Argentine citizenship on the grounds that he is in any event an Argentine) that exposes an application of this position.

Note: this is not an discussion about sovereignty, or about application, it's only about "what says Argentine law", not about if it has any implication at all (afaik, there is not a single islander who wants to be argentine)

As we need to quote an official position, which is obviously POV (and that isn't bad in this context), are this two official sources reliable to use? I don't have doubts about the secondary source, but in any case, comments for its reliability will be welcomed too. Thanks. pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would guess this is a posting at the "wrong forum". I would hope others have more success than I have in trying to educate the above editor about

WP:NPOV. There are actually 3 differing opinions expressed in 3 different Argentine sources. 1. Says they are "Argentine Citizens" under Argentine law, 2. Says they are an "alien population", No. 3. says that norms under International Law you cannot impose Citizenship upon a population over which you have no jurisdiction. As I have tried to indicate to Pmt7ar, NPOV requires you expose all 3 significant views. It is POV to only write about you're preferred option. Good luck. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk

22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Justin, I posted it here only to get an opinion of reliability of the sources in this case. Don't bring the talk from the article here. I want to know if the sources for your "point 1" are usable. I'm not talking about the other two. pmt7ar ^(talk) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this involves multiple policies and guidelines... Justin presents the issue as it relates to WP:NPOV correctly. There is also a high potential for a

synthesis. I strongly suspect that this is what is happening in this article. If so, it does not matter whether the sources are reliable. Misusing reliable sources is just as bad as using unreliable sources. I would advise all involved to search for reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic rather than relying on these primary sources. Blueboar (talk

) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't wrote or added my opinion to any of the sentences mentioned on top of the topic. I haven't done any synthesis, but quoted the one of a secondary source (the UNNE one) but on the discussion it is being rejected as POV since it's from an Argentine university. I'm very concerned about there is a confussion on NPOV or POV in this case, since in the article we need the argentine law position (to use it in a comparison with UK's, to maintain neutrality) and these sources are being dismissed as POV for being favorable to Argentina. I have absolutely no doubt that both official sources and the second source synthesis are completely POV in content, but not in context. It's not implying that "Falklands are Argentine" (POV), but that "to Argentina, the Falklands are Argentine" (NPOV). Any comments about the secondary source?. pmt7ar ^(talk) 01:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear pmt7ar, while you are claiming above that the quoted clause inserted in the Argentine Constitution in 1994 is essential for your conclusion that the native Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens by birth, fact is that most of them were actually born before 1994 when the Argentine Constitution had no such clause whatsoever. I would rather agree with Blueboar; interpreting law is not always trivial (some people even make a living out of that :-)), and should better be left to secondary sources. Apcbg (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, the point about primary sources has been made on the talk page but its been interpreted as "disruptive" and arguing semantics to prevent the edit that Pmt7ar proposes. You're right about multiple polices including

11:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, Blueboard, and Apcbg are correct here. To begin with, it's more of an

21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters

Looks like I'm in a reliable sources dispute over the article

) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the launch date in the Angelfire link. Am I looking at the right site? Given the choice between a 1UP source and an Angelfire source though, I'd be more likely to go with the 1UP source. Is the Angelfire site written by someone we could consider reliable? Reach Out to the Truth 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly ignore angelfire and other free webhosts. Secondly, check that 1up is really reliable. Thirdly, it really does sound as if this sourcing may not justify an entry. Try to find some reference outside the fandom. If you cannot, it doesn't mean it's not worth an article, but it does place it in the gray area. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've previously looked into 1up.com and found them to be reliable regarding video games. If someone can give me a good Google search term string, I'll attempt to find some other reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is an investigation/documentary show based on the subject and was broadcast across the globe reliable and notable? It was broadcast on NTV (Russia)

You can see a preview of it at Official network site, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

Or you can watch the entire thing on youtube - part 1 + part 2

Iksanov Maxim Tahirovich. (2009-10-15) (in Russian). From Russia with Love. [Television documentary]. Russia: NTV (Russia).

I included quotes and everything, full details at Talk:Marina_Orlova#addition.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please view videos previous to commenting, video appears of dubious quality and very weakly asserts contentious claims about a living person that are unsupported in any wikipedia reliable locations. Basic claims are that the subject of the BLP was a stripper and a pole dancer and that she has lied about her qualifications, none of these contentious claims are supported anywhere else at all.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I wanted to find out if the source was reliable, not if any other sources have the same information. Everything else you said makes no sense. Please read the instructions at top of
    WP:RS/N before adding anymore unhelpful comments.--Sinistrial (talk
    ) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative content about living persons must have impeccable sources, and your source does not meet that requirement. Six persons have already told you not to add this material: DoRD, Off2riorob, JohnCD, EdJohnston, BlackKite, and RolandR. No one supports the addition of the content. Perhaps it's time to put down the

WP:Stick and back away. Diannaa ^TALK

02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How does it not meet that requirement? And saying random users x y z think so too who haven't even edited the talk page is very odd.--Sinistrial (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Helpful comments required still!--Sinistrial (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The material is negative and controversial. The source does not appear to be reliable enough to warrant using it to support these claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof has continually made false edits to Ronn Torossian page - Please assist.

As I was saying. --Mosmof (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some elements are maintaining denial of the qualification of the biographical subject for membership in Category:Confidence tricksters on the basis that he makes objects appear out of nothing. Yes you heard that right. The direct and indirect patronage he attracts for these "displays of divinity" fund aspects of his ashram and wider activities and contribute to his general notoriety. The experts Sorcar and Narasimhaiah, referenced in the article, the latter of which "held the fact that Sathya Sai Baba ignored his letters to be one of several indications that his miracles are fraudulent" found a prevailing view (from non-devotees) that the 'miracles' have a fraudulent basis. Seeking to have the two experts mentioned previously declared as reliable sources on the matter of fraudulence and confidence trickery. The following two comments are transcluded from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard.ResignBen16 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I ha e to admit I am having a hard time parsing the original post, but in general I would agree with the above advice and try to source the content there impeccably, especially if it is a living person. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aksagraph.html a usable source for casualties and foiled plots? Unomi (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, although there are good sources cited on the page, those are probably for individual figures, and the website doesn't give any indication as to who compiled this graph. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am also somewhat concerned that it simply mentions the sources, but does not indicate where or when the sources might have published the numbers. Unomi (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable. Mostly just public allegations by interested parties, but the interested parties are not even properly identified. Zero^talk 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process and is most certainly a reliable source. Itsmejudith, you're wrong about the "who compiled this graph" comment for two reasons. (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. (2) The following sources are listed at the bottom: "Sources: Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)"

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is unclear just which scholars wrote what. Another problem is that it often merely lists the names of sources, but offers no additional information which would allow one to double check. This is problematic as there are demonstrated cases of their numbers being off by a wide margin see here for a recent example. Linking to the landing page of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the landing page of Washington Post, the landing page of of the Prime Minister's Office as well as a dead link doesn't really inspire the greatest confidence in their supposed scholarship, they don't even bother to write the name of the articles or briefs. I don't see any information on their editorial procedures, I found no mention of any scholars. If I made an oversight, please do let me know. Unomi (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page seems clear enough with a caption reading "September 2000-2007". I suppose it is also linked to from other articles. As to the writer, I refer you to (1) above. Information about the library's officials can be found through the 'about us' pages. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a non argument, by (1) then we could say that any unattributed article on the internets is as reliable as Britannica. About Us doesn't state anything about editorial process or the authors that contribute. Is there a source for what you said? Unomi (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an argument for inclusion. I'm saying that the 'signature' is the non argument for non-inclusion. I'm not following you here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You specifically said (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. but that doesn't address the fact that EB lists its contributors and lists its editorial board, and for each article you can see exactly who contributed in addition. If you see their article on global warming you will also note that each graph is individually attributed complete with year of publication and the title of the publication. There is no comparison between JVL and EB. Unomi (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the JVL used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources? If so, where? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question - yes, it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this poses an interesting problem. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich and has detailed information on just about every intelligence event. It published a report detailing terroristic activities, and their numbers are lower than the JVL ones by a wide margin. In just one case for 'thwarted suicide attacks' the JVL numbers were apparently ~1,100 while the ITIC numbers are 521. One of these sources is in error. If we are going to use JVL we should do so with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, we should state "According to X," but I'm not sure your new source is reliable. Why do you believe it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read this. Unomi (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is heavily cited and referenced to in news outlets. Unomi (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to look through your googlebomb. Please be certain you are showing reliable sources using them as a source for facts, rather than just mentioning their existance. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is deeply problematic that JVL is seen as an RS when its figures are so unambiguously exaggerated compared to those published by organizations affiliated with Israeli intelligence. It clearly cannot be. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources can disagree. When they do, we merely mention the varying statements. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library is not a reliable source, this has been discussed before. There are many lies and misinformation in JVL articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That prior RSN discussion did not appear to have any uninvolved participants. Which of the editors there are not active I-P edit-war participants, exactly? I discount entirely the contributions of patently obvious sockpupets and interested editors. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute over exactly? A certain figure where there's conflicting numbers? Which sources are we comparing. JVL is not the ultimate in sources but it is a good one for most purposes.

p.s. Supreme Deliciousness, your tone here is unfitting.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That Jaakobou claims JVL is "written by scholars" is laughable, here for example is a JVL article sourced from wikipedia:[31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to SD's comment above, if you read the discussion at that link, no decision was made regarding whether or not JVL was un-reliable. In actuality, the discussion seems to conclude it is a mixed bag, but generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all, the majority of people in that discussion did not see it as a "generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness,

Your style here is unappreciated and I suggest you review

WP:CIVIL. JVL is over-sighted by Mitchel Bard, who is indeed a scholar. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear what the exact dispute is. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why people think it should be considered an RS. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seemed that I answered that when I wrote "it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really.. I mean just because a news outlet states According to.. that doesn't immediately confer upon them 'a reputation for accuracy', otherwise we might as well mark all political pundits RS. What we are looking for here is an editorial process and scholarship. Unomi (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be so much more believable if you didn't accept a source that disagreed with them at face value just for disagreeing with them. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read any of their reports? I don't think that they are perfect, but they do happen to have niceties such as footnotes and detailed descriptions, and they are also referenced in media at least as many times as JVL is. I find it likely that they play nice with the IDF and Mossad, which makes it even less likely that their statistics are in any way anything but pro-Israel. I am not disagreeing with JVL just for the hell of it, I am disagreeing with them because they instill no confidence in their scholarship whatsoever. I think that they should likely both be used only with particular attribution, but lets take one source at a time. But uhh, go ahead and defend a site which copies text from wikipedia, thats real credible. Unomi (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to confirm your claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If I provide them, will you agree the source is reliable, or are you asking me to jump through hoops to waste my time? You can either take me at my word that it was used by those sources as a source, or you think that it's irrelevent, or you can say that it's key to your belief or lack there of of the reliability of the source, but you can't verify it on your own. I'll only provide the sources in the third instance, but you'll be prevented from further argumentation. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For certain things the source is fine, but there is almost invariably a better source that can be used in its place. There are things on that site that are reliable, others that are plain bogus. But if there is anything contentious being used a better source should be found. nableezy - 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it isn't reliable, it may state things that are true, but that is the case for just about any site. I think it would be better to simply state 'find better sources', it shouldn't be hard to find such sources as those must be what JVL themselves rely on for things that are true. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

For RS

1. It is used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources including the LA Times, Jerusalem Post and CNN^{[citation needed]}
2. It has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.^{[citation needed]}
3. Uninvolved editors have stated that parts of it appear to be a reliable source.^[who?]

Against RS

1. No indication of editorial process[32]^{[failed verification]}Can't prove a negative, after all.
2. No indication of authorship[33]^{[failed verification]}Can't prove a negative, after all.
3. Has articles sourced to wikipedia[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46](and many many more)^[relevant?]
4. Inconsistent or inadequate references.[47]
5. Directly contradicted by other sources[48].
6. Involved editors who don't agree with it's PoV would like to exclude it's content^{[dubious – discuss][original research?]}

Discussion

Comment: JVL is used on a vast number of articles: see here. It is an encyclopaedic source which is appropriate for WP. I disapprove of the above structuring -- I assume created by Unomi -- as it indicates a misunderstanding of how sources are used here. e.g. I haven't seen a citation that calls the BBC to have a reputation for fact checking, to the contrary even, they are winners (if I'm not mistaken) of about 4 out of 8 "Dishonest reporter of the year" awards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because it has been used in wikipedia articles doesn't make it reliable. It has been showed above that its an unreliable website that makes up stuff and sources articles from wikipeda, you keep on claiming that its an "encyclopaedic source" and that its "written by scholars" but you have not brought any evidence to confirm this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness,

Hyperbole makes discussion quite difficult and I request that you stop using it. I've no idea on where you've decided the JVL "makes up stuff" or that "lies and misinformation" are the norm there.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that it is an encyclopedic source which is appropriate, yet you are unable or unwilling to present any evidence to that effect. What you are linking to is how many articles link to the

WP:CCC. Unomi (talk

) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote once before: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." I have not seen anything written here to make me change that viewpoint. JVL is both valuable and dangerous; because of its ubiquitous usage in Wikipedia I think we should make a protocol for using it along the lines of what I suggested. Zero^talk 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How would that work in practice?I am concerned that an agreement to use JVL as a proper RS only when the author is known and respected will be open to gaming and slippery slopeness, I would feel much more comfortable with, in those cases, simply saying 'So and So writes ..' or 'According to JVL..'. Particular attribution is not a kiss of death. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

JVL stands on a higher quality level than, for example, the Guardian or the BBC -- both also have some appalling propagandistic junk -- on anything Arab-Israeli related. There's no need to take JVL to a higher task than those two. All three are considered wiki-reliable and where there is an argument in reference to the material, then we allow all the mainstream POVs to be presented. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha. The Guardian and the BBC both have editorial staff responsible for the accuracy of their reports and they both make corrections when needed. Your opinions of the BBC and the Guardian are entertaining, but not relevant. nableezy - 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These are not my own opinions but rather fairly well documented concerns by mainstream media critics. That the Beeb is an almost regular at the DROTY awards and/or that they burn immense amounts of public funds in order to bury a bias analysis report on them is fairly indicative regardless if you've been caught in the misconception that they correct errors "when needed". Just off the top of my head, I recall a headline that suggested one of the Jerusalem bulldozer attackers, who flipped a bus and ran over several cars (killing a woman) before stopped, was portrayed as a victim. While the BBC is more "entertaining" and "relevant" than JVL; JVL is just as responsible for their material as the BBC is, if not more. Both are considered wiki-reliable -- though, I would give a scholar based source a higher level of importance than a generic news source.

Best wishes, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, why are you ignoring my direct questions to you? Please respond. Unomi (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things on JVL indeed qualify as quality sources, much of it does not. For example, this page is sourced only to Wikipedia, and there are many more like it. It is, as Zero0000 wrote above, a mixed bag. nableezy - 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, that page does not account for "much of it" and there's a disclaimer at the bottom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, if we do not make it clear that this is not an RS, then what do we do when we are met with problematic pages? It will almost certainly result in a new round of 'these numbers do not come close to other sources', 'authorship and sources are unclear' with clamors of 'It is an RS' in return. This is the drama-fest and timesink I want to avoid. In contrast, an item from jvl which is appropriately referenced and/or authored cannot be excluded since it can be taken to RS/N on its merits. This brings us back to a situation which is in-line with

WP:BURDEN, at the moment the perceived burden of evidence is reversed. Unomi (talk

) 07:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi,

I've responded to everything and instead of reviewing my notes properly, you've practically ignored them while repeating the same mantra. JVL is indeed a reliable source but, sadly, we're faced with this "drama-fest and timesink" where usual suspects appear to make a push to exclude the source because they don't appreciate its base of perspective. Basically, it appears that we're at a point where you're going to repeat that it needs proof that its a good source irregardless of the fact that it has an editorial process and a record for being reliable.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post above: "I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)" I cannot see any place where you address that, you can either add it as a cite to the For RS section or copy it here. Thank you, Unomi (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A perfect example of unreliable propaganda at JVL is the "Myths & Facts" pages [49]. This is a load of old nonsense dating from the 1960s (but updated with more of the same). There is simply no way any of it should be used as a source in WP. Zero^talk 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The JVL is an archive website of documents, essays, papers etc. As such it is a reliable venue ... however, the individual documents and papers hosted on it must be assessed individually... each according to its own merits. Most of the material at JVL is very reliable... but there may be exceptions. How such material is used is also a factor. Some of the material that may be questionable for a statement of fact will be perfectly reliable for a statement as to the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion, I find I agree with Zero's statement: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What you describe as "propaganda" is a mainstream Israeli perspective. JVL is not the final authority on the Arab-Israeli conflict but it certainly passes the wiki-RS test. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If JVL represents the perspective of one side of the conflict, then it is not reliable as a source of objective facts. It is only reliable as a source of the position of one party. I agree it is reliable for that, but in practice JVL articles often don't clearly indicate whose position they represent so it hard to cite them as opinions. Zero^talk 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

JVL is a mainstream wiki-reliable source. K? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same line continually doesn't make it so. You still haven't backed up your earlier claim of The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, I am sure that they have copied and in some cases have received articles from scholars, in those cases we can cite those scholars, but it is not enough for the claim that the site as a whole is RS. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already responded to this question (early on). Please, take the time to review the relevant info on the site's about page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/intro.html ? There is nothing of the sort there. The only thing there is the name of the executive director. Unomi (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi,

There's quite a lot more info in there than just the name of the person in charge. This argument is really pointless as even people not suspected of favouring Israel are accepting the validity of this source as a general wiki-RS.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You made the claim that they had an editorial process and that it was written by scholars, then you point to a page which simply mentions that we are going to be looking for writers and researchers to make contributions. Unomi (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed/corrected some wrong/misleading information from the article Jewish Virtual Library.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example (out of very many) why JVL can't automatically be treated as reliable: [50] (map of "Israel's boundaries" with no mention of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, or Golan Heights. Yet elsewhere [51] we find a whole page attacking Palestinian maps that don't show, or don't name, Israel. An unbiased source would treat this phenomenon of cartographic propaganda in a balanced fashion, but JVL is there to present the Israeli point of view only. Zero^talk 07:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero,

Have you noticed the date? Are you aware that the PA was given authority over Gaza and parts of the West Bank after 1993? Nice try, but your example doesn't show any substantial bias. In fact, its quite relevant that after the Oslo accords, Israel has changed its maps while the PA still uses their maps that omit Israel's existence.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the date and noticed that JVL says nothing about the situation having changed since 1993. And since when is it ok to not show the West Bank or Gaza before 1993? That's reliability? As for Israeli practice, aren't you living in Israel? If so, you are perfectly aware that maps without the green line marked are very common; I have several recent ones. Our readers might like to visit the official tourism site of the government of Israel here and click on the map "Israel". The Gaza strip is marked but there is no mention of the West Bank or its boundary. Apparently your information is wrong. The corresponding map at the Palestinian Authority tourism site here shows only the West Bank and Gaza. It doesn't use the name "Israel" but it doesn't use the names "Egypt", "Lebanon", "Syria" or "Jordan" either. Appears your information is wrong about that too. Zero^talk 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero, Wikipedia is not a

WP:SOAPBOX. If it were, there'd be room to explain where they do erase Israel from maps and where they don't. Let's not be naive about it. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: After reading the about us page, why are we using a source that is not authored by intelligence/security experts to cite the number of foiled terror plots? Even if the Library is RS for other things, terror/security study does not seem to be its focus/expertise. Is police or official intelligence reports not available or something? Jim101 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because someone got lazy and simply did a google search for the first source they could find that supported the information, rather than fully researching the topic and using the best source that exists. Feel free to improve the sourcing and update the information in that article to reflect that improved source. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are, I linked to an ITIC report above, it lists ~521 foiled plots vs ~1,100 for JVL. Unomi (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One more question, any more documents from IDF, CIA, or other Israeli spy agencies? Jim101 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not use it as a reliable source for statements of fact. It can be used, but with in-text attribution ("According to Jewish Virtual Library....") A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut feeling: Comparing sourcing between ITIC and the Library...ITIC's study is based on:

This study is mainly based on data and information appearing in the Bulletins issued by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) during 2006. They were complemented by data received from the Israel Security Agency, the Operational Division of the IDF’s General Staff and from Military Intelligence. When there was a discrepancy between the sources, the data of the ITIC and the IDF’s Operational Division were usually preferred. The analyses and assessments in this study were prepared by the ITIC research staff.

While the Library's data is based on:

Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)

I'm no expert, but I can tell right away that ITIC actually worked with first hand information and professional analyst while the Library just compiled a bunch of hearsay data. Now, this doesn't mean the the Library's data is invalid, but IMO it should only used as a light weight counter-claim while the data from ITIC should be used as the factual data (Unless official Israeli government source is available, which then use that instead). Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary

RS

1. Jaakobou
2. Hipocrite
3. Blueboar
4. IronDuke

Not-RS / Particular Attribution

Mixed Bag

1. Dlabtot
2. nableezy
3. Zero

Other

1. Unomi
2. Supreme Deliciousness
3. Itsmejudith
4. Cs32en May be reliable as far as the authenticity of documents or texts that present the viewpoint of their respective authors is concerned, but, in general, should be treated similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Shii (tock) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) JVL has an extremely strong anti-Palestinian bias. See for example [52]
6. I have changed my view about JVL over the years; now: avoid it. Huldra (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Shii's comment is, possibly, due to lack of knowledge. There is no exceptional anti-Palestinian bias in the linked page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents into this discussion: JVL appears to have two functions: A library function (deposit of research/articles from others), and a publisher of original articles.

JVL has the appearance to be driven mainly by one person. From the four new additions listed on the front page, 3 articles are written by one person (who is also the executive director of JVL), and one article is sourced to an external site (the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Acknowledgement" section, there is a heading "our staff" which lists 'student interns' for both research and webmaster activities. On the same page, under 'Additional credits' a long list of external sources is shown (again, my interpretation, referring to the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Board of Directors", one other member of the 3-person board, and one member of the 14-person Advisory board shares the same family name as the executive director. A 28-member Honorary board lists several US-senators and Congressmen. There is no mention of an Editorial board. On the page "About Us - Biographies", only one biography is listed; The executive director and author of 3 of the 4 recent 'original articles'.

Note that my paragraph here says nothing about the content of the site. The extensive referencing of sources used give the appearance of a scholarly approach to research. However, the impression of a single person driver, and the lack of a clear 'board of editors' would make me careful using the 'original articles' as a single reliable source. For the library function, as in every library, the original authors/sources should be checked for their reliability. Rwos (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering to what extent the info contained within a political candidate's current campaign website can be considered to be from a RS and therein placed on the BLP of that person here on Wikipedia? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would consider everything on a political candidate's current campaign website to be 'self-serving', so it would probably fail

WP:SPS. But it would depend on the specifics (see the guideline for asking questions at the top of this page:"It helps others to respond to questions if you include..."). Dlabtot (talk

) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Basic biographical information and opinions of the candidate can generally be sourced from their campaign website. Any statements of disputable fact, however, should not be single-sourced from a campaign website, and in the event of a disagreement between the campaign website and other sources should result in a very careful look all around. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine a case where the campaign website would be the only or the best source for 'basic biographical information'. Such information surely can be sourced independently. Which is why I hate wasting my time talking about hypotheticals. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A campaign website would certainly be considered reliable for quotes from the candidate... and probably reliable for statements as to the candidate's claims during his campaign (but such statements would have to be properly attributed and phrased as being a campaign claim, ie an opinion). However, such material would be better sourced to a news outlet or some other more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to talk about it without knowing what campaign website, what article, for what statement in the article is the source is being cited, and so on. But I don't agree with you about the general reliability of campaign websites. They are no different from any other

WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk

) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree as to the pointlessness. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Treat it as a highly opinionated primary source, but one which is indubitably in possession of the facts regarding the subject. Where there is no reason to doubt, go ahead and use. Ray^Talk 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to point out that political candidates, unless they pass

WP:POLITICIAN anyway. Black Kite

00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, sorry I did not before include article name; it is Rocco Rossi and Hipocrite was kind enough to go there (i suppose from my history) and help edit the campaign website sourced info. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a political candidate's web site qualifies as

WP:SPS does have a qualification regarding "unduely self-serving". I've never quite understood what that meant and I don't think we've discussed this clause before (at least not recently). A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the "unduely self-serving" clause is to cover statements such as: "State officials agree that John Smith's plan for balancing the budget will work" <cite to Smith's campaign website that includes quotes from officials saying this> (the website is unduly self-serving in this instance because the website is unlikely to include any negative views of Smith's plan). On the other hand, for a statement such as: "Smith has said that balancing the budget is his highest priority" the website is self-serving... but not unduly so. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aksagraph.html a usable source for casualties and foiled plots? Unomi (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, although there are good sources cited on the page, those are probably for individual figures, and the website doesn't give any indication as to who compiled this graph. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am also somewhat concerned that it simply mentions the sources, but does not indicate where or when the sources might have published the numbers. Unomi (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable. Mostly just public allegations by interested parties, but the interested parties are not even properly identified. Zero^talk 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process and is most certainly a reliable source. Itsmejudith, you're wrong about the "who compiled this graph" comment for two reasons. (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. (2) The following sources are listed at the bottom: "Sources: Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)"

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is unclear just which scholars wrote what. Another problem is that it often merely lists the names of sources, but offers no additional information which would allow one to double check. This is problematic as there are demonstrated cases of their numbers being off by a wide margin see here for a recent example. Linking to the landing page of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the landing page of Washington Post, the landing page of of the Prime Minister's Office as well as a dead link doesn't really inspire the greatest confidence in their supposed scholarship, they don't even bother to write the name of the articles or briefs. I don't see any information on their editorial procedures, I found no mention of any scholars. If I made an oversight, please do let me know. Unomi (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page seems clear enough with a caption reading "September 2000-2007". I suppose it is also linked to from other articles. As to the writer, I refer you to (1) above. Information about the library's officials can be found through the 'about us' pages. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a non argument, by (1) then we could say that any unattributed article on the internets is as reliable as Britannica. About Us doesn't state anything about editorial process or the authors that contribute. Is there a source for what you said? Unomi (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an argument for inclusion. I'm saying that the 'signature' is the non argument for non-inclusion. I'm not following you here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You specifically said (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. but that doesn't address the fact that EB lists its contributors and lists its editorial board, and for each article you can see exactly who contributed in addition. If you see their article on global warming you will also note that each graph is individually attributed complete with year of publication and the title of the publication. There is no comparison between JVL and EB. Unomi (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the JVL used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources? If so, where? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question - yes, it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this poses an interesting problem. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich and has detailed information on just about every intelligence event. It published a report detailing terroristic activities, and their numbers are lower than the JVL ones by a wide margin. In just one case for 'thwarted suicide attacks' the JVL numbers were apparently ~1,100 while the ITIC numbers are 521. One of these sources is in error. If we are going to use JVL we should do so with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, we should state "According to X," but I'm not sure your new source is reliable. Why do you believe it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read this. Unomi (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is heavily cited and referenced to in news outlets. Unomi (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to look through your googlebomb. Please be certain you are showing reliable sources using them as a source for facts, rather than just mentioning their existance. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is deeply problematic that JVL is seen as an RS when its figures are so unambiguously exaggerated compared to those published by organizations affiliated with Israeli intelligence. It clearly cannot be. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources can disagree. When they do, we merely mention the varying statements. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library is not a reliable source, this has been discussed before. There are many lies and misinformation in JVL articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That prior RSN discussion did not appear to have any uninvolved participants. Which of the editors there are not active I-P edit-war participants, exactly? I discount entirely the contributions of patently obvious sockpupets and interested editors. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute over exactly? A certain figure where there's conflicting numbers? Which sources are we comparing. JVL is not the ultimate in sources but it is a good one for most purposes.

p.s. Supreme Deliciousness, your tone here is unfitting.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That Jaakobou claims JVL is "written by scholars" is laughable, here for example is a JVL article sourced from wikipedia:[53] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to SD's comment above, if you read the discussion at that link, no decision was made regarding whether or not JVL was un-reliable. In actuality, the discussion seems to conclude it is a mixed bag, but generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all, the majority of people in that discussion did not see it as a "generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness,

Your style here is unappreciated and I suggest you review

WP:CIVIL. JVL is over-sighted by Mitchel Bard, who is indeed a scholar. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear what the exact dispute is. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why people think it should be considered an RS. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seemed that I answered that when I wrote "it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really.. I mean just because a news outlet states According to.. that doesn't immediately confer upon them 'a reputation for accuracy', otherwise we might as well mark all political pundits RS. What we are looking for here is an editorial process and scholarship. Unomi (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be so much more believable if you didn't accept a source that disagreed with them at face value just for disagreeing with them. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read any of their reports? I don't think that they are perfect, but they do happen to have niceties such as footnotes and detailed descriptions, and they are also referenced in media at least as many times as JVL is. I find it likely that they play nice with the IDF and Mossad, which makes it even less likely that their statistics are in any way anything but pro-Israel. I am not disagreeing with JVL just for the hell of it, I am disagreeing with them because they instill no confidence in their scholarship whatsoever. I think that they should likely both be used only with particular attribution, but lets take one source at a time. But uhh, go ahead and defend a site which copies text from wikipedia, thats real credible. Unomi (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to confirm your claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If I provide them, will you agree the source is reliable, or are you asking me to jump through hoops to waste my time? You can either take me at my word that it was used by those sources as a source, or you think that it's irrelevent, or you can say that it's key to your belief or lack there of of the reliability of the source, but you can't verify it on your own. I'll only provide the sources in the third instance, but you'll be prevented from further argumentation. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For certain things the source is fine, but there is almost invariably a better source that can be used in its place. There are things on that site that are reliable, others that are plain bogus. But if there is anything contentious being used a better source should be found. nableezy - 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it isn't reliable, it may state things that are true, but that is the case for just about any site. I think it would be better to simply state 'find better sources', it shouldn't be hard to find such sources as those must be what JVL themselves rely on for things that are true. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

For RS

1. It is used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources including the LA Times, Jerusalem Post and CNN^{[citation needed]}
2. It has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.^{[citation needed]}
3. Uninvolved editors have stated that parts of it appear to be a reliable source.^[who?]

Against RS

1. No indication of editorial process[54]^{[failed verification]}Can't prove a negative, after all.
2. No indication of authorship[55]^{[failed verification]}Can't prove a negative, after all.
3. Has articles sourced to wikipedia[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68](and many many more)^[relevant?]
4. Inconsistent or inadequate references.[69]
5. Directly contradicted by other sources[70].
6. Involved editors who don't agree with it's PoV would like to exclude it's content^{[dubious – discuss][original research?]}

Discussion

Comment: JVL is used on a vast number of articles: see here. It is an encyclopaedic source which is appropriate for WP. I disapprove of the above structuring -- I assume created by Unomi -- as it indicates a misunderstanding of how sources are used here. e.g. I haven't seen a citation that calls the BBC to have a reputation for fact checking, to the contrary even, they are winners (if I'm not mistaken) of about 4 out of 8 "Dishonest reporter of the year" awards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because it has been used in wikipedia articles doesn't make it reliable. It has been showed above that its an unreliable website that makes up stuff and sources articles from wikipeda, you keep on claiming that its an "encyclopaedic source" and that its "written by scholars" but you have not brought any evidence to confirm this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness,

Hyperbole makes discussion quite difficult and I request that you stop using it. I've no idea on where you've decided the JVL "makes up stuff" or that "lies and misinformation" are the norm there.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that it is an encyclopedic source which is appropriate, yet you are unable or unwilling to present any evidence to that effect. What you are linking to is how many articles link to the

WP:CCC. Unomi (talk

) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote once before: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." I have not seen anything written here to make me change that viewpoint. JVL is both valuable and dangerous; because of its ubiquitous usage in Wikipedia I think we should make a protocol for using it along the lines of what I suggested. Zero^talk 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How would that work in practice?I am concerned that an agreement to use JVL as a proper RS only when the author is known and respected will be open to gaming and slippery slopeness, I would feel much more comfortable with, in those cases, simply saying 'So and So writes ..' or 'According to JVL..'. Particular attribution is not a kiss of death. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

JVL stands on a higher quality level than, for example, the Guardian or the BBC -- both also have some appalling propagandistic junk -- on anything Arab-Israeli related. There's no need to take JVL to a higher task than those two. All three are considered wiki-reliable and where there is an argument in reference to the material, then we allow all the mainstream POVs to be presented. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha. The Guardian and the BBC both have editorial staff responsible for the accuracy of their reports and they both make corrections when needed. Your opinions of the BBC and the Guardian are entertaining, but not relevant. nableezy - 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These are not my own opinions but rather fairly well documented concerns by mainstream media critics. That the Beeb is an almost regular at the DROTY awards and/or that they burn immense amounts of public funds in order to bury a bias analysis report on them is fairly indicative regardless if you've been caught in the misconception that they correct errors "when needed". Just off the top of my head, I recall a headline that suggested one of the Jerusalem bulldozer attackers, who flipped a bus and ran over several cars (killing a woman) before stopped, was portrayed as a victim. While the BBC is more "entertaining" and "relevant" than JVL; JVL is just as responsible for their material as the BBC is, if not more. Both are considered wiki-reliable -- though, I would give a scholar based source a higher level of importance than a generic news source.

Best wishes, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, why are you ignoring my direct questions to you? Please respond. Unomi (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things on JVL indeed qualify as quality sources, much of it does not. For example, this page is sourced only to Wikipedia, and there are many more like it. It is, as Zero0000 wrote above, a mixed bag. nableezy - 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, that page does not account for "much of it" and there's a disclaimer at the bottom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, if we do not make it clear that this is not an RS, then what do we do when we are met with problematic pages? It will almost certainly result in a new round of 'these numbers do not come close to other sources', 'authorship and sources are unclear' with clamors of 'It is an RS' in return. This is the drama-fest and timesink I want to avoid. In contrast, an item from jvl which is appropriately referenced and/or authored cannot be excluded since it can be taken to RS/N on its merits. This brings us back to a situation which is in-line with

WP:BURDEN, at the moment the perceived burden of evidence is reversed. Unomi (talk

) 07:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi,

I've responded to everything and instead of reviewing my notes properly, you've practically ignored them while repeating the same mantra. JVL is indeed a reliable source but, sadly, we're faced with this "drama-fest and timesink" where usual suspects appear to make a push to exclude the source because they don't appreciate its base of perspective. Basically, it appears that we're at a point where you're going to repeat that it needs proof that its a good source irregardless of the fact that it has an editorial process and a record for being reliable.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post above: "I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)" I cannot see any place where you address that, you can either add it as a cite to the For RS section or copy it here. Thank you, Unomi (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A perfect example of unreliable propaganda at JVL is the "Myths & Facts" pages [71]. This is a load of old nonsense dating from the 1960s (but updated with more of the same). There is simply no way any of it should be used as a source in WP. Zero^talk 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The JVL is an archive website of documents, essays, papers etc. As such it is a reliable venue ... however, the individual documents and papers hosted on it must be assessed individually... each according to its own merits. Most of the material at JVL is very reliable... but there may be exceptions. How such material is used is also a factor. Some of the material that may be questionable for a statement of fact will be perfectly reliable for a statement as to the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion, I find I agree with Zero's statement: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What you describe as "propaganda" is a mainstream Israeli perspective. JVL is not the final authority on the Arab-Israeli conflict but it certainly passes the wiki-RS test. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If JVL represents the perspective of one side of the conflict, then it is not reliable as a source of objective facts. It is only reliable as a source of the position of one party. I agree it is reliable for that, but in practice JVL articles often don't clearly indicate whose position they represent so it hard to cite them as opinions. Zero^talk 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

JVL is a mainstream wiki-reliable source. K? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same line continually doesn't make it so. You still haven't backed up your earlier claim of The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, I am sure that they have copied and in some cases have received articles from scholars, in those cases we can cite those scholars, but it is not enough for the claim that the site as a whole is RS. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already responded to this question (early on). Please, take the time to review the relevant info on the site's about page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/intro.html ? There is nothing of the sort there. The only thing there is the name of the executive director. Unomi (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi,

There's quite a lot more info in there than just the name of the person in charge. This argument is really pointless as even people not suspected of favouring Israel are accepting the validity of this source as a general wiki-RS.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You made the claim that they had an editorial process and that it was written by scholars, then you point to a page which simply mentions that we are going to be looking for writers and researchers to make contributions. Unomi (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed/corrected some wrong/misleading information from the article Jewish Virtual Library.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example (out of very many) why JVL can't automatically be treated as reliable: [72] (map of "Israel's boundaries" with no mention of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, or Golan Heights. Yet elsewhere [73] we find a whole page attacking Palestinian maps that don't show, or don't name, Israel. An unbiased source would treat this phenomenon of cartographic propaganda in a balanced fashion, but JVL is there to present the Israeli point of view only. Zero^talk 07:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero,

Have you noticed the date? Are you aware that the PA was given authority over Gaza and parts of the West Bank after 1993? Nice try, but your example doesn't show any substantial bias. In fact, its quite relevant that after the Oslo accords, Israel has changed its maps while the PA still uses their maps that omit Israel's existence.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the date and noticed that JVL says nothing about the situation having changed since 1993. And since when is it ok to not show the West Bank or Gaza before 1993? That's reliability? As for Israeli practice, aren't you living in Israel? If so, you are perfectly aware that maps without the green line marked are very common; I have several recent ones. Our readers might like to visit the official tourism site of the government of Israel here and click on the map "Israel". The Gaza strip is marked but there is no mention of the West Bank or its boundary. Apparently your information is wrong. The corresponding map at the Palestinian Authority tourism site here shows only the West Bank and Gaza. It doesn't use the name "Israel" but it doesn't use the names "Egypt", "Lebanon", "Syria" or "Jordan" either. Appears your information is wrong about that too. Zero^talk 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero, Wikipedia is not a

WP:SOAPBOX. If it were, there'd be room to explain where they do erase Israel from maps and where they don't. Let's not be naive about it. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: After reading the about us page, why are we using a source that is not authored by intelligence/security experts to cite the number of foiled terror plots? Even if the Library is RS for other things, terror/security study does not seem to be its focus/expertise. Is police or official intelligence reports not available or something? Jim101 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because someone got lazy and simply did a google search for the first source they could find that supported the information, rather than fully researching the topic and using the best source that exists. Feel free to improve the sourcing and update the information in that article to reflect that improved source. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are, I linked to an ITIC report above, it lists ~521 foiled plots vs ~1,100 for JVL. Unomi (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One more question, any more documents from IDF, CIA, or other Israeli spy agencies? Jim101 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not use it as a reliable source for statements of fact. It can be used, but with in-text attribution ("According to Jewish Virtual Library....") A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut feeling: Comparing sourcing between ITIC and the Library...ITIC's study is based on:

This study is mainly based on data and information appearing in the Bulletins issued by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) during 2006. They were complemented by data received from the Israel Security Agency, the Operational Division of the IDF’s General Staff and from Military Intelligence. When there was a discrepancy between the sources, the data of the ITIC and the IDF’s Operational Division were usually preferred. The analyses and assessments in this study were prepared by the ITIC research staff.

While the Library's data is based on:

Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)

I'm no expert, but I can tell right away that ITIC actually worked with first hand information and professional analyst while the Library just compiled a bunch of hearsay data. Now, this doesn't mean the the Library's data is invalid, but IMO it should only used as a light weight counter-claim while the data from ITIC should be used as the factual data (Unless official Israeli government source is available, which then use that instead). Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary

RS

1. Jaakobou
2. Hipocrite
3. Blueboar
4. IronDuke

Not-RS / Particular Attribution

Mixed Bag

1. Dlabtot
2. nableezy
3. Zero

Other

1. Unomi
2. Supreme Deliciousness
3. Itsmejudith
4. Cs32en May be reliable as far as the authenticity of documents or texts that present the viewpoint of their respective authors is concerned, but, in general, should be treated similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Shii (tock) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) JVL has an extremely strong anti-Palestinian bias. See for example [74]
6. I have changed my view about JVL over the years; now: avoid it. Huldra (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Shii's comment is, possibly, due to lack of knowledge. There is no exceptional anti-Palestinian bias in the linked page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents into this discussion: JVL appears to have two functions: A library function (deposit of research/articles from others), and a publisher of original articles.

JVL has the appearance to be driven mainly by one person. From the four new additions listed on the front page, 3 articles are written by one person (who is also the executive director of JVL), and one article is sourced to an external site (the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Acknowledgement" section, there is a heading "our staff" which lists 'student interns' for both research and webmaster activities. On the same page, under 'Additional credits' a long list of external sources is shown (again, my interpretation, referring to the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Board of Directors", one other member of the 3-person board, and one member of the 14-person Advisory board shares the same family name as the executive director. A 28-member Honorary board lists several US-senators and Congressmen. There is no mention of an Editorial board. On the page "About Us - Biographies", only one biography is listed; The executive director and author of 3 of the 4 recent 'original articles'.

Note that my paragraph here says nothing about the content of the site. The extensive referencing of sources used give the appearance of a scholarly approach to research. However, the impression of a single person driver, and the lack of a clear 'board of editors' would make me careful using the 'original articles' as a single reliable source. For the library function, as in every library, the original authors/sources should be checked for their reliability. Rwos (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering to what extent the info contained within a political candidate's current campaign website can be considered to be from a RS and therein placed on the BLP of that person here on Wikipedia? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would consider everything on a political candidate's current campaign website to be 'self-serving', so it would probably fail

WP:SPS. But it would depend on the specifics (see the guideline for asking questions at the top of this page:"It helps others to respond to questions if you include..."). Dlabtot (talk

) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Basic biographical information and opinions of the candidate can generally be sourced from their campaign website. Any statements of disputable fact, however, should not be single-sourced from a campaign website, and in the event of a disagreement between the campaign website and other sources should result in a very careful look all around. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine a case where the campaign website would be the only or the best source for 'basic biographical information'. Such information surely can be sourced independently. Which is why I hate wasting my time talking about hypotheticals. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A campaign website would certainly be considered reliable for quotes from the candidate... and probably reliable for statements as to the candidate's claims during his campaign (but such statements would have to be properly attributed and phrased as being a campaign claim, ie an opinion). However, such material would be better sourced to a news outlet or some other more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to talk about it without knowing what campaign website, what article, for what statement in the article is the source is being cited, and so on. But I don't agree with you about the general reliability of campaign websites. They are no different from any other

WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk

) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree as to the pointlessness. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Treat it as a highly opinionated primary source, but one which is indubitably in possession of the facts regarding the subject. Where there is no reason to doubt, go ahead and use. Ray^Talk 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to point out that political candidates, unless they pass

WP:POLITICIAN anyway. Black Kite

00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, sorry I did not before include article name; it is Rocco Rossi and Hipocrite was kind enough to go there (i suppose from my history) and help edit the campaign website sourced info. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a political candidate's web site qualifies as

WP:SPS does have a qualification regarding "unduely self-serving". I've never quite understood what that meant and I don't think we've discussed this clause before (at least not recently). A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the "unduely self-serving" clause is to cover statements such as: "State officials agree that John Smith's plan for balancing the budget will work" <cite to Smith's campaign website that includes quotes from officials saying this> (the website is unduly self-serving in this instance because the website is unlikely to include any negative views of Smith's plan). On the other hand, for a statement such as: "Smith has said that balancing the budget is his highest priority" the website is self-serving... but not unduly so. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if any Turkish website such as the Assembly of Turkish American Association [75] or articles from Middle East Forum such as one by Edward J. Erickson [76] or one by Gunter Lewy [77] can be disregarded as a reliable source just because of the viewpoint they support.

For example, in the second article Edward J. Erickson, Researcher, Birmingham University, retired Lieutenant-Colonel, PhD in Ottoman Military History, The Leeds University, argues the involvement of Teşkilat-i Mahsusa which is claimed to take part in the "Armenian Genocide." The same argument is also seen from another article from the source by Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

There is a long list of historians who have been studying Ottoman history that supports the Turkish argument concerning the Armenian issue. Are they reliable sources or are we supposed to ignore and dismiss them as they support the Turkish argument? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute (at the moment) about what is a reliable source. Even that article by Erickson refers to the events as massacres. They only deal with who was to blame, i.e. the question of Turkish commanders on the ground or the Turkish government and high command. I quote from the article you list: 'Last year, however, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, challenged Dadrian's findings on the grounds that Stange was neither a Special Organization guerilla leader nor did his unit operate in the area of the massacres.'

This isn't a question about the reliability of sources, it's about you thinking they support a fringe viewpoint which they clearly don't. This isn't appropriate for this noticeboard, but I don't think I ought to remove it from here as I'm now involved in the dispute. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. The reason for that is probably as you have little information regarding the dispute. Turks do not deny that Armenians were killed. It's the nature of those killings that are disputed. Of course massacres happened. Saying massacres happened is in no way undermines the Turkish argument as no one denies that they happened. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is it you object to? Simply the use of the word 'genocide'? I don't think this is the place to have this discussion - do you mind if we move this to the article's talk page? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I do mind. The problem is if any source is used from the long list of Ottoman historians who support the Turkish viewpoint then they'll be deleted and disregarded as Turkish propaganda. This has to stop. The objection is not against the word "genocide" but that what happened in WWI does not constitute as one. If I were to use any article from the list of historians that I listed in the talk page that you mentioned then I'd be labeled as a nationalistic Turk on a crusade for propaganda. Clearly it's not the case. So the reliability of such historians and their studies have to be confirmed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But the article you cited above (to take one example) refers to massacres of a group of people based on their ethnic origin. That's genocide. Some sources may not use that word, for whatever reason, but it is the appropriate word to describe the events. We don't have to say 'a massacre of people of Armenian ethnic origin, which some sources claim was an instance of genocide' every time; we can just call a spade a spade. If you wish to discuss whether or not those sources are reliable for other reasons, that's fine, but even if they were to be deemed reliable, based on what I've looked at so far, it would still be classed as genocide. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What article are we discussing? The appropriateness of using the term, and mentioning the various viewpoints about it, will vary depending on the answer to this question. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Armenian genocide CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

CheesyBiscuit, You're obviously not reading them carefully. Massacres can be results of ethnic clashes. So in no way mention of massacres makes the sources agree with the genocide claims. The genocide accusation is a very strict one. Ethnic clashes are simply not genocides.

Blueboar, We're discussing the use of articles that do not agree with the genocide claims as a source. CheesyBiscuit is simply trying to alter the discussion by non-facts. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Be as clear as possible - what information is being cited to what source in what article. Use diffs and quotes liberally. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has it right ... we need specifics to properly answer the question. That said... if the issue is one of merely noting what the Turkish view on the use of the term "genocide" is... the Armenian genocide article already notes this, citing the BBC (a highly reliable source)... so I am not sure why there is a need for explicitly Turkish sources (in fact, I would say that the BBC, being neutral on the issue, is a better source than potentially biased Turkish ones for noting this viewpoint) If we need to note the Turkish viewpoint on the term genocide in other articles, we could probably use that same BBC report.

Or is there some other reason to use an explicitly Turkish source? Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

From

WP:RS "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. " The MEF is not a peer reviewed academic journal but a partisan neoconservative think tank . Erickson is not an academic. There are hundreads of academic peer reviewed journal sources and academic press books, no need to go to a partisan journalistic source like the MEF. Case closed.--Anothroskon (talk

) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, Blueboar, Hipocrite and Anothroskon, for taking the time to comment. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I need to ask you guys if you actually read the comments before posting.

I've been clear as much as one can be. I gave the links and told you about the differences. The source being a Turkish doesn't make the resources in it Turkish. You said BBC is a reliable source, yet it is. But, the thing you're not getting is none of the links that are from BBC that are utilized in the article actually quote other organizations or individuals. For example in this article BBC describes the events and the article never says that the events were a "genocide." [78] None of the BBC articles take a side as they shouldn't. BBC only reports news from organizations or individuals. You can never use BBC itself as a primary source. It's only a tool. You can't say the claim is real because BBC says so, No. BBC cannot report on the nature of the events but it reports on the developments concerning the issue. Same goes for the ATAA and MEF websites. The articles in question is important here not the location of that articles. Are we to dismiss any article that is published in ATAA and MEF websites?

Anothroskon, Edward J. Erickson has a Ph.D in history and is the leading authority in Ottoman Army during WWI. Read the Wiki article if you want. He is an academic. The journalistic site is only used as a tool. The same is done for many other sources such as New York Times. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Phd<>academic, 2) where if anywhere does he teach? 3) who has peer reviewed this article?--Anothroskon (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see the description of an academic here: [79]. Of course you ignored my comment to read his wiki page. He is an associate of International Research Associates, Seattle, Washington. He teaches in the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. I don't even know if the works of Dadrian are peer reviewed. All the reviews of Armenian scholars so far are negative reviews and if you're gonna say that Dadrian's work was reviewed by Marashlian I can't really take that seriously as that's hardly a peer review. You can hardly argue against Erickson's credibility on the subject. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this one more time. Firstly, you are directed not to respond further to Anothroskon untill you have clearly responded to me. You will provide the following, or you will recieve no further assistance at this noticeboard.

1. References to specific sources in question.
2. What proposed edits to a wikipedia article lead from those sources.
3. Quotes from those sources lead to those edits.

If you respond again to this thread without providing those three things, I will archive this thread as not-actionable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was directed here by an admin or mod to discuss the sources. If I was to use a reference from ATAA it would be disregarded as Turkish propaganda. So the main question was that if it's ok to ignore such an organization just because it's Turkish.

But for a specific example, the article by Gunter Lewy:

The Link:

[80]

The passage on "Armenian Genocide" article:

"Vehib Pasha, commander of the Ottoman Third Army, called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human species.”[91]

In the article by Gunter Lewy, "Vehib Pasha" is mentioned twice. One time with reference to Taner Akcam and the second one to Vahak N. Dadrian. The article talks against the genocide claims and it talks how no original document exists. Yet only a very small part which is not even supported by the article is taken while the rest of the article is ignored completely.

Another example is the article by Edward J. Erickson:

The Link:

[81]

The article in its entirety talks about the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa which is a section in the "Armenian Genocide" article. The conclusion it reaches boils down to:

"Vahakn Dadrian has made high-profile claims that Major Stange and the Special Organization were the instruments of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Documents not utilized by Dadrian, though, discount such an allegation."

Now, Edward J. Erickson as mentioned before is the leading expert on the Ottoman Army of WWI. Right now the section for this organization simply relied on Dadrians work. I need to know if the article on MEF is a reliable source. If it is then there is a conflict between Dadrian and Erickson. If it's not, why it is not? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to make to what specific articles. Be explicit and clear - don't argue your case, just state it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to discuss about edit changes or reliability of the sources as the page suggests? The discussion for edits is for Edit Requests. Here I'm asking for the reliability of the source. Looking at the other sections above you're asking for me more than you need and pushing the discussion to somewhere relevant to this board. So I don't really understand your requests. You have all that you need to comment on the sources to see if they're reliable on the subject at hand or not. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Both TheDarkLordSeth and CheesyBiscuit were just blocked for 31 hours, fyi. [82] Dlabtot (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been several articles about fraternities and sororities nominated at

, currently under review. Many of these articles cite almost exclusively sources that are published by the fraternities themselves. I have two questions:

• Should material published by a fraternity or sorority be regarded as a reliable source in general (are they reputable publishers?); but most important:
• Should material published by a fraternity or sorority be regarded as a reliable source about the fraternity or sorority itself?

My view is that they are not independent third-party sources, and it is not even clear that they are reliable generally. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All your questions are answered at

WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk

) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew that stuff was somewhere. I'll be interested to see if any other views pop up, but that will do me. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem in the past, with cites being made to documents that are only available to members. Eventually the reviewer withdrew the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to what my fellow editors think of Gossip Cop's reliability. Before the name "Gossip Cop" scares everyone off, it's actually a web site that's supposed to be devoted toward debunking (or confirming) reporting on celebrities. My own preliminary analysis of this source is that it might be a reliable source. According to our article, it was founded by Michael Lewittes who "served as producer of NBC's Access Hollywood, gossip columnist and news director at Us Weekly magazine, a features editor for the New York Post, and a gossip columnist at the New York Daily News." According to their about page, [83] they were "created to police the gossip industry. Launched in July 2009, it is the go-to destination for credible celebrity news. Every day the site separates fact from fiction". Would this source be acceptable for non-controversial information? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The NYT seems to think it reliable: [84]. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Is Gossip Cop reliable for the claim that Kesha is scheduled to perform on Saturday Night Live April 17th? The specific source is this. The article is Kesha. Note: the issue has been resolved by using other sources, however, I am curious to find out other editors' opinions of whether the source was reliable for this particular content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that as an encyclopedia, future events of this type are pretty much out of our purview. Sure, editors will put this stuff in, even fight about it, but it really doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Dlabtot (talk

) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK TV series)

Example diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_%28UK_TV_series%29&action=historysubmit&diff=353595911&oldid=353590919

Source: http://twitpic.com/j20r3

I've tried to reason with one editor about sources for an edit they are constantly making regarding

) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that something like this, is not usable as a RS cite for the statement it is attempting to support. Dlabtot (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone advise on next step. Does this elevate to the vandalism templates? MrMarmite (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see that you have attempted to engage the other editor in discussion and have received no responses, I would suggest

WP:ANI if the behavior continues. Dlabtot (talk

) 01:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Madame Pickwick Art Blog

An editor offered a source at the Eyes Wide Shut discussion page as emphasis for noting the use of Venetian masks in the film. I've looked over the source (Madame Pickwick Art Blog), and I would like some input from editors here regarding it.
There doesn't appear to be any provenance for the opinions being cited, and the person doing the talking (some fellow named 'Dave'), while interesting, doesn't seem to offer any personal qualifications or notability. I am thinking we cannot use it as a source or either argument or as a reference for the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the source as stands clearly cannot be used in the main article. However, given it being well-written it is an indicator that there is likely a symbolic significance to the fact that the masks in Eyes Wide Shut are Venetian. I cite it in the talk page mainly to establish notability rather than as fact. For fact, I used (in the main article) two of the Venetian suppliers of the masks which did not satisfy Arcayne.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, I see several published books on Kubrick mention and discuss the Venetian masks in EWS. I will therefore resort to these. I thought that simply to establish fact, the mask suppliers would be sufficient, and to establish notability, a talk page mention of the blog (not strictly a reliable source) would be sufficient, but I shall reinstate using published professional books on Kubrick.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I think its easier to avoid those types of references; since we cannot use them in the article, we sholdn't use them in discussion pages to make a point. And yes, the sources you found were pretty good, WickerGuy; good job, that. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that we do not explicitly state the copyright holder of a certain text (e.g. a source), if the copyright of a text has not been the subject of reports in independent reliable sources. There may be cases where this is appropriate, however, I do not think that a text that is being used as a source at Jewish Virtual Library falls into that category. Maybe there should be an addition to the relevant guideline/MOS, so that actual disputes on such questions can be resolved and potential disputes avoided. See the talk page section, [85] and [86].  Cs32en Talk to me  10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not need to explicitly state the copyright holder of our sources in the text of our articles... such information is covered by giving a proper and complete in line citation (which would include the author) for more on our rules relating to copyrights:

WP:COPYLINK

section)

That said, it is often necessary to attribute a statement of opinion to its author in the text of our articles, so the reader knows who is saying what. This is especially important in articles dealing with controversial issues. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should have got to this sooner but... I agree we generally do not include the copyright owner in the article. However, these two reviews are a little different. The first [87] was written in 2007 and archived by the Internet Reviews Archive at Bowdoin College, a branch of the

) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is a wiki about Jerusalem, see: http://www.jerusalempedia.com/about.html. I first noticed it added to

) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is an unreliable site (being an open wiki)... However we don't normally add sites to the spam list simply for being unreliable. Just remove it from the article with an edit summary stating that it is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Btw: what does it take to get something added to the spam-list, and where is that discussed? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This passage "In 1918 the Russians attacked Poland and I volonteered to go into the army. I was only fifteen years old and my entire class had volunteered. Of course my family was not happy about that. My two older brothers were already in the army. One was an instructor in the automobile division and he taught me to drive a big truck, but in the next several months the Bolsheviks were repelled and we all went back to school." from the book 'Mystic Souls' (2002) by Lyn Harper, published by iUniverse is being used to prove that the person quoted joined the Polish army before June 1919. There are a few probloms 1.The Russians did not attack Poland untill 1919. 2.They were driven back in 1920. 3 The source is self published. I as such do not bleive the source can be used to back up the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not think this is a reliable source. Books written by veterans are almost never peer reviewed and can have sighnificant errors in the remembrance and recollection of details. Self published works likewise do not have the editorial oversight and fact checking which, in my judgment are needed. Could you provide a diff to the article in question? JodyB _talk 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I dug through your edit history, and think I found the context. It looks like it is

Polish-Ukrainian war in 1918, but either way should be good enough for a claim of joining the Polish army. If you wanted to use it for a claim that there was a Russo-Polish war in 1918, no. --GRuban (talk

) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The book is not by him, he is just one of many people featured in the book. As to a diff, there is'nt one as the dispute is about his inclusion, not his removal. Here however is the talk page discusion [90]. As to the book, its about psycics and spriatual healers, not millitary history, but the author is a Phd (and proffesor of religious studies at a suburban community college)[91]. But her bio does not inspire confidence [92].

The discusion was about whether or not he is a WW1 era vetran, and this definition rests on when he joined to Polish army. If it was before June 1919 then he would count, if not then he would not be admisable. The crux is that the source seems confused as to which war (and thus date) he fought. Given the nature of the source I do not think its reliable enough to back the claim he joined before June 1919. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The letter of the rules support your case, but I think the spirit is against them. Yes, it's a self published source describing a living person which should not be usable per

WP:IAR. --GRuban (talk

) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is not that this does not prove he was in the Polish army, the dispute is it is not clear when he joined it. It is the date of joining that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. OK, I think I get it. Correct me if I'm wrong: the argument is that he says he joined in 1918 to fight the Russians, which is unlikely to be true, since the war with Russians didn't happen until 1919, while the real truth could be either that he joined in 1918 to fight the Ukrainians, which would qualify him, or that he joined in 1919 to fight the Russians, which might not qualify him if he joined after June? Then, wow, this condition to be part of the

List is way too complex. It's pretty clear that Imich didn't fight in WWI, so he's not a surviving veteran of WWI; this debate about the time he actually joined the army for some different war, is just too silly. Looking at the article, it seems there's an entire section "World War I-era veterans: those who joined the armed services after the Armistice date, but before the Treaty of Versailles; or where there is debate on their join-date; or whose military service is sometimes viewed as outside the scope of World War I", that seems could have been written for him. As long as that section is there, all three of those conditions seem to fit Imich fine. --GRuban (talk

) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2 cents. The source may not be as wrong as it seems. Radical Poles who subscribed to the goal of "Great Poland from Sea to Sea" could, indeed, consider the 1918 events as an aggression against them (or their vision). Remember, it was 1918 and the whole Europe was melting down.

NVO (talk

) 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Several issues within the New Religous Movement section of Wikipedia

www.apologeticsindex.org/ www.rickross.com/ www.xfamily.org/ www.cultnews.com/

In The New Religous Movements/Cults section of Wikipedia These Three Sites are Pretty Heavily linked in some Articles. Here the Issues i see,

www.apologeticsindex.org/ frankly I have looked for anything on This Guy Anton Hien, I fail to see how he is an authority on anything here. Secondly his site has a bunch of proable Copy right violations. Thirdly had any one the pages on any in this was transfered to wikipedia it would be speedy deleted as an attack page.

RickRoss.com & cultnews.com, Frankly 99% of the stuff here looks like clear copy right Violations across the board. I highly doubt such diverse news orgizations all gavve him clearance to host them. Also I have not been able to find some articles on his site that allegdly came from Big orgs like NYT and Boston Globe anywhere else in News data bases at my university.

Xfamily.org, Two Problems Again Hosting likley Copyright violations and a Number of Primary Sources used in artcles. The

Family International

and Related artcles are almost made entirely of off this website.

Wikipedia Policy restrict us from linking to Site with Copy Violations and also requiring that Source meet verifable, Resrticting the use of primary sources, and For Sources do be a written by a reconized authority on a subject. All these sites seem to fail at least to catagories here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Furthermore, Rick Ross himself even admits "editing" some of these copyright violations (ie news articles) for "clarification"![93] --

Insider201283 (talk

) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look deeper into the archive before rearguing this site. The same arguments pro/con would still seem to apply, unless something has changed since. The conclusion I get from that discussion: we reference the original source whenever possible, but that the rickross site is fine for convenience links to text, and for material by Rick Ross himself. • Astynax ^talk 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Given he admits to changing sources, even using his site for convenience links clearly shouldn't be allowed, and as a non-expert (no published articles/books in any field) he shouldn't be used as a source for anything but himself. Alas he has a fan club here. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ross is acknowledged as an expert by journalists. But as for his archive, I agree that most of the contents are probably copyright violations and while they may be useful for research we should think twice about linking to them directly.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the archive discussion, the site aggregates articles in the same manner, and with the same caveats as other sites (e.g., archive.org). I would repeat the suggestion from the previous discussion that determining whether copyright violation has or is taking place is something for courts, not us, to decide. Unless there is new information to consider, I don't think rehashing the attack on this source is going to move the ball forward. Except for a convenience link to a the text of a news article, which on occasion can be useful, cite the original article rather than a copy of it on a website. For material written by Rick Ross, it should be fine. • Astynax ^talk 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Astynax if i can't duplicate a Source why should we use Rick Ross for a Convience link? I tried Duplicating a source he abscribed to the boston globe! If i can't duplicate it Why use it for convience? Secondly Will, Evertime something nutty happens in the world Media turns to Doctor Phil type character, but that does mena we would cite an episode of Larry king with Doc Phil as source on Manic Dreppesion, Bipolarism, or autism? thats the Way i see him. And Doc Phil is actual Doctor this guy as far as i can tell does not have bachelors! But Rick Ross Aside The Other two are ones i can't find anything on and what i am more concerned with... And right now link to those site could get wikipeidia introble with courts that why we have the rule better to air on the side of caution than Rather do it until we told we cant and get fined. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

archive.org does "aggregate articles in the same manner". arcihive.org does not edit content it has mirrored, Rick Ross admits he does. There is no guarantee the source is an accurate copy of the original, and indeed a outlined in the earlier discussion his edits have at times been significant. I've never seen a similar admission, or accusation, regarding archive.org. Furthermore, as already noted above, it's against WP policy to link to copyright violations. The idea that someone is an "expert" because newspapers quote him is too long a discussion for here, though I don't think being quoted by a journalist qualifies as "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --

Insider201283 (talk

) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should cite the original source, rather than rickross (or any other reprinting) whenever possible. Neither does archive.org completely reproduce all the pages which it archives (try looking around, lots of stuff is missed due to their bot, particularly for older pages). Moreover, there can be perfectly valid reasons for this and similar sites to edit content they reproduce (a lengthy article of which only a portion is relevant, removal of personal names according to site policy, etc.). To reiterate past arguments, it is the court's job to determine "copyright violations" and it is not for Wikipedia editors to make such allegations without support from court cases. These points have been raised and argued before. • Astynax ^talk 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Astynx, there's a big difference between material missing and actively changing it. For example, Ross changed a news article from " cult-deprogramming organization named Wellspring" to "cult-[recovery rehabilitation retreat] named Wellspring". He states "Typically this is done for clarification (e.g. Wellspring doesn't do "deprogramming" but is instead a licensed mental health facility providing counseling for former cult members)".[94] Whether accurate or not, this is active POV editing of sources. Regarding copyright,

) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The example you gave, of inserting a parenthetical editors comment, doesn't seem to be anything like "active POV editing" at all. And regardless, that is not an indication of any copyright violation. WP:C does say that you should discount a link if you know that it is a copyright violation. Respectfully, you do not "know" any such thing unless you have a court case that confirms it. In the case of the text of articles on rickross, archive.org, or any other third-party website, the simple solution is to cite the original source if there is a question as to the source being quoted accurately. • Astynax ^talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:If you compare the two versions, you'll find that the version on rickross.com contains a fair number of POV-motivated edits to the text. The first ones of these I noticed were:

• an Ohio woman who sued a cult-deprogramming organization named Wellspring, whose executive director also sat on the CAN board. (newtimesla.com)
• an Ohio woman who sued a cult-[recovery rehabilitation retreat] named Wellspring, whose executive director also sat on the CAN board. (rickross.com)

(Note that Ross is – or was – associated with Wellspring, which often took in deprogrammees after deprogramming for further treatment; Jason Scott e.g. was supposed to go there after his deprogramming.)

• "Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from an evangelical Christian sect" (newtimesla.com)
• "Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from [a church affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International]" (rickross.com)

From Jayne466 [95]. By the way the reason i Didn't Notify NRM workGroup is because as far as i can tell since John Carter dropped off the map, its only Me an J466 active right now. J466 got caught in Sweeping Scientology ARBCom Case is now Forbidden to Comment on Rick Ross. Thus i didnt bother notifying them Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify We agree these sources are not up to wikipolicy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sources? The ones that Ross copies on his website? We should judge them independently regardless of who copies them.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops should Have been more Clear, It sounds like We Argree

Anton's Hein's Apologetics index does not meet Notability and Authority to be a RS

Citing XFamily's Primary Sources is not Appropriate and probable Copy Right Violation not Appropriate to use for a Convenience Link

CultNews and Rick Ross's sites should not be used for Connivence Links due to Probable Copy Violations

Is this correct?

"Connivance" links probably should be avoided. Convenience links too. That's not specific to Ross, it's just good practice. If folks ask about the source then they could be pointed to websites that host them. I haven't looked at the XFamily site, but I doubt it's reliable per out standards.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been a dispute at the Washington International University article on the use of old, archived pages from the Oregon state database on diploma mills. User:Orlady and User:TallMagic have inserted material sourced to an archived page from the Oregon database referring to information which has since been removed. The two editors have stated that they have made it clear that the information is no longer included in the database. I've never come across this situation before. Is it ok to use old, archived database pages to insert controversial information into an article, information that has since been removed from the database in question? Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive.org is used by Wikipedia to provide internet links to content (such as newspaper articles) that was formerly available online but is no longer maintained online by its original publisher. This is the reason for linking to archived versions of the list (not a database, but a list) maintained by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. The Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) maintains its list of unaccredited educational institutions as a public/consumer/government information resource on the current status of many institutions. Since the list is a resource, ODA updates the information frequently. Details such as locations may change over time, and when a piece of information is removed from the list, it does not necessarily mean that it was wrong, just that it is no longer true (or no longer relevant).

Unlike ODA, Wikipedia is not engaged in providing consumer information, but is interested in documenting an institution's history, not merely its present status. Thus, it is often relevant to cite old sources (including old books and old websites) as sources of historical information.

In the case of WIU, for several years the Oregon ODA website gave the location as "Pennsylvania, British Virgin Islands" and the Remarks field said "Operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. WIU is forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia." The current version gives the location as "British Virgin Islands" and the Remarks field says "Degrees not recognized." There is no documentation as to why the list was changed -- perhaps it ceased operations in Pennsylvania, and perhaps the law changed in Australia. It's also possible that the ODA discovered that the information had been wrong (this apparently is Cla68's default assumption) or that ODA removed it to avert a legal challenge (there is sourced documentation that ODA made some other website changes circa 2005/2006 as a result of a lawsuit). I can't tell. Accordingly, the current version of the WIU article describes the former contents of the ODA website as history, using past-tense verbs: "During the years 2005 through 2008, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) reported that the Pennsylvania Department of Education had provided the information that WIU was then "operating illegally" in Pennsylvania. The ODA listing during that period also indicated that WIU was "forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia".[several archive.org versions of the ODA website are cited]

Note that if WIU was a reputable university, its name would not appear on the ODA list, and it would not be necessary to use the ODA list of unaccredited schools as a source for basic details because there would be many other reliable sources for that information. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a similar analogy might be a scientific database of global temperatures. Let's say, for example, that a scientific organization such as the Met Office stated that "2005 was the hottest year on record" but then later removed that sentence (I'm not saying they did this, just using it as a hypothetical) without comment. Would it be ok to use an archived version of the Met's website to say in an article, "The Met used to say that 2005 was the hottest year on record,[ref archived version] but their website no longer contains this statement."[ref current version] Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, archived versions of sources are acceptable. However, if the web page was taken down because the information was unreliable, that's a different story. Do you know why the page was removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If the original source (the Oregon state list) is regarded as a reliable source, then in general the archived version remains a reliable source. If the information has changed, then the approach taken in the WP article ("During the years 2005 through 2008,...") is entirely appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge's question is a reasonable one, but only an answer documented in another reliable source would be relevant to the issue. I would suggest Quest's question "Do you know why the page was removed?" would be better phrased as "Is there a statement in a reliable source as to why the page was removed?" Unless there is, the current text of the WIU article appears to me to be sound and sourced correctly. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You all have answered my question. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a question on how would I determine the RS of a website? There may be some question and I wanted to get ahead of the process. The site I question is www.fair.org. Please let me know where to look up their standing as a reliable source. Padillah (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are earlier discussions about

WP:BLP is involved should be taken into account. Information about particular articles and statements it is being used to support would greatly help the assessment.John Z (talk

) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I honestly would group them with Media Matters for America and Huffington Post in that they are good for a liberal viewpoint, but do not necessarily mean a story or information is worthy for inclusion. They are best used for additional information for a story covered by a mainstream media source.

Soxwon (talk

) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I was just making sure they weren't worthless. The article we are using is an editorial anyway so we have to be careful how we present it. Thanks, Padillah (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No they aren't at all worthless, it is just best to make sure you are expressing them in a valid context though, and in the right areas(public reception, media controversies, public opinion, etc) for a living biography. So yeah, they're reliable. Ink Falls 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is the specific url of the source in question?
• In which article is the source being used?
• What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
• Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all [right here] if you feel the need to get involved. Looks like we've got consensus though. Padillah (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that B'Tselem is an interested party in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but

) that all sources are biased regardless of their ostensible independence.

As far as I'm aware B'Tselem's facts have never been challenged as inaccurate by the opposition who certainly would attempt to delegitimize B'Tselem if they could.

And it is important to note tha B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization, not a Palestinian advocacy group. It is also extremely critical of human rights violations by Palestinian Authority and Hamas as well as Israel.

I understand why people would be skeptical of B'Tselem's neutrality and reliability but there is a formidable and massive opposition to its work from Israeli

; there are no real criticism of the facts that B'Tselem talks about. As B'Tselem says, the organization is transparent in its operations and relies on independent field work. The opportunity (and motivation) for falsififying data is low. Factomancer (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization, not a peace organization (although I'm sure they're pro-peace as well). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik, that's quite true. I've update my original post. Factomancer (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that in the context that the information from B'Tselem is being used, Palestinian freedom of movement, reports from independent sources (the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Bank) support and reinforce the facts presented by B'Tselem. If anything, these reports from independent sources are more forceful and open in their message about Palestinian restrictions. Read them for yourself - UN OCHA Update, World Bank Technical Team Report on Restrictions. As you can see, these reports coincide with and support B'Tselem facts completely. The reason B'Tselem is being used is that no other organization provides the same level of detail as to what is going on in the West Bank. I could simply use the reports from the UN and the World Bank but it would be a shame to give up the details provided by B'Tselem for vague, unexplained reasons of "bias" when the organization has a reputation for accuracy and honesty. Factomancer (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that Google Scholar shows a healthy 1800+ hits with numerous cites of B'Tselem data. Similarly for Google Books. Mordechai_Bar-On writes in In pursuit of peace: a history of the Israeli peace movement

B'tselem was perhaps the most impressive project of the Israeli peace movement. It undertook its mission under heavy attach from the right, and with significant reservations from many within the Labor Party as well. ... Some on the right branded B'tselem efforts as distortions, exaggerations, and a treasonous "laundering of dirty linen in public." The professional team of investigators and analysts that B'tselem recruited and trained defended the finds of their reports, which in most cases were subsequently proven to be accurate. ... and the organization was viewed by the press as a reliable source of information.

Further in footnote 119

In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct.

Unomi (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They are reliable. But they are also controversial enough I would mention the source of any info you get from them, inline. Especially in a sensitive area like I-P.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reputable and established advocacy organizations are generally ok to cite with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I made extensive use of B'Tselem to source the population figures for the Israeli settlements in the articles Israeli settlement timeline and the graph of the population data that I produced (IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png). To corroborate the fgures, I also used numbers from Peace Now which were highly consistent with the B'Tselem figures. There were no objections to the sourcing of this data. If B'Tselem is deemed unreliable then that article and the graph need to be changed too. Factomancer (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with others above that this source is reliable, but due to the controversial nature of the topic, in-text attribution would be prudent. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly does in-text attribution mean? Does that mean that the facts sourced to B'Tselem cannot be written in Wikipedia's voice and must be presented with "According to B'Tselem... etc."? Factomancer (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to comment that it may be true that the source meets reliability criteria in general. However that does not mean it is an independent source in relation to a particular topic. That is the main problem at Palestinian freedom of movement - it is simply not neutral. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this one is pretty much settled, but I think it is worth pointing out that B'tselem only deals with this particular topic, so if it meets reliability criteria in any aspect, above and beyond its own opinion, then it necessarily meets them for this topic. Unomi (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

... Hmm, well that will be cumbersome. Oh well it's better than having the information removed. Factomancer (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if we couldn't handle most of that with a !disclaimer that states that the information is sourced to human rights organizations? Unomi (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That would not so since Btselem is not interested in human rights at all, and only centred on Palestinian-rights. We cannot blindly accept their partisan investigations since there has been evidence found in the past of sloppy misleading and some has made it into the articles itself: B'Tselem#Critical commentary and response. --Shuki (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are an organization focused on human rights in the occupied territories. They report statistics that have widely been cited, they provide reports on human rights violations by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and they are widely regarded as a respected institution. nableezy - 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in that critical commentary that indicates sloppy misleading. As I understand it they are also concerned with the human rights of Israelis who demonstrate against the right wing governments actions. Unomi (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). Zero^talk 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling, criticising how numbers are presented, saying that claims are outdated (as all empirical claims must be), in reality praising by faint damns. Criticism could be taken into account in how we write the article, but we should not be more critical of B'tselem than reliable sources or even its critics are. There haven't really been any genuine allegation or doubt that they make stuff up or are intolerably inept researchers. As noted above, other RS's use them and their facts are consistent with other RS's. So unless consensus at an article agrees that a particular claim is extraordinary, or it is being challenged by another RS, it will usually be OK to just footnote the claim, not say that "B'tselem says..". Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive. John Z (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the material sourced to them is not controversial, but the claims they make definitely need attribution. If this information is really true, then there should be multiple sources including RS media to back this up. Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. OR and not really. There is much criticism. [96] --Shuki (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is hardly any criticism there. The closest you get is regarding combatant vs noncombatant classification, a criticism which B'tselem has answered as is shown in our

B'tselem article. The only thing which the criticism uses to back it up is (an unspecified) m / f ratio, as if you can't be a male noncombatant. Unomi (talk

) 04:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NGO Monitor being against an organization makes me think it is more reliable, not less. nableezy - 03:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the multitude (over 40) of "According to B'Tselem"'s, some ridiculous, in that article express much more skepticism of B'tselem than even its critics. This is a real departure from the principles of no original research and neutrality. There should be much more genuine doubt in reliable sources and among editors here of the individual statements to justify such labelling. Since B'tselem treats its subject matter in more detail than other reliable sources, there is no surprise that it makes claims which cannot be completely corroborated by other reliable sources - but this is true of any good source, and all other relevant sources use B'tselem unreservedly.John Z (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

False. Except for three measly other sources, no effort has been made to include more. So essentially this page is a synth of two Btselem reports converted to wikipedia 1rst person. Not a reliable way to write an encyclopedia article. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be replying to something other than what is here. Unomi (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are forty "according to B'tselem"s in the article, you may be overusing them as a source, regardless of whether they need in line attribution. If there seem to be too many (I have not looked at the article), I would suggest looking for other sources on the things that seem least open to dispute. Then negotiating on what things really need an "according to B'tselem" and then jazzing it up with such things as "B'tselem notes", etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually coming to this page for another discussion and got sidetracked investigating this one instead, so I hope you don't mind me commenting. As mentioned, B'Tselem's reports generally agree closely with those of the UN. Additionally, B'Tselem are regarded as a reliable source by, amongst others, the BBC news service (itself considered reliable) - see, for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7451691.stm . It is often claimed that there is a pro-Israel bias in BBC reports (such as http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100323_when_facts_and.php), though such claims generally about to claims of omission and undue weight rather than misleading or fabricated stories, and as such, are more opinion than potentially verifiable fact.

I think it is unnecessary to qualify those claims to the extent that is done at present in the article, and no in-text attribution is needed. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is often claimed that there is a pro-Israel bias in BBC reports You gave me a good chuckle. Please read: Documenting BBC Documentaries, Criticism of the BBC#Middle East and Israel, Balen Report. I think that there is a difference between being anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel. I think that organizations that take sides can still be RS for many things like geography, sports, entertainment, nature, etc... but when entire political / 'controversy' articles are based solely on 'one side', then we have a problem in misleading the reader. CNN is RS, right? I will never forget how after Saddam fell, multiple testimonies came forth about how they were reporting the truth, but not all of it. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article from NGO Monitor (Israel's side) points out B'tselem's agenda: “acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law,” and does not report on HR violations within Israel. NGO monitor states that their analysts have demonstrated that B'selem's data is "problematic, often inconsistent, and reflects the organization’s political agenda," citing this 2007 analysis [97] NGO-monitor also accuses B'tselem of a double standard with respect to " intra-Palestinian human rights abuses" and that it "Regularly minimizes Israeli security concerns." It offers a number of articles to back its points,including an [98] [99][100]. In a 2007

) 04:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I am not entirely convinced on the merits of the analysis, I agree with the conclusion, we should seek to allow an array of voices. Unomi (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

NGO Monitor and CAMERA also both have agendas, which can be summed up as "Israel can do no wrong". And of Im Tirzu, the less said the better. Their primary purpose seems to be smearing Jews to their left, such as the New Israel Fund and its leadership, whom they portrayed with horns on their heads(!). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, yet policy generally states that we give room for opposing voices as justified by

WP:GEVAL etc. It is indicated by the sources above that B'tselem is widely trusted by mainstream RS. Unomi (talk

) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources on inaccuracies in Angels & Demons

I need opinions on two sources being used regarding mistakes in the book Angels & Demons: Is the content of Book Mistakes user-generated? Second, what is the reliability of CR Publications for that webpage's material on the same topic? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Link to the source in question: KnowYourMeme.com
2. The article in which it is being used: McDonald's rap
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

   The video quickly went viral and has been viewed 6 million times.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion: None.

The article I wish to use it for is

) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As a contributor there as well, no, they are not reliable - it is effectively a wiki with expert editors - but that is not to say you can't pull information from there that points to more reliable sites for it. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's a closed Wiki with expert editors, then it might be considered reliable. I just created an account there[107] and it doesn't appear as if I can edit any content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the process that works at KYM:

• Anyone once registered can create a new entry on a meme. This is in the "submission" queue.
• Only the entry's editor, other editors that the entry creator has added, or in some cases when site admins/"experts" add themselves to the article, can actually edit the entry.
• Discussion occurs to determine if the meme is truly a meme, or simply redundant or unimportant. Memes that fall into the latter are typically "deadpool"ed - the entry still there and open for discussion as in some cases new information will come to light (eg see "The cake is a lie"). If the site admins determine an entry to be viable enough, it is promoted to "Confirmed".

Now, the key is here that if anything, only "Confirmed" entries could even be considered as a start (since the rest is open wiki). But that said, while it is usual practice for one of the site experts to review and edit a meme prior to "Confirmed", this does not always happen - thus anything confirmed can still be user-generated content.

The only place on KYM where I would consider reliable is the various webisodes they do on select memes, since this is the "expert" staff reporting on said phenoms, thus it is their writing/scripting for it. But even then, that's a stretch - if a meme is featured by these videos, it is likely well-established by other notable sources to be a meme already. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is

) 15:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...they are "a campaign group"[108] and "a pressure group that campaigns for openness among lobbyists"[109] according to The Guardian and "a Glasgow-based body which monitors public relations" according to the Times.[110] I don't see much to demonstrate that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Their views might be notable if covered by a third-party reliable source. In such a case, I would think that in-text attribution would be necessary. Of course, I've never heard about this group before and might be completely wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we generally accept inclusion of the opinion of lobby groups with the caveat that they have to be attributed to them. Unomi (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Link to the source in question is available here: [[111]] (need an account, may be available elsewhere, try searching.)
2. The article in which it is being used: Eastern Front (World War II)
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting: No exact statement, source is being used to support the Tuvan People's Republic (Tannu Tuva) being listed as a belligerent, (that it was an independent state, and that its soldiers fought independently in hostilities.)
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Tannu_Tuva, and in some parts Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Volunteers in Wehrmacht were not a separate belligerents, also see revision history of the Eastern Front (World War II) article.

The source claims that Tannu Tuva was an "independent state", and that its soldiers engaged in hostilities, from source: "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44". If you look at the entries and sources in the talk pages, and the Tannu Tuva article (Tuvan People's Republic), its almost impossible to conclude that Tannu Tuva was an "independent state". The source also states that Tannu Tuva is also "still at war with Germany" into and past the year 1944. Tannu Tuva was annexed on 11 October 1944 by the Soviet Union, and the area became the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast. I believe the source is not reliable due to all the evident misinformation contained within it, and things that are blatantly not true. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Minogue stated on her official

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9003792038

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9026328343

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9572763707

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9572927971

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/10371400191

five twitter posts and..Kylie dot com another self publisher citation.

On 3 June 2010 she will be hosting the inaugural

http://kylie.com/news/1773826

This is all self published, five twitter posts and an upcoming appointment announcement on her official website, I removed it and quoted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 but it has been replaced and the editor seems to be saying the information is not available elsewhere so it is OK to use, is this content cited correctly?

) 18:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The information is a self published source

talk

) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

{EC} If that's her official Twitter account and web site, then yes, they are reliable sources for this content.

WP:SPS says that "Self-published .. sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about themselves it's about the new album and working with other people. 'Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons' Regards,

talk

) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that the way forward that we are going to add to wikipedia whatever a subject puts on his twitter page. really? One day they add they are working with jonny and we add it and tomorrow it turns out they aren't working with jonny any mopre and we then add that to the article and sit waiting to update our BLP articles with the fabulous valuable self published tweets? If this is true it is a sad day for the wikipedia , sad indeed.

) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big deal is including this information. I guess you can invoke the 'claims about third-party' clause to remove content about her working with other artists. You also have

WP:RSN. Her Twitter account and web site are acceptable sources about herself in an article about herself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, I have removed all the content that is unconfirmed claims about other people, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons . Thanks.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about Ancestry.com

I was redirected here for asking a question at the Help desk. My question, is Ancestry.com a reliable source? The reason I ask is because I've been adding the etmology on surname pages here on Wikipedia. Someone has suggested to me to simply source the link on an Ancestry.com surname meaning page which is Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press (Irish Names, French Names, Spanish Names, etc.). Although, I could simply reference another source, it's difficult to trust many websites. I welcome any advice on this matter, 71.240.162.16 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No... Ancestry.com is a valuable and useful resource in which to find reliable sources, but not a reliable source in itself. Since Ancestry.com is user generated, each entry is only as reliable as the person who created it. The advice to cite the Dictionary of American Family Names is good. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar; Ancestry.com is user-generated content with no editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not overstate the case. There is, I believe, considerable "editorial oversight". Of course user-submitted content is a no-brainer but they can be quite authoritative in website-offered content that's genealogy related. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for your belief that there is considerable editorial oversight? Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether Ancestry.com is reliable is too broad to answer. User-submitted content is certainly not reliable. But I think their web site produces articles that are written by professionals and might be acceptable. The article, Irish Immigrants to New York, for example, is written by "Ancestry Magazine Staff Writers" and might be a reliable source regarding Irish immigration to New York city. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no editorial oversight. I have a subscription and frequently add information. If someone were to complain about "inappropriate material", it is possible some great hand would come down and tear out the offending entry, but, aside from that, there is no editorial involvement. Bielle (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that user-submitted content is unreliable. But what about articles written by Ancestry Magazine staff writers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the magazine, but from what I've seen, I'd be reluctant to cite Ancestry.com as a source for anything – except in the first instance mentioned above, where Ancestry obviously struck a deal to carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names published by Oxford University Press.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between user content/family trees that contain no sources i.e. census references etc than one that contains the appropriate sources that fully support the research. MBorrill (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)