Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78

British Empire has been submitted for a re-review of its FA status [31]. User:YellowMonkey (aka User:YellowAssessmentMonkey) posted the following comment "Olson an unreliable source", describing the co-editor as a "clown" and a "joke", which I'm finding hard to reconcile with the fact that User:YellowMonkey is also the Featured Articles Director's (User:Raul654) assistant. Editors in this role should be taking the subject of the reliability of sources far more seriously than this. (For starters, he seems unaware that Olson is one of 9 co-editors and not actually the author).

The source in question is The Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. The way I see it, this is a clearly

What are others' thoughts on this? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make sure that readers get the full and balanced perspective on this dispute. There are other high quality secondary or tertiary sources that conflict directly with that Olson says. These are more recent and are obviously based on new, highly credible research which was done in field and reported upon by BBC and Telegraph as shown below. Olson's work is from 1996 where are these newer sources are from the new century. Olson's claim is that the Indian war of independence was over "Westernization" which has been contested.

• BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' "In the rebels' own papers, they refer over and again to their uprising being a war of religion. There were no doubt a multitude of private grievances, but it is now unambiguously clear that the rebels saw themselves as fighting a war to preserve their religion, and articulated it as such."
• BBC - This Sceptred Isle: EMPIRE "The reasons for the rebellion were long standing and included: attempts by British missionaries to convert all India to Christianity; ineffectual command of the army in Bengal; insensitive recruiting policy and "Europeanization" of the sepoy regiments and sepoy objections to serving outside their homeland and traditional areas."
• Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny "More sophisticated historical readings find a range of causes for the bubbling discontent that led to open rebellion - the punitive tax collection system, a succession of British territorial seizures and the rise of aggressive Christian evangelism among them." Zuggernaut (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All those links are 404s...and technically, claims from news sources are not exactly a good counter against academic sources. If Olson is a bad source, then there ought to be other scholars, not news reports, to counter him. Jim101 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the links, sorry about that. The media is simply reporting work of the reputed historian

William Dalrymple (historian) . Zuggernaut (talk

) 23:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this subject, but from what I can see this is a conflict between old vs. new scholar opinions, therefore it is more of a NPOV problem than RS problem. From the lack of evidence that demonstrates Olson is a fringe author, I believe Olson represented a somewhat outdated understanding of the topic, therefore we need to put it into context by presenting it side by side with newer research on the topic. Removing a high quality source because it is outdated is overkill, and somewhat not neutral. Jim101 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that much of a conflict. All these sources list several reasons, though Zuggernaut just seems to want to pick out one. However the word "westernise" seems to cover all the main reasons given, including religion - sice Christian evangelism is part of a process of westernisation, as are attempts to professionalise the army on western models. One of the sources quoted by Zuggernaut even uses the word "europeanisation", which is a synonym for Westernisation. So if many reliable sources seem to be consistent, where is the problem? Paul B (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You can also find many, many books via a search on this in Google Books which use the term "westernize" in this context. Indeed, the Enyclopaedia Britannica article also uses it. When I raised this on the talk page [33] and quoted some of them, they were all dismissed by Zuggernaut as "dated", on the basis of these three newspaper websites he had Googled, which he presented as "the latest research". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no conflict. Quoting from the source, with my comments in italics: "There is no single explanation for the rebellion" (seems fair enough, agrees with the Telegraph article that there was a "range of causes") "The upheavals reflected cumulative tensions that had built up during nearly a century of interaction between western influences and Indian society. This tension developed during a period of British political consolidation in the first half of the 19th century. India was also subjected to an ideological onslaught in the period between 1800 and 1850, which had profound effects on relations between the British Raj and Indian society. Finally, urbanization and modernization played key roles in precipitating the violence...." (a couple of paragraphs later the author - not Olson, by the way - goes on to discuss three "Western ideologies", the first of which is "evangelicalism" - is that the same word the Telegraph article uses? - oh yes it is!) "Evangelicalism spurred an active intrusion in socio-religious spheres, particularly among Hindus, and legislative acts directed at Hindu social practices (such as sati and thugee) upset many orthodox Hindus." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Japan is a non-Chrisitian country and fully Westernized. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

An utterly irrelevant remark. I doubt the Japanese see themselves as "fuly Westernised". Paul B (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant and ignorant. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On a topic like this, articles in the popular press, even quoting learned scholars, have no weight. Wait for these scholars to publish their opinions in the academic press and see whether or not their theories are accepted. (n the meantime, Olson's book is reliable. TFD (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's already a published and very well received work as Jamesinderbyshire pointed out. [34] The Guardian calls it brilliant - Zafar the ditherer Geoffrey Moorhouse applauds William Dalrymple's brilliantly nuanced account of the Indian mutiny of 1857, The Last Mughal Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please read the top of this page and supply:
  1. A full citation for the material used: Entry Author (year), "Entry" in Title Editors, Place: Publisher, page range
  2. Please supply the text supported by the citations
• Provisionally, a Tertiary source should not be used here. Seek monographs. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This FA has more than 25% reliance on tertiary sources. 2) An editor is responsible for his subordinates 3) This guy somehow assumed that anyone Nguyen is a descendant of the Nguyen Dynasty and then claimed that a large part of South Vietnam's leadership are members of the Nguyen Dynasty, and gets people's job titles back to front a lot, and so forth. FA should not accept a lax guy like this YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If the contained articles aren't signed (individually, or collectively authored), then they shouldn't be used at all; it would put this work into the non-scholarly tertiary category for the individual entries. As far as the embarrassing assumption that all Nguyens are related goes, it is the job of other scholars to tear him a hole, though if other scholars have already done so, it would be worth indicating here. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...which is really a polite way of saying we just have YellowMonkey's word for it that the Vietnam publication he refers to is unreliable and - assumption upon assumption - therefore so too is any publication ever touched by him is unreliable. If all it takes is one Wikipedia editor to denounce an author to make his publications unreliable, Wikipedia would fall apart and POV warriors would have a field day. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

They are individually signed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, the The last mughal has not been "very well received". The author,

peer-reviewed academic journal, then we could use that, but would have to determine the weight his ideas received. TFD (talk

) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article is British Empire.
• The discussion which prompted this thread was at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/British_Empire/archive1 (sorry no subheadings there to link to)
• The source is the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Editors James S. Olson and Robert Shadle, pub 1996 by Greenwood Publishing Group Volume 1 - can preview if you have a Google account Volume 2, no preview. Each entry is signed by the contributor, and at the back of volume 2 it gives a brief description of the contributor, all of whom are/were based in universities in the USA or Canada.

As for putting in the individual statements in the article that this is being used to support, that's not the point. According to YellowMonkey, it is an unreliable source, period, without having looked at which statements it is being used for. The Westernization/Christianization choice of word is a side issue, which I'd appreciate Zuggernaut not bringing up in this thread (he's welcome to start a different thread). The point of this thread is: is this a

No, the encyclopaedia as a whole isn't: it isn't supporting any statement on Wikipedia. Individual articles may or may not be reliable sources. Please read the top of this page, and provide which items within the encyclopaedia, authored by whom, are used to support which claims in the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I posted here was because YellowMonkey's argument at the FA review was not even that the encyclopaedia is unreliable, it was that one of the co-editors (James S. Olson) is unreliable, with the unreliability cascading down a priori to this particular publication, the individual entries in that publication and their authors, making them all unusable. If you are of the view that the reliability or unreliability is not a property of the containing encyclopaedia (actually a historical dictionary), I'm presuming you agree that the same must be said of the set of publications ever touched by Olson. That is all I wanted to get a view on, because such an ad hominem attack on the reliability ("Olson had something to do with it") is what YellowMonkey was arguing. The question of whether this particular entry is a reliable source for this particular claim is not a question I'm asking, though it's valid, and others are welcome to ask such questions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A bad element in a source (publisher, authorial authority (including editors), nature of the work), can taint an item. Which is why I'm still asking after which article in Historical Dictionary of the British Empire by which authors is supporting which statement in wikipedia? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A "bad element" on whose say so? YellowMonkey's? Who is YellowMonkey? Anyway, the references can be found here British_Empire#References. Just click on an Olson link and it will take you to the sentence referenced. There are a lot of Olson references there (perhaps a problem in itself, though that in itself does not impact the reliability of the source) so I'm not going to list them all. If you want to pick one I can go into it in detail, listing the author and the author's details from the Contributor section at the back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to do so, as the article has attributed all works to the containing work, not to the entry, for instance "Olson, p. 533.". This is as useful as "OED p. 300". Additionally the article uses Olson 1991 and Olson 1996 and does not internally differentiate between them. Unresolvable as the article fails to cite adequately to allow verification of reliability. Also footnote 186 has the name misspelt. Given the natural suspicion against the use of tertiary sources, treat as unreliable until article authors can actually bother to cite correctly including differentiating different sources by the same author, and giving the actual work cited, not the containing work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Computer says no"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

James Olsen may or may not have made some silly slip ups in one of his books. So what? That does not make him and unreiable source for everything he he wrote or even edited. That would make nonsense of

WP:RS. Any historian who covers a wide range of topics is liable to make mistakes in details. No-one can be an all-knowing expert on everything. What matters is that he is a distinguished figure. The book is appropriately published and edited. I see no reason why it ahould not be used. If there is doubt about its value, look up reviews in the academic press. Paul B (talk

) 13:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously "Historical dictionary of the British empire" is generally a reliable source, as the term is used on wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be pointed out that while it is probably a RS according to general Wikipedia standards, FAs have to conform to

WP:FACR which requires "high-quality" reliable sources. The discussion so far is using a lower threshold of reliability. Lambanog (talk

) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify, is this question about whether the sourcing should be removed or tagged as unreliable, or just about whether it can be improved in order to achieve FA status? If it is just about the latter, then is this even the correct place to be discussing it? BTW, putting everything else aside Fifelfoo's last post contains some good practical suggestions which might help the article and the discussion anyway?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup - I opened this thread to discuss the general notion of whether it is OK to throw an entire source out of the window because an editor says he saw mistakes in a different publication by the same individual. Forget that it's Olson. Forget that it's a tertiary source. Is it OK in principle and according to our policies? The answer is binary, and some editors have responded to it. Normally I wouldn't even have bothered opening this discussion to ask that, the answer is so obvious to me, the only reason I did was because the editor making this argument is one of the three editors involved in administering the FA review process. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

At first sight you and Lambanog are saying the opposite thing. Anyway, as this is an RS board I would assume that the question is about "throwing out" a source (deleting or tagging let's say) and not just about whether it can be improved as per Lambanog, and indeed the advice of Fifelfoo.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not opposite, I'd say, just answering different questions. The question of how we can improve the article, including the specifics of this source, is going on at the FA review here [35]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing a few sitcom articles I have notice these websites are often used as sources are they considered reliable [36][37].Dwanyewest (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They are probably not reliable, although I have not looked at them closely. Are either part of a big media company, or have editorial oversight? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The first gives no indication of its editorial oversight or policies, nor any indication of reliability or fact-checking. The second is the

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This URL and some variations have been added to many of the Roosevelt family articles, as an external link:

• http://sites.google.com/site/fivegateways/alphabetical-index-r/roosevelt Five Gateways Genealogy

To me, it looks like a self-published source, with fair scholarship but no author named, and all the cites piled up at the bottom. The person who publishes says "This site is new, and is being worked on currently. Over the next few months and hopefully many years, it will grow to encompass summary genealogies from my, now rather large, collection. ... I have no intention to charge for access to this site, either now or in the future." I'd like to believe that this source is good, but it does not have inline citations. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the personal website of a Swedish genealogy hobbyist, Mattias Engdahl, who has compiled the information on the site from secondary sources. Most of the sources he has used are very dated, and do not adhere to current genealogical standards. The site is a tertiary source, at best, using original research. Does that meet

WP:RS? ProGene (talk

) 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have identified one of the sources used by Five Gateways as The Scots Peerage edited by Sir James Balfour Paul published in 1910. My personal research has shown that this book contains at least one substantial error which the website has repeated. I am not treating this book as reliable.Writer42 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to say this is an argument for the source, it should be judged here based on apparent verifiability, not apparent truth. I think all large genealogical sources contain many mistakes, as indeed do most large works full stop (dictionaries, encyclopedias etc) but of course they are often reliable for the purposes of WP. It is not generally up to Wikipedians to judge sources based on their own checking of how good they are or else we would have endless circular arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the 1910 book has an error an whether it is repeated on the web site has no relevance to the

WP:RS is not about the truth but about basing statements on sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Originally added as a new section at the bottom, and then combined with the existing section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some discussion about whether this site can be considered a reliable source. An editor had been adding it to articles as an EL, which I thought was OK (although at least one editor objected to it), but the editor has now started using it as a ref, so it would be helpful to know its status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...just from the look of it, I was going to say unreliable, but it does state on the specific pages the book source from where the information was retrieved. Because of that...I might say that it is reliable, though with a grain of salt. Silverseren^C 21:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that there already was a query about "Five Gateways" on this board? You might want to look further up the page and read the query and response there. (My take: It would not be considered reliable by any responsible genealogist.) ProGene (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that. I'm going to combine the two sections together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that the sources for each name are reliable. Of course, it would be better to directly have those sources, but this, as a tertiary source, still works. Silverseren^C 23:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they're reliable? Most of the sources are over 100 years old. Genealogical research from that time period did not adhere to any standards, with the result that much of the work from that time IS unreliable. ProGene (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know anything is reliable? On WP we just aim to report what the outside world says, and that means that the answer is that we check whether the source is treated as reliable by people who should know. (That is of course not always an easy thing to discuss either.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And, as I've already said, professional genealogists do not consider "Five Gateways" or any other personal website reliable. ProGene (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I must have missed it when you gave any explanation about that? The only similar comment I see is where you said that this was your "take". That's my point. Is this source used outside of WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment from 23 September in the original thread above, where I elaborated a bit more. I don't know whether other sites use the "Five Gateways" site as a source, but it does not meet current genealogical standards[38], which require that information from compilations (all the sources used by the site are compilations) be verified with original records. Among reputable genealogists, compilations are considered clues only, not reliable sources. ProGene (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I may have missed your earlier posting but I am still not entirely clear on how your argument works. As a genealogical researcher doing original work, it is of course important to eventually look at primary documents. Here on WP we are not conducting original research, and to some extent we even try to avoid being over-reliance on primary sources (because it is not the aim that WP becomes the place for cutting edge debate). We try to report what others say, so compiled sources are pretty good for us as long as they are good ones. (For example, Burkes is full of problems too, and I've argued that it should be used very carefully here, but realistically I know people will not accept much criticism of it here because it is so respected.) So the question about a secondary source would not be whether it is a good primary source like a good genealogist would want when doing their own original work, but rather whether good genealogists might consider it a reliable compilation. I think another important point will be whether it explains its primary sources fairly well also (unlike Burkes and similar works) because this allows verification. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Andrew Lancaster, I could not have said it any better. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe to respond to myself though, after reading back over it, perhaps the concern here can be expressed as being that this source is a compilation based on secondary sources, and old ones which did not cite their primary sources (such as perhaps Burkes-style ones). In practice though, if the old secondary sources are widely cited and used, and this tertiary source seems a verifiable summary of those, we can not really delete material sourced from it without expecting occasional arguments. I think we would certainly be justified to claim in some cases that such a source might not be the strongest one, but it does not sound like a source bad enough to say that editors should never be able to use it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not saying that WP should use original sources. I was saying that WP should use sources that are considered reliable within their field. The "Five Gateways" site is not considered reliable within the field of genealogy. There are several reasons for that. One is that the site is derivative - it is a homemade copy derived from information contained in other derivative sources. We have no way to know what errors, omissions, or misinterpretations crept in when the website was being created. Second is that the compilations being used by the site are themselves not considered reliable by genealogists. Most were compiled over 100 years ago. The state of genealogy research and genealogy standards at that time was primitive. Genealogists relied on hand-me down information, rumor, scribblings on the back of envelopes, and other highly questionable sources for the compilations that were created. These "old secondary sources" are not "widely cited and used" by reputable American genealogists. (Genealogists in other countries may have other standards.) A third reason WP should not consider the "Five Gateways" site reliable is that it's simply a personal website. The creator is just a hobbyist genealogist who has no known credentials in the field of genealogy. Does this make my reasoning clearer? ProGene (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I understood you are not arguing for use of original sources only. It is a little more subtle than that. First let me say I am not taking a "pro" position as such. My point above was purely addressing weak points in your presentation of the case against the source. You seem to argue that the reason this source fails as a source is only because it does NOT use sources of the type a professional researcher would use during their research. As pointed out above, your position is understandable, but in reality it means people can't use

Burkes Peerage for example, and in reality that won't fly because is notable, has a reputation, and all that. In practice in a case like this on WP I think it will come down to whether people wanting to use this source can show that it is taken seriously by serious people outside WP. If they can do that then the objections you have raised are not necessarily valid for WP. You are saying that they can't do that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate a single online site outside WP that uses "Five Gateways" as a source. Have you? If the Roosevelt genealogy books cited by "Five Gateways" are online (and some are on GoogleBooks), why not just cite them instead? ProGene (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did some research while filling out Roosevelt family and creating bios for a lot of the minor notables in the family, and as a result have PDFs for probably most of the secondary sources cited by this website:

• The Amazing Roosevelt Family 1613-1942
• The Roosevelt Genealogy 1649-1902
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's Colonial Ancestors
• The Strenuous Life - The Oyster Bay Roosevelts in Business and Finance

There are also a couple full-view Google Book links in the further reading section of Roosevelt family.--Michael White^T·C 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as a certified, professional genealogist, I concur with observations presented by User:ProGene. This website is improperly cited according to standards of the NGS. I am a member of the NGS, as well as the Association of Professional Genealogists. I have provided consulting services, presented workshops and served as a conference speaker for over ten years. My background of knowledge includes historical research, including addressing and developing proper sourcing and citation skills. The information on this website is highly dubious. While some of the pages provide an attribution to Burke's or other peerage or lineage publications, appropriate citations would be individually attributed, rather than attached to a family line. This website does not comply with professional standards for a genealogical database. The website provides no contact information or presentation of collection methodology. There is a lack of credibility or assurance that the information from Burke's (for example) was compiled or transposed accurately. Information from this website would be better used as a guideline or "clue" in family research. An appropriate source for Wikipedia would be Burke's, rather than a book or website based off of the same. That said, serious researchers often find discrepancies from Domesday to Burke's to various genealogical surveys. It was common for families to want to show a royal lineage or a link to a well-known peer, philosopher, merchant, or whatnot. This was the way to improve your social standing and lot in life. While commoners wanted to show a link to royalty, royal families desired to show a link to God, and would either pay or demand writers of the day to create a genealogy according to the dictates of the king. Much of this mentality is reflected in peerage studies that remain in existence today. When possible, it is preferable to support genealogical claims of peers with at least two corresponding sources for each life event (born, married, death, buried). "Five Gateways" doesn't come close. Cindamuse (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You too are describing how to do

original research in genealogy. Your guideline is little different from good laboratory practice. If your criteria if followed, we still have little more than a primary source, unusable for Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a perfectly reliable source. It may (or may not) have errors here and there, but I find it reliable. Dispute my views if desired, but just thought I should leave this comment. Thesomeone987 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987

Given that you also think that Find-a-Grave is more reliable than The New York Times for biographical data, I think your opinion here lacks weight. Rklawton (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I'm interested in improving the articles on TRIZ. At the moment they are poorly sourced, with very little independent RS. There is a lot of reference to the online TRIZ journal. It does not appear to be peer reviewed, but is clearly an important source/discussion centre for TRIZ practitioners. I should note that the subject appears to attract quite passionate devotees, and there appears to be a schism as well. The subject in general does appear to be notable (although many of the related pages detailing specific concepts are not, and should be merged back.) The page is currently fully protected after some IPs edit warred against a clean-up. I've appealed to the particular admin to get that taken down to semi-protect. Any ideas? I don't know the area well, and am interested in editing as a way of learning about TRIZ.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I'm partly raising it here as the IPs in question have been rather aggressive and dismissive of RS and OR issues, and I feel that people's input here might illustrate for them Wikipedia views on the use of sources. They know about the subject, but do not appear interested in understanding how to write articles. I've also never had to deal with a sourcing issue quite like this before.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The journal itself is a primary source in relation to these articles. Assuming that you have sufficient independent sources to establish notability, then you should write the article up mainly from those independent sources. You can use the journal for basic factual information if it is uncontroversial - for example you can use it to establish how often it is published, and who the editors are. But content in the independent sources always takes precedence. Include the journal homepage as an external link at the end of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks itsmejudith. It's a good way of looking at it. I was in a quandary, because it's not the same as a foundational or canonical text. Viewing it as movement literature makes a lot of sense. The IP(s) in question is actually not looking like a decent prospect as an editor (all POV and personal attacks), but your input helps me anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just the general approach with periodicals of all kinds, really. You might want to look at some FA on magazines and newspapers of all kinds to see what sources they use. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with this particular topic seems to be that despite its apparent and increasing popularity there hasn't been a great deal of engagement by TRIZ advocates with RS scholars and publications, and the TRIZ journal does seem to be a place where concepts are explained and explored (RS writing on TRIZ uses it a lot). In addition, the article as it stood was very much written from inside the tent without a care what outsiders thought, and so I was starting from scratch. However, I keep finding more and more RS material on TRIZ, so everything should be OK. Except I would love to find some critiques...VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In this diff to

• Keith Briggs
• writes
• (also here as PDF)
• the EPNL web forum

See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Ely etymology

--Senra (Talk) 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply a forum, that it's populated by academics makes no difference, it's OR and a self-published source based on user generated content. It is not a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• I did not participate in that discussion about Ely in that forum.
  Einstein's theory is an OR, namely Einstein's OR.) Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 10:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

""He seems to know his business"? - what on earth are you talking about? What does that have to done with

WP:RS? I think I've encountered you before and you seemed to be equally baffled then about WP:RS and how we add and use references (we don't use bare links in articles as you have just tried to do). How is that you have been here six years and are an admin and seem to be ignorant of basis policy? Your example of Einstein's theory indicates that you don't understand WP:OR either. It just doesn't add up, I can't make any sense of your length of service against your lack of understanding. --Cameron Scott (talk

) 10:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, OK, sorry. Anyway, someone has deleted it and I will accept that. OK, OK, I realize that I must wait for time to pass and other people's opinions to be heard about the matter first. I did write that it was one man's opinion and not general knowledge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I find so baffling about this, aren't you aware that we can't and don't accept original research? (just so you are aware Einstein's theory is *not* original research because it is covered in multiple reliable sources and we can use them to talk about it - we aren't simply relying on Einstein's unpublished or self-published thoughts)--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, OK, I realize now that the rule means anyone's original research, not only the Wikipedia author's. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this can perhaps be treated as a self-published source by an expert. I would give the etymology in the dictionaries first, and then say "An alternative explanation is that it comes from..." (source to JISC forum). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He's a mathematics expert who tinkers in etymology - why does this make him an expert? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, maybe this sentence shows the misunderstanding. What you say you now realize is not strictly correct. WP does of course use the original research of people outside WP, and even sometimes original research by people also write on WP. But the key points are (a) where the research was published and who might have checked it and (b) how easy it is to cross check the information. For example if a source is something on a blog or intenet forum, then people say all kinds of things on forums and sometimes are not even who they seem to be. If it is something in a well known newspaper or scientific journal then you can assume there has been some type of cross checking. And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why he would be an expert - I'm not certain at all, but it seems to me that someone with a reputation in mathematics to uphold would be unlikely to be on the wild side of place-name etymology. And it is a field where guesswork and speculation still operate, and amateurs can help progress to be made. And a JISC forum is established for scholarly discussion. Having said all that, perhaps we should err on the safe side and leave it out completely. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Any academic can get on the JISC forum and talk about pretty much anything (and the frequent comments to please get back on topic evidences this). I could go and post something about Nuclear Physics if I liked (which I have no expertise in). The fact that it is established for scholarly discussion means absolutely nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can Anna Di Lellio, sociologist and journalist, be used as reliable source on Miloš Obilić article? She is not historian, and some of hers statements cannot be find anywhere else, and she is the author of the openly pro-Albanian book The Case for Kosova: Passage to Independence. I am afraid that she is all other, then neutral and reliable source. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lellio, Anna Di (2009), The Battle of Kosovo 1389: An Albanian Epic, I. B. Tauris,
  ISBN 9781848850941

I was the one to enter the edit as the Albanian tradition would sustain that he was of Albanian origin. I would like to clarify that it is not true that she is the only one to mention the Albanian origin of Obilic and that he is from Drenica. She qualifies as a rs. Btw Albanian historian Myslim Islami also disagrees that he was of Serbian origin [39]--Sulmues ^(talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be RS? You are welcome to bring some more sources that Miloš Obilić was from Drenica. But reliable, international, undisputed ones, not Albanian historians. I can list tens of Serbian historians that claim same as we have in article now. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of arguments over which scholars dispute. This doesn't mean that they don't qualify as RS. Di Lellio is international, not Albanian, and qualifies as RS IMO, but that's not up to us to decide, that's why you brought us here, correct? In addition, the fact that you can bring more scholars than I can, refers to the fact that

Vuk Stefanović Karadžić has institutionalized the myth of Obilic as a Serbian 250 years ago, way before the Albanian scholars started to do the same thing. As a matter of fact the Albanian language didn't even have a well established tradition in writing at Vuk's times.--Sulmues ^(talk

) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent): And that's why I brought her down in the article [40]. Besides di Lellio, the only non slav, international author here, is Emmert, whose book is called Milos Obilic and the Hero Myth. Di Lellio is also an international scholar, but haven't we gone through how we are still using Stephanie Schwinders although she is not a historian? What made you change your mind on di Lellio? --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't investigated the issue, but on the face of it: If two published sources disagree, the
  neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has, or whether the source is "clearly partisan" (which is clearly subjective). According to her page, De Lellio has a PhD from Columbia University. Let's not be silly. II | (t - c
  ) 01:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lack of expertise in historical matters does seem to make her work less reliable for the early history side of things, but I haven't investigated the issue either. It would be helpful to see if her book has garnered any reviews in peer-reviewed journals (especially ones specialised in late medieval and early modern history), although some allowance has to be made for the fact that one of the books in question came out in 2009 and so further reviews may still be rolling out. That might also help to get a general impression of the reception of some of her hypotheses. Cavila (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cavila and II are right, but you don't really need to worry about these things yet. The Miloš Obilić article isn't at a stage where you need to agonise over how to include multiple opinions. That's for a long way down the road. Just follow the editor of the Historia Brittonum and make a great big heap of all the opinions you can find in maybe-reliable sources. Some day you'll be ready to start worrying about undue weight, and which sources are reliable, and whether there isare consensus/are consensuses among experts. Then you'll want to follow II and Cavila's advice, but not yet. With diligent research and open minded editors, NPOV and RS issues should solve themselves most of the time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any prior discussion on whether this is considered a reliable source. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here." The tertiary source itself strongly suggests that it be used as a tool for identifying further research avenues, and not as an authorative source. As it disclaims authorativeness, and admits that its fact checking cannot be relied upon, treat as an Unreliable Source (but raid their database and find further materials). Should be fine as an External Link as long as you don't write based on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's what I figured, and how I've been using it. Thanks for your comment. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I submitted a request for a new article to be created on Wikipedia. My subject matter the 140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation was declined stating unverifiable. I can verify everything where do I send the verification documents or how do I do it after login?

Enclosed is the information from the Certificate of Registration from the Library of Congress of for this project using the exact same name Cassandra Mokhtar West, I created the project using. The FORM TX, TXu1-143-230 is above the bar code. Effective date October 24, 2002. It was also registered at the Commonwealth of Virginia, State Corporation Commission, Office of the Clerk, October 24, 2002, RESACPT CIS0368. Telephone number (804)371-9733. Another reference is the New Journal and Guide newspaper article on November 13, 2002--A Special Celebration--By Rev. Marcellus Harris. If you should require the hard copy of any of the documents I can submit them, including the official logo.

My Copyright at the Library of Congress: 140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation Copyright

Thank you, for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.

-Cassandra West

Cwestllc (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we haven't clearly explained to you what we mean by verifiability. All the information added to the encyclopedia must be derived from a reliable source, for example a mainstream newspaper, or a book written by an expert. The New Journal and Guide might be a reliable source - I don't know unless I do some more research. But what I suggest happens next is that you edit the article

WP:HELPDESK if you need help doing that. Best of luck and thanks for your contributions. Itsmejudith (talk

) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps better to discuss adding the information and source at the Emancipation Proclamation talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would like to appreciate discussion on this thread, can

• A full citation for each work (including page reference is available) whose reliability is in question, if you have links, attach links _as well_
• A link to the article where the reliability dispute is occurring, or may occur
• A copy of the quotes supported by the works whose reliability is in question

We need a little bit more to go on that what you have provided. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To give the specific documents being discussed, which Humaliwalay conveniently forgot to link to, the questions are:

1. Should this document, published by Minority Rights Group International (MRG), be used for the statement Humaliwalay added to the Lebanon article that "As per UN estimates also supplemented by other sources, Shi'a Community is largest Muslim sect and also the largest of all 18 sects..."? Please note that the UNHCR hosted document is published by MRG.
2. Whether that source should supersede a report put out by the same group (MRG) a year later. Specifically, Humaliwalay is citing the March 2007 MRG report that lists the population breakdown as 32% Shi'a, 18% Sunni, and 16% Maronite. That very same group's June 2008 report, which the article already cites, lists the population breakdown as 28% Shi'a, 28% Sunni, and 22% Maronite - the exact same breakdown as the U.S. State Department. Again, he's trying to cite an older figure published by the same source instead of the more recent one.
3. Humaliwalay also added that "Also as per Pew estimates in year 2009 Shia community in numbers is between 1-2 million of entire Lebanese population", citing this document. This document does list that range, but the figure is needlessly vague for a country of 4 million people (other sources provide much more detailed estimates). The Pew report is discussing the breakdown of the entire world's Muslim population (i.e., 1-2 million of the billion Muslims on Earth live in Lebanon), not the Muslim population of Lebanon specifically, and it states that their figures are rough estimates. It appears that it is only being cited as a way to inflate Shi'a population estimates. ← George ^talk 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, since we're here, this is the primary sentence Humaliwalay is pushing, and the citation spam he's trying to use to support it: "As per UN estimates also supplemented by other sources,

Shi'a Community is largest Muslim sect and also the largest of all 18 sects accounting between 32% to over 40% and Sunnis between 18%-25%, Maronites around 16% of the population of Lebanon." ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} ← George ^talk

09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. MRG is a partisan NGO, though in this case its partisan nature has no impact on its capacity to report. The document in question is Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities 2007 - Lebanon, 4 March 2007, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48a9713987.html [accessed 2 October 2010]. It is mirrored but not published by UNHCR / Refworld: The Leader in Refugee Decision Support. The 2007 document is reliable for 2007 population figures according to MRGI. MRGI is an NGO with an academic component.

However, the 2007 figures of MRGI have been superceeded by later reporting. If the issue is the population proportion in 2007, use the 2007 figures. If the issue is the current figures, use the most recent source.

However, this isn't a very good source. MRGI's ambit is to protect minority rights, not to conduct ethnographic religious surveys. The identity of their 2008 figures with the US State Department's figures isn't a great sign. Treat as opinion from MRGI; and, it leaves me to wonder why MRGI's opinion would be sufficiently notable to mention.

To produce a population proportion estimate from the Pew Report, regardless of the Pew Report's quality, is OR. Don't do that.

Does Lebanon do a whole-of-population census, on what schedule, when are the results published? Is Lebanon's census authority considered to be neutral (as with Australia's) or is it considered to be partisan? Why are we relying on an NGO's figures for ethno-religious identity? [Probably because it supports one or another POV.] Fifelfoo (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon has not had an official census since 1932 because the government is based on a power-sharing scheme between the three or four largest religions, making the issue quite contentious. Most reliable sources give estimates that are within a few percentage points of each other (similar to the State Department's cited figures), but Humaliwalay is citing weaker sources (you can review all the sources he is citation spamming above) that give markedly higher Shi'a figures and lower Sunni figures - the two main branches of Islam, who hate each other pretty fervently. I'm all for assuming good faith, but given the editor's edit history and predilection for bolstering things related to the Shi'a faith, while at the same time lessening things related to the Sunni faith, it's pretty clear that they are POV-pushing. ← George ^talk 10:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much regarding the availability of official figures. As I noted using Pew is OR, due to a calculation with a one million adherent margin of error in a population of four million. Use the most recent NGO figures if you don't have anything better (but US State Department is a fairly good source), using outdated statistics isn't as reliable as using in date statistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many sources support the claim of Shia branch being the largest of Muslim sect at some places single largest sect of Lebanon like here [41] here [42] here [43] here [44] here [45] and here [46] and here [47], even Charles Winslow in his work Lebanon: War in the fragmented society supports this claim on page 289 that Shiites are the largest community with Maronites and Sunnis occupying 2nd and 3 rd spot respectively this is also supported by William Harris in his work of Faces of Lebanon. Princeton page 59-80. You may notice that sources like

Whether you take into consideration the latest findings or the older ones every study says that Shia community is the largest sect in Lebanon. Are all the sources providing vague findings in this regard?? How many of them can be denied?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouting as Reliable Sources/Notice board volunteers and not providing full citations is rude. Can you please provide full citations for items you wish us to review. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Posses some etiquette please, I am not shouting, have already provided links of all citations. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A link is not a citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress states here[48] - Shia(s) The largest Muslim sect in Lebanon. The word Shia comes from Shiat Ali, or party of Ali. Those who believed that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, should have succeeded the Prophet have come to be known as Shias. Those who thought that the successor should have been chosen by the community came to be known as Sunnis (q.v.). This dispute created the first great division in Islam. Most Lebanese Shias are Twelver Shias (also known as Imami Shias), believing that the twelfth imam (divinely appointed religious leader) is in hiding and will reappear. Shias live in West Beirut and its southern suburbs, southern Lebanon, and in parts of the Biqa Valley. Shias have tended to have less education and to be poorer than most other segments of society.

The above ones are for your perusal, I shall provide more if you require, there is absolutely no doubt about Shiites being the largest community of Lebanon. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Library of congress states _nothing_ the work you refer to as an LOC work is actually "the online versions of books previously published (1988-98) in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army." The "Federal Research Division" A Country Study: Lebanon 1989. And you're relying on the _glossary_. The glossary is unreliable. The _body_ of the country study may be reliable, but it is out of date (1989). Reliable for 1989 figures. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Globalsecurity.org is a non-expert tertiary source, "Like a library or most large databases, this website contains information of variable quality from quite diverse sources. In compiling this website, mistakes were found in peer reviewed journal articles, as well as in databases with relatively elaborate quality control mechanisms. A few of these were caught and corrected on this website, but undoubtedly others slipped through. Most likely additional transcription errors and typos have been added in some of our efforts. Furthermore, with such complex subject matter, it is not always easy to determine what is correct and what is incorrect, especially with the "experts" often disagreeing. It is not uncommon in research for two different researchers to come up with different results which lead them to different conclusions. In compiling this website, we have not tried to resolve such conflicts, but rather simply reported it all." Unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Graham E. Fuller and Rend Rahim Francke. The Arab Shia: The Forgotten Muslims. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. Is a reliable work. Your Original Research by Synthesis is isn't. Use their numbers and state that it is their opinion, don't draw conclusions from them. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
4. The WHO .pdf you linked to is incorrectly cited, please provide a full citation. Author Title Place Year. If possible a link to the entire document's title page and front matter. Showing me section 3 of an unverifiable report doesn't let me determine reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall accordingly delete the unreliable ones and post the findings of the Graham Fuller's work specifying the source, also as asked please find the complete link of EMRO's study here [51] and provide me with your feedback. Also i would appreciate your opinion about Pew Research Center's findings as very often Pew Research Center's findings with regards to demography are considered authentic. Please provide your feedback on this as well. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) and reliable.

You added 11 sources in your citation spamming of the article. How about you just link to all 11 and stop playing the strawman argument? The issue isn't whether or not Shi'a constitute the largest religious group in Lebanon. The issue is the specific percentages for each group you gave, citing a dozen sources that don't give those figures. ← George ^talk 07:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing with you, I am waiting for Fifelfoo's advice and we are on the verge of reaching consensus now. About the Percentage factor, I would not like to post same thing again and again. the statement was inclusive of two claims one of single largest group and another percentage ranging between 25 - 49 %. All sources were clubbed together at the end of that statement. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also please pay heed that I noticed after the User George accused me of being biased is that his citations are based on the findings of Youssef Chahid done in year 2005 and not 2007 which were reprinted by NOWLEBANON.COM here [52] in which it states that Shias are around 29% even less than the Sunnis. Where as the same source NOWLEBANON.COM in its latest release by its MD Hanin Ghaddar on April, 25 2010 states that Shias are demographically the largest sect of Lebanon here [53]. Nowlebanon.com does not prove to be as authentic and reliable as Pew Research Center and others which are as latest as in between 2007-2009. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no choice now but to identify your allegation as a complete lie. I have never cited nowlebanon.com, nor have I cited Youssef Chahid - any claim to the contrary should include a diff of where I cited them. I cited the U.S. State Department, which gives a figure of 28%, not 29%, and which Fifelfoo described in this very discussion as "a fairly good source". And I don't know what kind of delusion you're under that "we are on the verge of reaching consensus now", when editors at the article talk page, this noticeboard, as well as the NOR noticeboard have told you that your usage of sources constitutes original research and synthesis. ← George ^talk 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Regional Health Systems Observatory- EMRO, Health Systems Profile- Lebanon [report]. Nasr City, Egypt: WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, [Undated]. Is not published, it lacks a year of issue. Moreover, it would not be reliable for ethno-religious demography, as it is a TERTIARY source, and non-expert in the field of ethno-religious demography.

• MAPPING THE GLOBAL MUSLIM POPULATION: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population October 2009 [report]. Washington DC, USA: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009. Is reliable as an tertiary for ethno-religious demography, though the lack of a signed name and the status of Pew Forum as a think tank on policy, not as a demographic body, indicates it should be treated as non-expert. However, it is only reliable for the fact, "Lebanon's Muslim population was estimated in 2005 as 2,504,000 persons, comprising an estimated 59.3% of Lebanon's population." This estimate is sourced from "2005 World Religion Database" which ought to be consulted with preference, and may in itself be unreliable. The estimate of Shia muslims in Mapping the Global Muslim Population [report]. is "1-2 million", and lists the estimated percentage of Shia Muslims as a proportion of all Muslims as "45-55%". Producing a calculation based on comparing these numbers to other estimates of Muslim population, or to the estimated population of Lebanon would be original research. A non expert tertiary with large range figures, seek a better source than this regardless of the claim being made. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment.. I'm getting to this a few days after, but this seems like something that should be well-covered by top-tier sources. Reports from sources such as the CIA World Factbook, US State Department, BBC, and the Economist should be adequate. Sources may vary, you should include a range of several examples, but there is no need to include every possible report.

Also, about

Globalsecurity.org, the mission statement does imply that it is to some extent a tertiary source, but it does not make it an unreliable source. They have an editorial office and some reputation. But they write about sensitive military and international relations topics, and by necessity they have to rely on estimates and incomplete information. A simple "errors and omissions" disclaimer is very common in the United States and doesn't disqualify something as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to credit them with appropriate expertise if the article cited had been signed, and if it was in the area of their special interest. Ethnic demography does not seem to be within their scope. I agree about your suggestions of higher quality statistics manuals to rely upon, but would suggest strongly your exemplars are US centric, which may be problematic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be more inclined to use Globalsecurity.org for something like what kind of tanks the Lebanese army uses. That list of mine is what I'd personally look at if asked to find a figure; that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I know the Economist often runs country profiles where they'll either perform such an estimate or find a good UN report or NGO to cite. If Al-Jazeera or Agence France-Presse do similar profiles, those would be important sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to add the following content (or something very close) to the British Empire article:

This addition was based on the following sources:

• Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved September 28, 2010
• Heaven, Will (2010), The history of British India will serve David Cameron well – as long as he doesn't go on about it, The Telegraph, retrieved September 28, 2010

An argument against the sources is that these sources are not "substantial enough" as compared to the ones used in the article. Are the sources good enough for the article?

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Political speeches are not historical researches, therefore not RS. Jim101 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The shares of global income come from Angus Maddison's book, and that probably is RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, political speeches are basically personal opinion, and almost always self-serving and biased. They can only be considered reliable sources for the opinions/statements of the politicians, and even then, should not be used except from secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith is right - it should be easy to re-source it to the original Angus Maddison publication. But it's good to know political speeches cannot be RS. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They can be sometimes, not for this kind of history though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view the speech might be valid if it is expressed as an opinion held by the Indian public in a more specific article but that would seem inappropriate for the overview article you wish to use it in and insisting on it would come across to me as pointy. Regarding Maddison: from my understanding, while he exerted considerable efforts to come up with his numbers there is inherent uncertainty to many of his estimates. Still it probably does represent a scholarly approach. Lambanog (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The speech could be a source on the speech, meaning that attribution to the speaker could be used. However I understand that this doesn't seem to make sense here. The global income shares are hugely interesting, and if true, should be sourceable to WP:RS and definitely belong to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is RS notice board, not the NPOV notice board. We are not here to judge the validity of that viewpoint, we are here to determine whether the speech is suitable to support that viewpoint. Jim101 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"India's share of global income was more or less equal to that of Europe at about 23% in 1700 but it declined to 3.8% under British rule" We have to be careful aboout the context. It seems to imply that India's actual income declined, which maybe it did. But maybe it didn't, since the 'decline' is relative (a percentage). The most important thing that happened from 1700-1948 was that European and US income expanded hugely due to the industrial revolution. In other words "British rule" of India may or may not be a significant factor in India's relative decline. Indeed Britain's industrial wealth was what gave it the power to rule in the first place. One would have to compare India's share to those of similar countries that were not under British rule to make a meaningful point about the specific impact of British rule. Paul B (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute here:

The fed is a semi-private company. Private companies generally produce a very wide variety of text. For example a car maker may have one document that says "this car will make you a hit with the girls" this would obviously not be a reliable source for a psychology page about sexual attraction. But the car maker may also produce a technical document which says "the piston rings are made of titanium alloy" - this kind of document could be a reliable source in a page about piston rings... With regard the fed the situation is similar. They say things which are "technical details" and they say things which are "self-promotion". There are also a huge amount of peer-reviewed papers discussing the workings of the fed. So if there is a statement that is in dispute there should be a paper somewhere that would settle the issue.

As states at

WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context". I imagine that's true for the Fed as well. As a practical matter, I think they should default to being considered a reliable source unless there is another reliable source which conflicts. The original discussion was pretty abstract, so it may well be that Reissgo and I are in agreement and we just don't realize it yet. I'd say that facts and figures which come from the Fed should be treated as reliable. In fact, news sources and academics generally accept these numbers at face value. If we can agree on that point, then we can move on to discussing whether the Fed should be considered a reliable source of analysis or not. CRETOG8(t/c

) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that most facts and figures published by the fed should be assumed to be reliable. But it should be noted that not everything they produce will be produced to the same degree of accuracy. For example they produce educational material for children. I don't think those kinds of publications should be regarded as reliable - they may be making some simplifications for the sake of clarity. They may also produce documents for self promotion - the claims made in them which are not simply "facts and figures" may not be so reliable. Reissgo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The link to the claim that "If banks did not lend out their available funds..." does not work. It also seems that the document was produced for educational purposes - I assume that it was aimed at children. I do not believe that such a document can be considered a reliable source.

The Fed is the official central bank of the US, and should be treated as any other government agency per the reliability of its publications. Note that it is incorrect to say that the Fed is a semi-private company. The controlling parts of the Fed are pure government, specifically, the Board of Governors and the presidents of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks are all government appointees. (See Structure of the Federal Reserve System.) LK (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What age group of children is the document aimed at? Have any peer reviewed papers ever quoted from this document? I thought the whole purpose of this page was for people who are not regular editors of the page in dispute to make comments. Can we have some comments from some other editors please? Reissgo (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question is whether official documents of the Federal Reserve System are reliable sources, the answer is, in most cases yes. They are reliable sources for their organisation's own operations (although discount anything that appears to be self-promotion), for the economy of the USA, and probably also for a number of issues. Beyond that, their opinion is likely to be notable and may be quoted with attribution. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith (I presume you are a neutral, I haven't noticed you on the FRB page). Have you read the argument going on ->here? What would you say about that particular case? Reissgo (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute. So the issue is about use of the lesson notes published by Philadelphia Fed. They are marginally reliable, because they appear to be designed for high school students, and are likely to simplify, perhaps oversimplify. On the other hand they are very likely to represent a mainstream economic view. I would think that a better source could be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree... its allowable, but not the best source possible... look for a better source. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that any page the contents of which are intended for children should be ruled out, just like high school textbooks, there may be great simplifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the source and the material you wish to take from it. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a high school text book, and an official publication of the government agency targeted towards students. There is no guarantee that the former has undergone any fact checking or represents any viewpoint except those of the authors; the latter represents the official position of a government body, albeit for a more general audience. LK (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I think some high school textbooks are very thoroughly fact-checked. This can often be ascertained by looking at the publishers, and at the credentials of the authors (in the UK they might be GCE chief examiners, for example). Anyway, as Blueboar says, try and find a better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I ( 7 ) am posting this here from a discussion on the original user's talk page.

Forgery?:

Hi, It's #28 here Clicking #28 PDF link downloads it to your computer. You'll need to print, I think, to see all 9 or so unnumbered pages. I brought it to someone to look at and they confirmed. They said anyone with knowledge/experience with PDFs should probably be able to tell it's a forgery, also.

1) These federal documents are typically published in PDF format. This document appears typed up first in Word and pasted in the HTML. 2) Banner at the top is incorrect font. Symbols have been copied. 3) They don't do conjecture, just facts. Also, if this was a real report, this would be classified information and not available to the public. And so on.

This was also written on the talk page, btw, but no one has responded yet. (Another wikipedian suggested that I should bring this to the "reliable source" page. (?) If more information is needed for confirmation, please let me know and I'll be happy to do what I can. Thanks --Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have searched around and I find the same PDF on a few dozen different sites. It appears it may have originated on wikileaks. I didn't any notice any mention of the document being suspect, but of course none of these things mean that it is actually valid. Would appreciate it if a govnt doc expert could take a look. Direct link to questioned PDF [http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf here].  7  01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Eli Lake, "Federal agency warns of radicals on right" The Washington Times (Washington DC, USA) (Online) 4:45 a.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2009, pp.1-4. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ contains a discussion of the document and a PDF that the Washington Times believes was real http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf. The Washington Times's pdf does not download for me. Neither does the wnd.com link you gave. Avoid using the report, use the many many media reports of the government report. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The WND link works, the Washington Times copy did not. There's also a copy at fas.org (

Federation of Atomic Scientists ) which may be a more neutral place to use for the document, and this is what CBS linked to.[54] A quick search through news archives shows commentary on this from a few different sources: CBS, Fox News, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle, SPLC. This is the sort of thing where you'd primarily rely on the secondary sources, but you can also include a footnote to the primary report itself. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting this because, looking at the archives here, I see only two mentions of this source. In both cases, an editor involved in a conflict over the verifiability and/or notability of a specific fact disparaged thinkprogress as a non-RS; but in both cases, it seems that the specific matter was resolved on other grounds, and so thinkprogress was not further mentioned or discussed. 187.143.151.46 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, of course, their actual investigative reporting, not anything in the "wonk room" or individual blogs. 187.143.151.46 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Offord&diff=389083081&oldid=372468763] looks like too weak a source (though entertaining) for such a scurrilous insertion to a BLP. Grateful if you guys could look into it. --Dweller (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That does look like a useless source (it describes itself as "plots, rumours and conspiracy") and the event itself isn't even interesting. If the BBC reported on a pattern of violent behaviour, then that could be something but not this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes' website is not a reliable source at all. The material should be deleted, and if it isn't removed yet, I will do it. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Guido Fawkes blog has some reputation for publishing things too sensitive for most other sources, and might be usable under some limited circumstances. But not as the sole source for anything in a biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks back, I nominated Thrud the Barbarian for FA. It has passed GA without comments on sources and a previous FA did not comment on sources, but one reviewer said the sources weren't clearly reliable and SandyGeorgia closed the FA without giving me a chance to respond. Now nobody is paying any attention.

Few of the sources are mainstream, which is to be expected given the non-mainstream nature of the topic. However, as far as I can tell they all reliably verify the information in the article, particularly in the context in which they are being used. I have made my comments about the sources at the end of the archived FAC and am copying the key comments here for feedback before I renominate for FAC.

TRS2 - online version of a long running small publication review magazine (TRS, The Review Sheet) and part of the bugpowder network, formerly a comics distributor (see British_small_press_comics#The_1990s). Although in blog format, it has a long term editor in the form of Jez Higgins who commissions reviews. Indeed, the particular review being linked to was written by Jez Higgins himself. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Bulletproof Comics - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic book resource under the auspices of editor Matt Yeo who commissioned reviews. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

The Ninth Art - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic art resource with regular contributors and editorial oversight. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

2000AD Review - website is now shut down but for many years posted reviews of every 2000AD issue commissioned by editor Gavin Hanly. Although independent of 2000AD is appears it was supported by Rebellion Developments, the publishers of 2000AD. This official support combined with the editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

3dtotal - the source is an interview with Carl Critchlow and is being used to confirm facts about Carl Critchlow's inspiration, so must be a reliable source in that context.

Strike to Stun - another defunct website, but at the time provided reviews written by regular commentators under the auspices of editor Natascha Chrobok. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki - the link is to a collection of photos of Thrud miniatures, and is therefore easily confirmed as providing reliable information. In particular, the wiki is only being used to provide a date of production of an early thrud miniature and the wiki gives its source for that piece of information: it is written on the bottom of the miniature itself.

Heresy Miniatures - the source is being used for information about their own production line and must be a reliable source in that context.

Thanks for your time. GDallimore (Talk) 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Glancing at the sources, they appear reliable and appropriate for the subject matter. However, I can't comment on the FA nomination. FA may have a higher standard than 'appropriate for the subject matter'. LK (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! The FA requirement is "high quality sources". I think there's an easy argument to make that these are high quality in the context of the subject matter. GDallimore (Talk) 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then they sound generally reliable. High quality is up to FAC. The wiki one should probably be replaced with a cite to the actual miniature, with maybe a convienience link to the wiki. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on

Something to do with this and this. You might ask User:Hu12 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I sent him a message on this talk page, thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the suitability of the material, but since Hu12 is not currently active you may not get a reply. The procedure is to ask for a whitelisting at

WP:WHITELIST. Johnuniq (talk

) 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could technically be considered reliable, as it appears to be the consensus list built by a variety of editors and writers for the website. As such, it does appear to be a legitimate opinion, and it seems more comprehensive and reliable than a standard, self-published blog. Having said that, I do believe that there is a relevant debate to be had at the articles about

WP:DUE--that is, while it does appear to be a reliable source, the question is whether or not the opinion of Rhapsody editors is sufficiently important to deserve even a one sentence mention in these articles. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's something this board can determine.Qwyrxian (talk

) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick Dedina, "Essential '80s Alternative Albums" Rhapsody soundboard (blog.rhapsody.com) 24 August 2010. According to their about us, "Nick Dedina" is "Jazz Editor". The piece is essentially an Op Ed. It is unreliable for declaring what the "Essential '80s Alternative Albums". It is reliable for the opinion of Nick Dedina on this, but is Nick Dedina's opinion on 80s Alternative Albums relevant? He is an online music journalist with no greater call on the public's interest in his opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the issues of

The'FortyFive'

13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RJ here. --John (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a few articles, including Steve Hunt and Ani DiFranco have begun linking to the website www.digitaldreamdoor.com, a website which compiles Top 100 lists, mostly on music with other topics like films also covered to a lesser extent. If I remember the disclaimer on the website, it's says that the lists are compiled by the website staff with input from website readers taken into consideration. Would this be considered a reliable source? IHeardFromBob (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article; an editor has defended having a list of unverifiable

I doubt there is any consensus on it, but I know a lot of people agree with you. I take no position on it, but personally I sometimes find it over-serious to be over-worried about these things. I recently saw a reference to Battlestar Galactica deleted from the article about Mitochondrial Eve. Such left field "fun" cross referencing is not like reading Encyclopedia Brittanica, sure, but is that necessarily the aim? Is it enough to try to make sure the articles are readable and verifiable, or do we also need to exude dignity, and make articles a little dry in order to recreate the superficial signs which traditionally were a sign of quality in printed books? Anyway, I did not question the deletion, nor was I ever involved in editing that section. It just made me think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are kind of standard. Personally, I could see keeping the Acts of Violence book, the Death Scream movie and the Law and Order TV show references, as those are apparently fairly directly related to the subject. However, the material does appear to be all unsourced. That being the case, I can't think of any reason not to remove all of it until reliable sources as per

WP:RS are found to keep them. Even then, though, I would object to any of the extant except, maybe, the three I mentioned above. John Carter (talk

) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia sections in general

reliable sources for everything to be included, but that's just my take on it. --13²

20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Call the section something else like "cultural references". Write it as prose, not a list. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced and poorly sourced and

reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk

) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The list trivialized a brutal murder. Figureofnine (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of that might not actually not be OR; if the reference is literal, then the work itself would be a primary source for it being a reference. But the issue is relevance. It's one thing to show a reference from something less famous to something more famous, but not the other way around. For instance, if an episode of Spongebob had an obvious Hamlet reference, that might belong in an article about the Spongebob episode but certainly not in the article on Hamlet. Perhaps the "in popular culture" list could be moved to a page on TV Tropes, and our article could have an external link to that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is not "a list of unverifiable trivia". The data is easy to verify with googlebooks, for example. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that Michael still believes there is a consensus to keep this material on the article as he has reverted it back another two times. --John (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that all John does is whine and complain; constructive action is lacking. I have added numerous sources to the section. Surely that is the end of the matter? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the references to popular culture are trivial. They show that this murder has not been forgotten, and is still notable today. It would be possible to make the bullet points into two paragraphs: one relating to Malcolm Gladwell's work and the other to the film, TV programmes, Jahn's book and the comic.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be a mixture of questions being handled together. I understood the original question to be a sourcing question, but also specifically one concerning whether trivia sections should exist at all. (I could see a potential link because trivia sections often use different types of sources from the articles they are part of and this often leads to an impression that they are worse sourced.) It is perhaps not really the right place here to be asking whether a particular trivia section can be improved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible that Knight Templars were at one time situated at Ardchattan Priory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.72.26 (talk • contribs)

Cowan's authoritative list of Scottish religious houses has only three certain Templar houses in Scotland (Ian Cowan and David Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland, 2nd ed. (London, 1976): Balantrodoch, Carnbee and Maryculter. He lists 8 other places once argued to have Templar houses (which he rejects), none of them including Ardchattan. There was of course a Valliscaulian house there. Any attempt to claim that Ardchattan had a Templar house would need a strong post-1976 article to support this. Anyway, I think the fringe theory just has a meeting take place there, rather than a Templar house (e.g. [55]). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the RSN question here? If this person is notable, then his potentially self-serving statements can potentially be cited, if editors here choose to do so, at least as his own statements. You do not appear to be questioning that this is a reliable statement about what this person claims, or that he is notable? Your question seems to be more about how to balance the presentation of this person's own claims, and perhaps some counter claims. That is not strictly what this board is for, but it sounds like your approach might be OK. Your idea is apparently to get balance by reducing the use of one source, but I would point out that the logical alternative, which might also be possible (depends on the case) is to leave the present information, and just cite more sources. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should have made it clearer: [63] No. My idea is to use the secondary source instead of the primary source since the primary source is not a reliable source and it is violation of SELFPUB.. The wording will be slightly different but not by much.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it is a violation of SELFPUB given that you are looking for a source of this person's own claims?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster. That the founder of the Sea Shepherds denies being a terrorist seems important enough that in this case his own words are preferable. You can certainly cite the secondary source as well, but it should not be preferred. "I am not a terrorist" is not "unduly self-serving". "Unduly self-serving" refers to claims like "I am the greatest violinist in the world", not defending himself against pretty damaging accusations. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see discussion about the reliability of Seventeen September Days and Webster's Quotations Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases The sources are being used by an editor to push a Fringe Theory, which is hardly found on net except on jingoistic Pakistani forums, about a possible Naval action and sinking of 2 Indian ships by a submarine named

More information and opinions are invited regarding these points, however should these sources be considered reliable.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• As you indicate, the Webster's Quotations book cited has "[WP]" at the end of the entry on PNS Ghazi to indicate that the information came from Wikipedia (as explained on the copyright page of the book [64]). In fact, Icon Group, publisher of this Webster's Quotations, has published numerous books in which they reprint material from Wikipedia. Obviously, none of those books can be considered reliable sources for use in Wikipedia articles, and they should never be cited as such in Wikipedia. I have not looked into the reliability of the book by Aziz Beg and thus I have no opinion either way about that one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well here are the books by Aziz Beg and here is the search result for the publisher without Aziz Beg.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

He was writing from 1957 into the 1970s. I don't know how much we can deduce from the fact the publisher is associated only with his books. I can't see that he was an established writer though. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The second book is just an automated Wikipedia ripoff, so it's not reliable. The first is old and obscure; I wouldn't consider it a reliable source at this point if the material in it is not supported by any other sources. It seems an obvious case of

WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg ^(talk)

17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As others have already indicated, Websters Quotations is not a reliable source. To eliminate concerns about a fringe theory, you can ask the editor to provide additional well-known and reliable sources supporting Aziz Beg. Another alternative is to take it to

WP:FTN. From past experience, if the editor can provide 4-5 well-known sources corroborating Beg's claims then the content is deemed admissible. Zuggernaut (talk

) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I question whether use of alleged scanned letters to fans used in in this article as a

My proposed solution: just delete the article. The only coverage he appears to have received has been over his leaving Neighbours, and none of that is extensive. He even had to write his own IMDB profile from the looks of it! GDallimore (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit severe! Actor in national TV program seems notable enough. But the scanned letters are not

Wikipedia:Verifiable, they need to be published by the person himself or some kind of reputable source. If the channel would put them up on the Web, that would work. Here's a better source for the year of birth at least, a TV station. [65] --GRuban (talk

) 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that having a small, even if recurring part in an extremely long running soap opera granted someone notability, especially when there's a distinct lack of reliable sources that provide significant coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 22:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN has online summaries of each of the peacekeeping missions it has organised in the past [66]. These are accounts of how the mission was organised and what it did. How reliable do we regard these for historical narrative? I am fairly well disposed towards them but I know that some editors are more dismissive of official documents than I am. The specific case is Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, where the report on UNEF is referred to several times. Perhaps, coming from one actor in the events, it should be regarded as primary?

I've asked for more eyes on that article, which did yield helpful comment, and once again some help would be very welcome. I have a quite different interpretation of sourcing policy from one editor and I am being accused of bias. The article as it stands is quite difficult to make sense of. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, but sometimes no. What's the specific edit in question? Some qualitative assessments (say, the UN assessing what a great job the UN did) should be flagged as a UN assessment in the text. Most quantative stuff should be fine.

talk

) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought verbatim text in from Suez Crisis so that that asphect could be covered. Now I want to check that it is adequately referenced. I've argued on the talk page that the article is currently poorly referenced. This is part of what I brought in.

On 30 October, the Security Council held a meeting, at the request of the United States, when it submitted a draft resolution calling upon Israel immediately to withdraw its armed forces behind the established armistice lines. It was not adopted because of British and French vetoes. A similar draft resolution sponsored by the Soviet Union was also rejected.<ref name="UNEFbkgr">[http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html Establishment of [[UNEF]], Background] at UN.org</ref> On 31 October, also [[Protocol of Sèvres|as planned]], France and the UK launched an air attack against targets in Egypt, which was followed shortly by a landing of their troops at the northern end of the canal. Later that day, considering the grave situation created by the actions against Egypt, and with lack of unanimity among the permanent members preventing it from exercising its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council passed [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 119|Resolution 119]]; it decided to call an [[emergency special session]] of the [[United Nations General Assembly|General Assembly]] for the [[First emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly|first time]], as provided in the 1950 "Uniting for Peace" [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377|resolution]], in order to make appropriate recommendations to end the fighting.<ref name="UNEFbkgr"/>

So it's a bit of an unusual case. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's getting late, maybe i've missed something. But that seems fine. The UN is impeccably reliable for such things as votes taken at the security council (and how they broke down) and a vote scheduled at the general assembly. The only fragment of a sentence that i could imagine someone arguing with is "Later that day, considering the grave situation created by the actions against Egypt, and with lack of unanimity among the permanent members preventing it from exercising its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council passed

talk

) 00:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to the possible use of these databases as sources at the article The Jesus Dynasty, do we count NewsBank here, Gale here, ProQuest here, and/or Ebsco's NoveList here as reliable sources? John Carter (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that a databank isn't a source for anything. It's a place to find a source. The source or sources coming from the databank needs to be asserted. I suppose i'm missing something here.

talk

) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I probably forgot to say something. So far as I understand, these places have some sort of relationship with standard publications, such that they can host the old material of those publications. I guess a clearer question would be do we consider articles and other material hosted on these databanks which are indicated on the databanks as being originally from newspapers and other generally reliable sources as being sourced well enough to be used in articles? So, if one of these sources contains a reproduction of an article from, for instance, Library Journal or The Charlotte Observer, can the individual pages of these articles on the databank be used and indicated as the sources for the content used? John Carter (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can generally be assumed to be accurately reflecting the content they're hosting. Certainly in the case of newsbank and proquest. I don't know the other two, but i seriously doubt they're hosting doctored articles. They're the digital versions of a periodicals library. This says nothing, of course, about whether the hosted articles are reliable. For that, you need to examine the actual source.

talk

) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In sourcing the lead for the Popular Front of India article, an IP editor is using these three references: 1 2 3. One concern I have is that they are almost identical, which suggests that they come from a common source, perhaps something similar to the AP. The DNA article I would think to be a reliable source, but I thought it worth asking here for the opinions of others.

A related question is whether these articles can all be used as sources for a claim that the PFI is linked to Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e Taiba, and al-Qaeda. The Express India article clearly makes that connection, but the DNA and Financial Express seem vague enough on the issue to give me pause: "The Kerala Government today informed the state high court that investigators have obtained evidence regarding the connection of radical outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), which allegedly launched a brutal attack on a college lecturer in July, with Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e Taiba (Let) and al-Qaeda." There is an implication of a connection there, but is it sufficient to justify the claim of a link? To make matters more confusing, there is also an article that claims no evidence of a connection has yet been found here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For DNA see: [[67]] as it is part of a group of media outlets. Hcobb (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you regard it as reliable? My concern is that they are essentially taking whatever they find and reprinting it without editorial review. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I recently updated the page for

Such "archives" are not always reliable. The reviews and articles must be found in the original publications. I believe we've had incidences where material on such sites has been found to be fake, Photoshopped or just edited to be more favorable than the actual article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would articles on here be considered reliable? It is a very opinion based type of reporting, although I don't know if that has anything to do with its reliability. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction

A man named Lester Coleman entered a guilty plea in a perjury trial and received a sentence and a fine.

A British newspaper reported that his conviction had been overturned: "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent, Marcello Mega, The Sunday Times, 13 June 1999, Scotland News 6" It stated:

"A FORMER American intelligence officer convicted of perjury after

alleging United States complicity in the Lockerbie bombing has been

cleared by a court of appeal.

Lester Coleman, who was convicted of perjury last year, had the verdict

overturned last month. He is living with his wife and three children in

Kentucky and in the past few days has launched an action for $10m

against the American government.

Three judges issued a sealed ruling, an unusual step which means that

not even Coleman and his lawyers can read why they quashed his

conviction. Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little

attention in the United States."

I cannot find any other newspapers, American or British, that talk about his conviction being overturned.

In another thread another user said "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story."

The article does exist, because http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp is the database, and the article can be found if you input the following:

I set the search times from 1 May 1999 to 1 August 1999.

"Lockerbie" is the search term

If I do not find any other sources about this, what should I do? I want to find a database I can use to check to see if Marcello Mega is telling the truth about the overturn of Coleman's conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a glitch in the search page, you cannot go back with the "Back" button if your search fails (damned

Javascript). You first have to refresh the search page. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The conviction is a fact about a BLP subject that has very strong negative implications. The article from 1999 strongly undermines this, but is questionable in itself. If this is really the full information, then it is probably best to just state without any comment that the Sunday Times reported in 1999 that the conviction had been overturned. It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem. Hans Adler 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case I put on

User:WhisperToMe/Coleman

that the newspaper reported that this was the case.

Without any other articles saying that his conviction was overturned, I feel suspicious about the article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see more sources on this. But, as the Times article states, the court imposed

reporting restrictions on the case. It is therefore to be expected that US newspapers would not cover the story. Reporting restrictions do exist in the real world. Believe or not, I have even had my blog censored because of restrictions imposed by a Finnish court. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if every single US newspaper could not cover the story or decided not to cover the story, there are also Canadian, British, Australian, etc. etc. newspapers.

Remember that

Verifiability

, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If it cannot be verified for certain that the ruling was sealed, then we cannot say with certainty that the ruling was sealed.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, we don't have that in the United States. Here, a judge will sometimes seal records or issue a gag order on persons involved in a court case. But that doesn't prevent the press from doing their own research. It's more likely the British press was simply more interested in the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Squid: that particular Marcello Mega article said "Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little attention in the United States." - So if reporting restrictions like that do not happen in the United States, then the article is not stating the truth. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that could be just a little hyperbole resulting from viewing the American gag order through a British lens, or it could be a generalization of if something was said to one or two media outlets, or if the media had trouble getting access. I wouldn't toss out the "overturned" based on this, as that may still be accurate so we'd still be remiss to leave it out of the biography. Just attribute as "London's Sunday Times reported...." and leave out the "reporting restrictions" language. I would also suggest not using this as an example in the

reporting restrictions article as this is just a passing mention in an article about something else. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In my draft at

User:WhisperToMe/Coleman I'll take out the "reporting restrictions" bit but I will keep in the bit about overturned. I'm waiting for some resource requests from a Kentucky newspaper (Lexington Herald-Leader) to be fulfilled. Maybe this will help determine or clarify things, because the newspaper articles discuss the state charges, Coleman serving time in the federal prison system, and a few other legal issues involving the State of Kentucky's justice system. WhisperToMe (talk

) 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched a pretty large commercial news database (Factiva) without finding any mention of Coleman's perjury conviction being overturned. Actually, isn't it a bit peculiar that someone would plead guilty (as Coleman did) and then appeal against the resulting conviction? He would have to somehow prove that his plea was coerced, or something like that, wouldn't he? Zero^talk 06:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I find that peculiar too. In the USA usually people who plead guilty to a non-death penalty case do not appeal.

And in order for a conviction to be overturned, one has to appeal first. Where are the news articles saying he appealed?

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact he makes a case that he was coerced. Many reliable (per WP:RS) sources believe in his version of events. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "many" mean? I know Lester Coleman says to media sources and/or writes in his book "I was coerced" but in order for it to matter legally, he has to file an appeal. Without an appeal, he gets no possibility of an overturning.

In addition:

A user who writes at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_October_10#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction points out:

"I just want to note that there is, from a legal perspective, a HUGE difference between enjoining publication of the press (very hard to do under US law because of the First Amendment) vs. the release of court documents (something that is more common, though it is usually not the ruling that is sealed, but evidence and depositions often are). In general the US government (especially the courts and Congress, less so the Executive Branch) has lots of methods and legal recourse to keep internal secrets, but very limited powers to regulate information outside of the government. These are legally very different scenarios and should not be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)"

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither the