Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83

In 1992, Lawrence Holofcener, wrote a musical play "I Don't Live There Anymore". Is http://www.idlta.com a valid source Lotje ツ (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it looks like it is

self-published. Self-published sources aren't supposed to be used for claims about a third-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The website appears to be run by Julia Holofcener, the play's producer. It's a

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like an opinion on Dr. Robert_Elsie page on Albania : http://www.albanianhistory.net/ Background is this discussion : This edit that I dispute : [[25]] and this unfinished discussion User_talk:Mdupont#.22Good.22_source Please tell me what you think about this source, and if any what problems are with it.

see his information here Robert_Elsie.

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tricky...this is all

notable

if it can only be attributed to a website.

Key issues here: does Dr. Elsie cite his sources for what he puts on the website, or is it only from his own memory? One could assume that he is sitting at his desk with dozens of textbooks at hand writing away, but without citation we don't know that it's still a personal website. Realistically his professional achievements carry some weight, but SPS is still SPS. I looked around, but don't see any mention of peer review or editing help on his website - that means it's all on him. No matter who authored the website, it's better to err on the side of "delete" when it comes to taking one person's word for it. Even a distinguished expert such as Dr. Elsie can make errors, and if those errors are made in a book or journal there is a fact-checking editorial process in place for that reason. When he puts it on his personal website, any accidental mistake he makes would be propagated as fact on this encyclopedia, which is the whole point of WP:IRS guidelines. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, we need to unpick a bit of what is going on here. The order of events is as follows. In 1913 the Bishop of Skopje made a report to the Vatican of ill treatment of Albanians by Serbs. This source was used by "Austrian Social Democrat" Leo Freundlich in his book Albania's Golgotha, published 1913. Then in recent decades, the historian Robert Elsie has used Freudlich's work in his Kosovo: In the Heart of the Powder Keg and his Historical dictionary of Kosovo. Elsie has also translated the original letter and put it on his website alongside many other sources for Albanian history. The solution is to use Elsie's books, as suggested above, as reliable recent academic history. A link to the original letter, reliably translated and hosted on Elsie's website, can be included alongside as a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. So the solution will be to cite the book where appropiate. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that his books should be cited, not his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont have the books. please help me here. Someone is trying to remove information about the supposed war crimes. I would like some help on this. first they remove the refs, then they remove the data. There seems to be no checking or thought going into this. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now gotten pdf files from the books of him. also there is a relevant one here http://www.elsie.de/pdf/B2002GatheringClouds.pdf, THe webpage just quotes existing materials and contains References. It is a real shame what is happening here. I have requested protection of this article, there is alot of work to be done on fixing it up. But the people removing references like this must be stopped. If you look at the bottom of the page of the links they removed you will find citations and sources of the quotes. I will need time to process all these docs, please help. The factual accuracy of the wikipedia are at stake here. James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A post to the Surfin' Safari Blog, specifically Full Pass of Acid3, is being used to verify the claim that Safari passes all aspects of the

Yes, that is about it. Safari software developers post on there own blog to say there own product passes a test. The passing claim is a promotional tool for the software. I believe this is

talk

) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion below about the Google Chrome Releases blog, it looks like the Surfin' Safari Blog is also not self-published and not self-serving, but is a primary source. -- Schapel (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can self-published articles on a site such as Mexidata.info ([http://mexidata.info/id2684.html here's an example) be considered reliable, or does this run afoul of

Reliable for what statement(s) in which article(s)? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the About Us page states:

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by columnists in MexiData.info are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of MexiData.info. Please note that each author retains copyright to his/her own work. MexiData.info does not control, and is not responsible for, any third-party site to which the Web site links.

So, there's no editorial oversight, and the website disclaims responsibility for the contents. It is, in effect, a group blog; see

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is ASCAP [26] a reliable source for Lawrence Holofcener? Presumably the picture itself would be a copyvio? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what you wish to use that source for. Use of the picture there would be a violation, but I think you could use that source to say that he is a lyricist and sculptor. I do not think you could use it for much, since I believe the artists manage their own information, so it's one variant of a self-pulished source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Creation of articles from leaked classified documents → Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative

Specifically, is Business Insider reliable in terms of this publication? It's being used as a reference for the list of information, which is just a factual list. Does it matter that Business Insider is considered a "blog" in this case? Silverseren^C 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition: I'd also like to add this publication in too as a question. Would this count as a reliable source for referencing some of the items on the list? Silverseren^C 04:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As you know I'm not very neutral on this issue ;) and the Wikipedia article might exaggerate the degree to which they are cited; even so the first reference it gives^[27] is in fact a case in which the New York Times cites them - though, true, that too is a blog. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(Leading) publications, the U.S. government, cite us all the time, and that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. B.I. very well may be, I'm just saying I don't think that's a good indicator.

11

05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But do you have an opinion on whether that article would or would not be reliable? Silverseren^C 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as

reliable sources such as New York Daily News,[29] The San Francisco Chronicle,[30] Bloomburg,[31] and Reuters[32] which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fat-checking. It's been cited by as many as 377 articles[33] which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. What about this, which is an Armenian based news service? Silverseren^C 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to doubt its credentials, I'd say it's fine at least for Armenia-related matters - by its own account it is independent, written by professional journalists and has editorial oversight - see http://news.am/eng/about/. Barnabypage (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another user had questioned the validity of both of those on the talk page, which is why I brought it here. Thanks for the help, both of you. Silverseren^C 22:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• The three lede paragraphs are reliable. The body of the article is a republication without emendation of a (for wikipedia's purposes) PRIMARY source and isn't reliable. The slide show is the addition of graphical data, and appears to have undergone editorial scrutiny, but it is hard to see what it would be reliable for. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above user is highly involved, just like Wnt. Please see the side-linked discussions in order to show that. Silverseren^C 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Care to substantiate that? Or do you mean that commenting, "The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)" as an outside editor at AN/I makes me "highly involved." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any user involved in the linked discussions is highly involved. I'm trying to get the opinion of users who have had nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. We need fresh eyes on it. Silverseren^C 02:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like forum shopping and an assumption of bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping? Elonka said that she wasn't sure if the Business Insider source was reliable. If there is a dispute between two users about whether a source is reliable, you take the discussion to RSN. That's how it works. The purpose of RSN is to have users who have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion put in their opinion on whether the source is reliable or not. And i'm not assuming bad faith. We already know the opinion of everyone involved in the linked discussions. The purpose of this one is to get the opinion of outside users. Silverseren^C 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Fifelfoo's response is illuminating. Business Insider is a reliable source - except for the thing he doesn't want in the article. Does WP:RS/N even have that resolution option? The way I see it, Silverseren asked whether Business Insider is reliable and Fifelfoo's answer is a Yes vote! Wnt (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, we've done this here are RS/N Many times before when people have quoted transcluded slab quotations as if they're from the quoting work not the quoted work. We've done it before with the differentiation between scholarly introductions in source books and the sources contained in source books which remain primary sources. If the issue is the peculiar notability of a particular list, then you've got that from the various news mentions. If your aim is to transclude a primary source, your aim will always fail, wikisources is for that. You can probably use the slide show for "key sites of interest identified by the media from this list include, "x, y, z". Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So by that logic, any media source which gives an official set of vote counts for the election is copying the primary source (the local board of elections), and we shouldn't use the primary source; therefore, we should only provide secondary-sourced information like "54% Democrat 44% Republican 2% Other" in an article about the election, no matter how many secondary sources reprint the election board's results.

As for me, I think that the original source isn't really a primary source, and if it were, it would still be sufficient to source the full list, and due to the notability of the list we still can reproduce it here in full. It is true that the same can be done at Wikisource; but here we can add more value to the list by more thoroughly reworking the format (for example, by converting the list into a table). But the merit of demonstrating the publication of the table by secondary sources is to show that the list in full has been considered by a general publication's editorial process, and found to be accurate and free of various legal problems such as libel, copyright violations, or bizarre theories about classified information. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• On that note, would some more outside users please weigh in about the two sources above? Silverseren^C 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to look at this but from what has been written I can't see what is wanted to add and to what article, and without that I can't answer see the actual situation? Can someone clarify the article and the content?

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. The conflict is that users disagree that the primary source should be used as a reference for the list from said primary source. In response to that, I found this source from Business Insider that includes the list in it. I am asking whether Business Insider counts as a reliable secondary source. Silverseren^C 19:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Replacing my comment was vanished in a wiki glitch - :::I don't see any problem in this situation in using the Business Insider to source the list, we can see from the primary that its correct. It doesn't seem in itself that the complete list is actually very notable if it hasn't been republished in other reliable locations.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• It has been published in other places, it just hasn't been published in its entiriety, other than this Business Insider source. We have sources for most places, there's just a few, like some in Mexico and Canada, that haven't been really mentioned in any other secondary source. However, removing those few because of that would leave a gaping hole in the list and wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Silverseren^C 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This website has been cited as a sole reliable source in a few articles for Cornish ancestry of celebrities (search) but it is unclear why this amateur website would be considered suitable. Some independent opinions would be useful before challenging its use. Fæ (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the site seems to think that Cornwall "borders England across River Tamar to the east...", I'd suggest that it might be a little non-mainstream. Cornish separatism is of course a perfectly legitimate political viewpoint, though, so that needn't necessarily matter. As you say, it looks like an amateur website, and as such unlikely to be accepted as WP:RS, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it looks like a

self-published web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at some of the uses. Is it perhaps mainly being used as an external link rather than a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its being used as a source still on half a dozen articles and was removed from a few. It may be noted that removal of this source wasn't easy in every case. Is there any place where the source can be reported? I believe there is a list of unreliable websources somewhere on the Wikipedia (a blacklist?), but locate it right away. Aditya⁽talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What websites could i use as a reliable source on international book reviews? Simply south (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of types of books and "international" leaves a lot of space open. Can you please explain your question a bit more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. English book reviews on fictional books not by users who have read books but by organisations and famous critics. I am trying to come up with a criticism section for an articvle i am about to write. Simply south (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a reliability question, but if you Google "Book Review Index" you find Book Review Index Online (a paysite) and some similar indexes that are free. Anyway, you probably don't want to cite these indexes in your article; you probably want to quote from, or cite, some of the reviews that they list. Andrew Dalby 14:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's one you will find useful for authoritative reviews of fiction: http://www.kirkusreviews.com. Barnabypage (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried searching there and the book based on the cat does not come up. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would start by googling the book title, in quotes, +review. If nothing comes up, it means the book wasn't widely reviewed. Important works of fiction are reviewed in

Times Literary Supplement, as well as in other mainstream books and magazines. Itsmejudith (talk

) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found one in TheBookBag here but again i'm not sure if it is reliable and many others are just user reviews from general people. I'm not sure if this and this also count. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

TheBookBag looks like a

social networking site, so they're not really usable. The article from The Times is certainly fine. Have you tried checking the local newspaper of wherever this adventurous cat lived? I'd be surprised if they hadn't reviewed the book. Barnabypage (talk

) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then again i didn't notice the date of The Times review so it can't really be added to that section either (too early - the book was published in August). I think I'll accept it hasn't been reviewed widely although i am still including the book in the article for other reasons. Simply south (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It look also according to the local paper it may be turned into a movie. Simply south (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently I'm reviewing a

• The editorial page you found presents the website's editorial team and i'm pretty sure it isn't a fansite. BineMai 08:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The reason I brought this to the attention of anyone who comments is how notable the editors are, for example Sebi Răducu just turned 18 in September, I doubt he could be specialized in the subjects given.
  Nice Beaver
  ) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. We shouldn't hold the guy's youth against him, but combined with the lack of job titles, the fact that one of the team gives a Yahoo address disguised as a CNN address, and a number of other factors, I get the feel of a fansite playing at being a professional publication. I'm asking a Romanian-speaking friend to take a look and see if she can glean any more about it. In the meantime here's a list of sources that probably are reliable and could maybe be used instead: http://sport-newspaper.blogspot.com/2006/08/romanian-sport-newspapers.html. Barnabypage (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It's being used pretty strongly here, reverting a widely quoted book biography on the subject. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see absolutely nothing to suggest that it is anything other than a privately run website with no fact checking. The part called "Cornwall.University" is certainly not a part of the UK university system. It might be good as a source of information that can be properly sourced from other places but not as RS in itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Private web site, no official status so not a RS --Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Private site, not a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No details of who's behind it, and it does seem to be rather single-mindedly talking up Cornish separatist claims, both of which cast much doubt on its reliability. (To be fair I don't think it's asking us to believe that "Cornwall University" is a real university.) Barnabypage (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No indication of reliability, and indications to the contrary. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Interesting, but unreliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was asked here that "http://www.cornwallgb.com/cornwall_england_mansfield.html is a reliable source. Provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary instead of reverting". How can it be "unequivocal". I tried posting policies the the discussion on article talk page. But, it fell short of the defending editor's standards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

From reading the talk page, it seems that consenses has been reached that the website is not a reliable source. --Habap (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is disagreement over the reliability of Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems, Yefim Chernyak, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987.[34] Additional input would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me. I am going to guess that the argument against is... it's a Communist source and therefor "unreliable" (yes?) If so, that is a false argument. The fact that a published source supports a particular POV does not make it unreliable. The trick is to make the reader aware of the source's POV and to balance it with statements based on sources that support other POVs. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Progress is a widely known international publisher of professional and academic texts. Basic snippet analysis of the google books entry indicates that it is an academic volume. Given its era (1987) the work is unlikely to contain fundamental methodological flaws. However, like all academic works, it will represent a methodological and theoretical tradition. Read, classify according to the literature typography of the field, represent opinions contained within the work as scholarly opinions from the discrete literature group. As reliable as any other HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RS/N editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias in this context. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RS. Only a handful citations in the West; the Russian original edition Вековые конфликты is somewhat more widely cited by Russian scholarly sources. --JN466 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite many Russian authors have Soviet background and repeat Soviet propaganda. One has to be an expert to understand the difference between Russian nationalists, post-Soviets, independent scholars. Some writers work for FSB, Russian Army, Russian government. The Russian texts you quote are - 80 anniversary of Chernyak, Tobolsk teacher's college curriculum, a Renaissance article, nothin serious. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Any Soviet and Soviet Block book was censored, both negatively - removed parts of the text, and positively - either the whole book or parts of it were designed by political leaders. Zhukov's Diary has several versions, all of them manipulated. Brezhnyev's "deeds" were created and described by many authors, including standard WWII books. So any censored text should be described as censored and quoted with extreme caution. Many Russian authors reject Soviet texts.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. All books published in the USSR were officially censored, but for most books that involved only "negative" censorship - the censors checked for material that could be viewed as ideologically problematic or could contain some sort of sensitive security information. Relatively few books were actively "positively censored" in terms of inserting some fabricated or semi-fabricated information at the insistence of the censors or some higher level political leaders. Such "positive" censorship would only really occur for books dealing with important Soviet leaders or sometimes with some particularly sensitive ideological issues. Of course, there was always a degree of self-censorship involved, both in literary and in scholarly works. However, in post-Stalin era, particularly in the late Soviet and perestroika periods, people writing scholarly papers, even on politicized topics, generally did not engage in deliberately falsifying or misrepresenting data. Their methodological framework was often wanting and inadequate, and they had to represent their work with a particular ideological slant. But, as a general rule, they did view themselves as honest scholars engaged in pursuit of truth and they tried to exercise corresponding standards. Usually, censorship and self-censorship primarily resulted in avoiding talking about certain issues and topics that were viewed as taboo or too sensitive. E.g. in the coverage of WWII this included not talking at all about mistreatment of Soviet civilian population by the Soviet partisans operating behind the German lines; not talking about the reasons for the catastrophic start of the war for the USSR, not talking about mass rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Europe, etc. There were some exceptions, of course, where entire fields of research were so ideologically contaminated as to be completely unreliable from the modern perspective. This would apply, for example, to all Soviet-era writings about the history of CPSU, all writings on communist/marxist philosophy, "scientific communism", etc. But in many other fields, such as medieval and ancient history, much of the stuff published in Soviet times represents first-class research. Without seeing the book Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems itself, it is hard to make any judgement on its reliability (in terms of the data being presented, if not in terms of its interpretation given in the book). But the title does sound very ideological to me. If the book comes from the school of "political science", as it existed for most of the Soviet period, I would probably regard the book as too ideologically contaminated to be reliable, even though it was published just as perestroika was beginning to gather steam. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any Soviet citizen was trained since kindergarden to be Soviet, so he/she didn't need any direct control to know, what is allowed, he/she could have been the source of Soviet propaganda. However almost everything in the SU was planned rather than left to individual Communists, eg. research plans in Universities, so if you have a subject "UK imperialism", you rather don't describe UK values in your text. Any book translated into foreign language was cheched additionally. BTW, has anyone checked if the English languge text is the same like the Russian one? I agree that some fields were less ideological, the book has been quoted recently in a Russian text regarding the Renessaince. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) "honest scholars" - I don't know the SU academic world, but in a quite liberal Poland several historians worked for the political police SB. Some others wrote totally different texts after 1989. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's my concern. Books published under totalitarian regimes discussing the views of their ideological opponents can't be assumed to be free of censorship, and better sources should be available for the material in question. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh... have you read any US Sovietology? The problem isn't confined to "totalitarian" regimes, in itself a problematic and US biased theoretical construction of social ordering. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is right on target. Totalitarian regimes don't have a monopoly on dubious sources. Consider for instance the Cold War incorporation of US Information Agency (USIA) into the US government’s Psychological Operations Co-ordinating Committee, and its funding of a book publishing programme in the late 1950s at a cost of $100,000 annually. American readers were unaware that many of the supposedly independent books they were buying and reading were actually subsidised with their own tax money. When books condemning the "Red menace" did not meet commercial standards, USIA obligingly eliminated the publisher's risk by surreptitiously buying up sufficient copies to cover production costs.) (Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967, p.12.21)) .The CIA considered books to “differ from all other propaganda media, primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader's attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium." (Thomas C Sorensen, The Word War: The story of American propaganda, New York, Harper and Row, 1968, pp.69-70). Communicat (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If this [35] is a correct copy of the Saturday Evening Post article, it does not support anything that you say. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the link you've provided is not the correct link to the item I cited. However, you have helpfully provided a link to a related topic that mentions specifically the British cultural journal Encounter. As the linked article states: The editor was a fulltime CIA agent, and funding of the publication "came from the CIA, and few outside the CIA knew about it." Communicat (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Ignore citation Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967. It was included in error. The Sorensen attribution is correct. Communicat (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if there ever was a Saturday or an Evening Post on May 22, 1967, but the article Edward321 lined to is used as a reference in the article Operation Mockingbird

Quote: Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The British and American secret services, with covert British and US funding, also established an ostensibly "independent" publishing house in Munich to produce anti-Soviet literature throughout the 1950s, including books that were used to influence public opinion in America and throughout Western Europe. A certain Vladimir Porensky was employed as head of this publishing house. Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists, had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945 and then released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified US State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a "200% Nazi". (Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988 pp.224-5ff). Communicat (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You have both the date of publication and the publisher wrong for Blowback [36] Only 2 works, one by the fringe theorist Stan Winer, seem to mention Vladimir Porensky at all, the work you cite does not seem to mention Porensky at all.[37] Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (Striking own comments. Google failed me; Communicat listed correct date and publisher.[38]Apologizes to all for the error on my part.) Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, Fifelfoo's point is well taken. Reliability of a source does not imply a source is neutral in it's point of view. Fox News is a good example. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My source reference to Blowback by Christopher Simpson is completely accurate. Edward321 is badly mistaken. He may be confusing the Simpson book with a completely different work of the same title -- even though the link he provides proves that the author and title as given are accurate. I don't know what's his problem. The Simpson book Blowback as already accurately cited by me, the was published in London by George Weidenfeld & Nicolson in 1988, ISBN 0 297 79457 . I recommend it highly. A good companion piece would be Philip Knightley's The First Casualty, London: Quartet 1987, especially the section that deals with censorship and books about Korea around the McCarthy era, p.331. Communicat (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is regretable that Xx236 Nsk92 have taken it upon themselves to refactor this thread with needlessly argumentive postings that are in any event becoming TL;DR Communicat (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What is regretable in informing the redaers about the context of Soviet propaganda? The Western propaganda wasn't in any way comparable to the Soviet one, babies opposing wolves.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The evidently confused Edward321 and any other interested parties might find this Simpson page quite helpful. Communicat (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a Soviet joke - a Soviet activist answers any critics of the Soviet system with words "But you persecute Afroamericans", this reminds me your argumentation. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The terrible CIA financed a number of best Polish writers allowing Czesław Miłosz to get the Nobel prize rather than washing dishes.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Former Nazis were used in the Soviet Union and GDR [39]. So USA Nazis are wrong and the Soviet ones seem to be O.K.. BTW the Soviets murdered more civilians than the Nazis, why do you think than "NAzi" or "Fascist" is wrong And "Communist" O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of this is irrelevant. Who's propaganda fung fu is better is not the issue, even if we could determine that (and I will simply point out that in the US, I would expect propaganda to be more subtle than that in under the average totalitarian regime, and thus that much harder to spot and that more dangerous), as is whose nazis were worse. Seems to me that there's not a RS issue here, but rather matters of due weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The propaganda was only a part of the cold war, the Soviets had a better ideology, were more crazy to risk a WW to control the whole world. But Western jeans and washing powders won, at least in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yefim Chernyak was a Soviet victim himself, never free, survived several waves of terror and WWII. Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some reservations about this book as HQRS but at minimum it seems fine as POV source. Schneierson appears to be a prominent author[40] though some of his citations seem a bit spammy (getcited.org, sheesh). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very troubled as I review Communicat's statements above - in particular the ones from 16:04, 3 December 2010 and 12:33, 5 December 2010. Communicat appears to have taken his argument directly from Stan Winer's Between the Lies. Check pages 131 & 132 of and what Communicat wrote on 3 December. These three searches show it: "American readers were unaware" [41], "cover production costs" [42], and "unmatched by the impact" [43]. He changed the sentence order and a few words at the beginning of the first sentence, but it is a direct quote. I don't think it's a violation of copyright since it's just on a talk page, but it is disturbing. Note the "p.12.21" at the end of Communicat's citation for the Saturday Evening Post article. In Winer's book, it is footnote 21 and page 12 falls within the actually article's page numbers.

On 5 December, again he lifts almost directly from Winer [44]. Winer, page 131-132

Using the talents of former Nazi collaborationists, the CIA employed as the head of its Munich publishing house one Vladimir Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists who had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945. Porensky had been released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a "200% Nazi".

From Communicat,

A certain Vladimir Porensky was employed as head of this publishing house. Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists, had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945 and then released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified US State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a "200% Nazi".

I don't know if posting nearly verbatim quotes without attribution on a talk page constitutes a copyright violation, but I think it might at least constitute plagiarism. --Habap (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As I comb through Communicat's contributions to the article itself, I'm finding loads of direct cut-and-paste from Winer. From page 110, this is awfully familiar:

In China the Western crusade against national self determination followed suit. The Commanding General of US Forces, General Albert C Wedemeyer noted that the post-war disarming of Japanese troops by the Chinese failed "to move smoothly" because fully armed Japanese forces were being employed to fight Mao Tse Tung's Chinese communists. In Truman's words: "If we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison ..."

We're going to have to check everything in the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles to make sure we're not infringing on Between the Lies. --Habap (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the original source being discussed Efim Cherniak's Ambient Conflicts, Communicat plagiarized Cherniak in the Aftermath article [45], found here [46] (to get the best look at the duplicate text, enter 'in directive 432/D' in the box). --Habap (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties please note:

In response to the above postings by Habap and Edward321, I would point out the texts refered to by them, were contributed by me were in early stages of iteration. I was in the process of copy editing, (viz., paraphrasing, reworking etc, to bring the texts in line with rules concerning plagiarism), when I was suddenly and unexpectedly blocked for a couple of weeks for accidentally misspelling the username of one editor. The blocking effectively prevented me from fixing the texts in question. I suggest the concerns expressed by the two World War II editors above arises more from subjective political objections to the content than it does from any copyright infringement or plagiarism. Interested parties might care to take this into account in evaluating the substance of this thread. Communicat (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposing we accept all that (I don't), how do you explain that you twice, in this thread, used Winer's words as though they were your own?

You mis-spelled Nick-D as Dick-D when you apparent feelings were ones of antipathy and you'd already been banned for personal attacks. I don't think you'll get any sympathy for your supposed accidental mis-spelling. --Habap (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This secondary source, (History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems by Yefim Chernyak), explores the sociological features and dominant ideologies of both sides of the cold war. It was written in the

USSR

during the cold war. As such, it would inevitably have been written, and published, in an atmosphere of academic fear and coercion. Is there really any question that such a text is not reliable?

Claims that we should assume the reliability of sociological and ideological texts published in the USSR during the cold war are very disturbing. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims that we should assume the reliability of sociological and ideological texts published anywhere during the cold war are very disturbing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would express this with the following maxim: Truth and thermonuclear weapons cannot co-exist.

The assumption that Soviet sources, particularly sources from 1987, are somehow less reliable than their contemporaries from the US is against the core Wikipedia policy of

WP:neutral point-of-view. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The question of reliability was in regards to a statement by American Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew. If the statement by Grew were the only source of the quote, you'd have to consider the source. Bias exists on all sides, it's a matter of weighing it. Fortunately, further research has shown that Grew did make the statement. Historians do that kind of evaluation all the time and it's why it's best to have multiple sources from multiple POVs, rather than just one with a single POV. --Habap (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may further note: As regards the remarks of one party above re copyright etc, I have the express permission of Stan Winer the author/copyright holder of the book Between the Lies (2004 edn), to use material from the book either with or without attribution. That written permission of the copyright holder is sufficient to protect me against any claims or copyright violation in the generally accepted meaning of the term. As a comparative newcomer, however, I was quite unaware that wikipedia had its own particular rules about such things. Communicat (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You took what Winer wrote and re-arranged the sentences to use them as though you had written them as comments on THIS talk page. At the very least, it's plagiarism. When you completed the Master's degree listed on your user page, could you have submitted any of this cut-and-paste of someone else's writing as your own work? Wikipedia doesn't have it's own particular rules about what constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism is submitting someone else's writing as though it is your own. --Habap (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

UM... the rules about plagiarism don't really apply to policy/guideline talk pages (or talk pages in general)... they apply to what goes into an actual article. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Google Chrome Releases blog contains the official release notes for the Google Chrome browser. These release notes do not appear to be published by Google anywhere else except this blog. The release notes from January 2010 are used to verify the claim that Chrome passes the Acid3 test in the

Google lists "Google Chrome Releases" as an official company blog here (7th down in the list) Barte (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. It's a self-published source that is only reliable for the claims of it's author. IOW, you cannot cite it to say, "Chrome passes the Acid3 test. You can, however, cite it to say, "Chrome passes the Acid3 test according to Google. In general, you should avoid citing self-published sources. In general, if the information should be included in an article, then other third-party sources will have published it. AQFK (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bit of both. It's an official Google blog--listed as a press resource by the company. It would have been helpful in this context if Google had been clearer on the blog itself. But the link from the Google Press Center is hard to argue with.Barte (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a self-published source which is only reliable for the opinions of its author. Take with that what you will. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it a self-published source? My understanding is that a self-published source involves an individual who serves as both publisher and author. If I write a book and publish it myself, my book is a self-published source. If an editor at Newsweek writes an article and Newsweek publishes the article, the author and publisher are different entities, so the article is not a self-published source. -- Schapel (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's walk through this. On Google's Press Center page, Google--the company--offers a Google Blog Directory. The introduction to said directory says:

"Whether it's a product or feature launch or a cool new initiative, chances are that you'll read about most news from Google on one of our blogs. We started blogging in May of 2004 and now have a network of company blogs that cover topics as diverse as our renewable energy policies, product updates, developer challenges and code snippets, and information for advertisers and partners." (Italics mine).

Seventh on the list in the Google Blog Directory is the blog in qustion. Now, you can maintain if you like that this is still a self-published blog. But please explain what this self-published blog is doing in the Google Blog Directory, which lists a network of company blogs. Barte (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that self-published applies to organizations as well as individuals. Even if it doesn't, it should still have in-text attribution because it's not independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So an article by a NewsWeek employee published in the printed magazine NewsWeek is an article self-published by NewsWeek? -- Schapel (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the distinction is whether the decision to publish belongs to the author or the publisher. In the case of Newsweek, the reporter must submit his article to an editor who reviews the article and require (or ask for) changes or can decline to publish it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So whether a particular blog post is a self-published source may depend on whether the author was able to publish it without editorial oversight, or if the author had to get editorial review and approval before the post is published? In this case, we would need to determine if the release notes are reviewed and approved before being published. My experience as a software developer would lead me to believe that the release notes for Google Chrome would be checked and reviewed before being published, but how can we be sure? -- Schapel (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes a distinction between self-published sources and primary sources. The former are literally self-published by individuals--see

Yes, I have read these policies and guidelines and have come to the same conclusion. I was asked to discuss the matter here because others disagree and claim that these blogs are self-published and unreliable. I hope this clarifies the issue with F/OSS blogs. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Barte, for clarity are you suggesting this is not self-serving as Schapel has claimed? I can see the reasoning for it being considered

talk

) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The question at the top was whether the source was SPS. When I look at

WP:PRIMARY guidelines, including the simple, declarative claim that Chrome passed the Acid3 test. If that assertion were ever disputed by another notable source, we should then cover the controversy and cite both.Barte (talk

) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Many sources that are poor for most things can at least be considered as reliable or "expert" for information about themselves. Whether that is mentioned in the SPS sub-section or not I do not recall, but it is covered within policy in various places. What we would not use such a source for though would be anything self serving, or anything about living third parties.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Chrome passed the Acid3 test" seems to me a simple statement of fact.

"Chrome passed the Acid3 test, making Google a leader in Web standards compliance"--on the other hand, seems more like the kind of self-serving assertion we are concerned about. Just to be clear, I think the guidelines allow us to trust a primary source on the former, but not the latter. Barte (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The question at the top should be whether this(Google's blog for a Google Chrome product) is a reliable source or not. This is the reliable source noticeboard after all. I don't see a statement of "Chrome passed the Acid3 test" as anything but a promotional claim but whatever consensus is, is. Why isn't anyone else reporting the Google Chrome assertion, and thus giving a clear reliable source? Regards,

talk

) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A few bloggers have picked it up. They haven't referenced the Google blog; rather they just run the test and run screenshots showing that Chrome has passed. SunCreator: would you agree that the Google blog is at least reliable enough to cite it with an in-text, "according to" reference? Barte (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"according to" would be great. When things are in prose with a context it's easy to use like this. However the article use of this information is in a yes/no type check-box list where an explanation to the reader is not available. Regards,

talk

) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The blogging reference doesn't contain the information it's just says it scores 100. A common mistake and a sadly re-occurring one with the articles contents. To pass Acid 3 test a browser has to both score 100 AND pass a performance test. Regards,

talk

) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the Web Standards Project would have been the obvious place for an official announcement. But the site hasn't posted (that I can see, at least) anything on Acid3 since 2008. If a browser passes, who but the manufacturer is left to declare it? Barte (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The official Chrome 4.0 Release Notes from the Google Chrome Releases blog states Full ACID3 pass, not just that Chrome scores 100/100. Other sources have said the same thing, although their source seems to be these same release notes. I would think if Chrome in fact didn't pass, that would have been covered by someone. What else is there to say when the release notes say it, and it seems to be true? -- Schapel (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

One would expected the abundance of technical press appearing in Google News to have covered it. Regards,

talk

) 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Covered it perhaps--but who would have announced the news in the first place? For example, Opera (I believe) is the poster child for Acid compliance. But who first raised brought that to the attention of the world...WSP? Or was it Opera, itself? And if Opera did it via a press release or blog, would that have been a legit primary source? I think it would have, even though both venues are inherently self-serving. Barte (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed, FWIW, the Opera Wikipedia entry covering that browser's Acid3 results cites a TechBlog post which is a straight lift of Opera Software's marketing materials for the browser as a whole. That's doesn't make it a good cite, of course, but I think the point is the same: it's hard to imagine Opera Software, or Google, putting out false info on something so widely scrutinized. My vote (in case this wasn't clear) is to treat the blog as a reliable primary source.Barte (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, as your previous link the techspot source does not say it passed the performance test, it only says it scored 100. It's of no use as a performance reference. Regards,

talk

) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who would have announced the news in the first place? Any of the technical press. The browser test http://acid3.acidtests.org/ is publically available to everyone. Regards,

talk

) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have recently come into a dissagreement with a different editor regarding a-ha's recordsales. I understand that youtube videos are in general not considered a reliable source due to the possibility of editing etc. However the video in question is an official recordlabel promo video released in conjunction with a-ha's latest album release back in 2009 and is genuine. The video was given an official release and used on TV campaigns acrosss Europe and in various languages. I understand that information that recordlabels release might be considered unormally favourable to the artists that they promote ( as with all artists ) , but still are other media outlets and various certifications more reliable ? As I understand sales are only certified if the artist / label asks for it and are not nesseserely uppdated. Furthermore recordsales are in general difficult to handle as there can be various ways of counting recordsales from country to country and period of sales / certification. a-ha is a Norwegian band and sources are not nesseserely as readily available as for artists from English speaking countries. They have especially large fanbases in Europe, Asia and South America. Because of all these issues, I feel that this offical video should be regarded as a reliable source as anything else. Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4WOhWdXp8s&feature=related

The video can be traced back to Universal Germany's official youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/pop24#p/u/77/Wcd5ZkQS3dY Both English and German versions are here. Your feedback is welcome Mortyman (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the video should be treated any differently to a statement on the record company's website. It is perfectly okay to cite from YouTube if no copyrighted content is linked to and there is no serious reason to question the authenticity of the content. However, I'm not sure that the record company can be considered an RS in respect of claims relating to artists on its roster. This source: [47] says 36 million. Is that a figure you would be happy to go with? --FormerIP (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, most YouTube videos are someone's copyright, the question is whether the video was uploaded with the copyright owner's permission. Home movies, cell phone videos, and commercial works are all protected by copyright, at least in most countries where YouTube has servers - anything that is "created" is protected (which includes almost everything). I think you mean as long as the linked content does not infringe upon copyright without the owner's permission.

The person who uploaded the video (chrisf300uk) looks like a fan, not someone officially linked to the studio. The video in question looks like a commercial work so it appears as though the video is infringing on the copyright of whoever produced it. This is a complex legal question we can't answer, but the copyright status is questionable. Whether the copyright owner has filed, or ever will file a complaint is irrelevant. A cursory glance suggests this is not a legitimate outlet for that video, so I'd say don't use that as a source unless you can find something that demonstrates it was uploaded with the owner's permission.

If you can find a copy of the video that was officially uploaded by the studio or band, then I think it would be okay. I checked their website and couldn't find it, but maybe it's somewhere else. When it's obtained from a random person like this, there's no way to guarantee a fact-checking process which is the essence of a reliable source. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for your replies. As mentioned above:

The video can be traced back to Universal Germany's official youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/pop24#p/u/77/Wcd5ZkQS3dY

Both English and German versions are here.

So the video on this site is upploaded by the label. The 36 million figure is albums only. It is not total sales including singles, EP's etc Mortyman (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I must disagree there, I think Universal Germany's official website is www.universal-music.de and there's no mention of either the YouTube channel in question or the pop24 website. I'm not fluent in German so maybe someone else would have more luck finding it. The pop24 site appears to be a German-language e-zine for pop music fans, but I don't think they originally produced the video in question. They may have uploaded it without permission or produced it themselves from unlicensed video clips, but studios generally don't enforce copyright when it comes to trailers (and thus are unlikely to fact-check one produced by a third party). Their website does link to Universal Music, but that doesn't mean there is official affiliation. If there is evidence that they are affiliated (other than a claim they make on their YouTube channel which we can't confirm), it needs to be presented to demonstrate reliability. Otherwise, cite a version of the video in question that was uploaded with the copyright owner's permission so that we have some guarantee of an editorial process.

There's nothing wrong with using a video from YouTube as such, but it must be subject to the same reliability constraints as any other source. In short, there is no guarantee of fact-checking for

verification when it comes to this source. 96.228.129.69 (talk

) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is no reason to suppose that the trailer is not legally hosted (even if it wasn't, we could still use it as a source provided there is no reason to doubt its basic authenticity and we were able to give citation details without linking to it). The only issue, AFAICT, is whether record company promo puff is a suitable RS for sales data, which I don't think it is because of the possibility that it may be self-serving (see

WP:BLPSPS). That's probably an issue that has been discussed previously, if anyone cares to do the research. --FormerIP (talk

) 01:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to suppose that it is, or is not, legally hosted. The user Mortyman appears mistaken in thinking that it was the official YouTube channel for

good-faith

effort to research this and find a credible link between the two but could not. The channel in question is for a pop music e-zine as I said above, and without significant coverage or an open editorial process (I found evidence of neither). If he'd like to find an alternative source for this video, that would be a separate discussion.

Any video uploaded to YouTube can be altered, even if the original came from a viable source. The spirit of the rule is that Wikipedia needs some sort of reasonable guarantee that any fact stated in the source has been checked. A company's claim regarding its own record sales could be usable in a crunch, but undesirable as a primary source; it would serve until such time as a reliable secondary source is found. Specifics about the claim being self-serving and other concerns about the appropriateness of the source need to happen on that article's talk page.

(Also, I don't think

groups are not generally included. If the information is potentially harmful to a member of the group, some caution would be warranted. I'm just assuming this is for the A-ha article but the user didn't say.) 96.228.129.69 (talk

) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether the video is hosted on the official channel of the record label (it clearly isn't) is not really relevant. A pop music ezine is capable of being a reliable source, including its video content. I think you're misunderstanding regarding about "Legal persons and groups", 96.228.129.69 - this is not a reference to pop groups and they will be covered by BLP provided the members are still living. The only issue here is whether the material may be "self-serving" or not, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While an e-zine could be a reliable source, it needs to show an open editorial process like any other source. Generally

tabloids

(print or online) are not considered reliable - while they are in fact publications, that doesn't make them reliable until they establish a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Same thing applies to a pop music mag like pop24. Let's assume pop24 produced the video - have they received significant coverage to demonstrate them as a reputable source? If so, then it could be considered, but that has not yet been demonstrated adequately. If pop24 did not produce the video, then it absolutely should not be considered as reliable source until a legitimate official outlet for the video can be located.

Without seeing anything further, the call on this video needs to be no. If the editor that added the source can provide more info along the lines I've explained, then maybe it could be used.

(From

BLP regarding groups: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis". That's a discussion for BLPN, not here.) 96.228.129.69 (talk

) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally went over a-ha's available certified sales (which can be found at a-ha's discussion page here) just to see if their certified sales are anywhere close to 70 million, and based on my research the 70 million which appears in the footage uploaded to You Tube is outright inflated. The certified sales from the larger, medium and some smaller markets should cover 70% of the actual sales and a-ha's certified sales which comes up to some 12 million suggest that their actual sales could not even reach the 50 million mark, let alone 70 million. I don't think the video could and should be viewed as reliable as anyone could record anything from TV and then add sales figures to it and then upload the altered version to You Tube.--Harout72 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The current source on the article from The Norway Post is more reliable and credible than a video trailer. Also there is evidence, like the certifications posted on the talk page by Harout, and other sources such as this Daily Mail article, to say they have sold even less than the 51m records quoted on The Norway Post article. Mattg82 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of users are insisting on using this map from 1861 by a French cartographer in

Wikipedia presents historical facts as well as current things, so why would an out-dated map only be useful for POV pushing? If it is being used as an historical map in a correct way I would not think that is what most people think of as POV pushing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, look at where it is used: The Gallery section of

talk

) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like in that gallery section it is being described correctly according to you? Anyway, this seems does not seem like a subject for this noticeboard, but more a question of due weighting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I will move this to WP:CCN.

talk

) 07:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Moved from Wikipedia:Help desk)

Is this a reliable source for this article? I'm trying to improve the article's referencing, since it's currently a Good article candidate. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gary B. Speck does not appear to be accountable to any editorial process. Unless it can be shown that he is, this is not a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it helps, Speck wrote Dust in the Wind: A Guide to American Ghost Towns (see here). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if the information on a website appears to be written by one of the most well-respected authors in his/her field, it is still self-published. There are cases where such materials can be acceptable when alternatives cannot be found, but it needs to show editorial process. In this case, he simply lists himself as author with his own e-mail address. Maybe there is an editorial board reviewing this website - could you research this? At the bottom it says "This was our GHOST TOWN OF THE MONTH for February 2000," so who is included in that pronoun "our"? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Our" probably refers to the website that it's on: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gtusa/index.htm I couldn't find a website reviewing Speck's article. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If Speck were an established expert on ghost towns I'd say the site is something we could potentially use. However, the book you mention was published by "White's Electorics",[50] which is an electronics company that makes metal detectors and also evidently happens to publish books, mostly on metal detecting.[51] I don't think publishing with them really establishes Speck as an authority, unless others are citing the work... does he have any other publications?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Speck also wrote Ghost Towns: Yesterday and Today (link). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still an unedited website. Who he is is not really that important, there's no fact-checking process for anything he writes on his website (that we know of). If he described an editorial process for his website then it would be different, but right now all reliability hinges on the author's own ability to write every fact accurately with no oversight. This is akin to assuming he is incapable of making an error which is too much to ask of any author. This is not just policy but the spirit of the rule as well; no editorial process generally means no reliability.96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say, allow it. "Who" is the crux of the matter, if he's been published before on the subject, he's likely to meet the requirements of an expert under SPS. He's the author of at least two books on the subject, that should do it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just writing the books isn't sufficient in and of itself; that first book listed here is essentially self-published as well, as it was put out not by a normal publisher, but by a company that makes metal detectors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not self-published; it doesn't matter what the business model of the publisher is, as long as they're not controlled by the author. That's not uncommon in some niche/hobby topics. Anyway, Worldcat says he wrote three books, there's that, there's one about the license plate collecting hobby that does appear to be self-published, and the other book about ghost towns is published by Westside Publishing out of Lincolnwood IL, and a little searching shows they publish a variety of different book series for a popular audience. So, two of those books count as being published, and on the subject of ghost towns. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant that it still fails per our guidelines, not that the author actually paid to self-publish the book. We do have to consider whether the publisher has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the case of the one book, I don't see that it does; the publisher is a metal detector company. I don't know about the other book, but it seems to me that there are probably better sources out there than this website.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Worldcat shows that both of the "ghost cities" books are held by some public and university libraries, so there is some reputation for them as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about

policy

. It still must be held to the same question as any source used for encyclopedic purposes: Is there a reliable editorial process in place? If the answer is either "no" or uncertain, then it's not reliable, and the simple fact that it is SPS doesn't "trump" that fundamental issue.

For the case of this website (and so many others) we have no guarantee or even any indication that the information was checked by anyone other than the person who wrote it. It may be a very good website, the author may be extremely well-respected, there may be a half-dozen Pulitzers weighing down papers on his desk...but if no one else read the info before it was published, then it's not usable here. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite right. The matter really does hinge on the author's qualifications, not on whether someone else has happened to check over the web page. If it could be established that Speck was an established authority on ghost towns, we could potentially use web sites and other self-published material by him based on that. Such a source isn't immediately disqualified simply because we don't know if anyone read it beforehand, though that may be a factor in the decision of whether or not to use it. In this case, though, the bigger issue is whether the author is an authority on the topic. I don't think it's been established that he is, so I would recommend avoiding his website.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent). No, according to policy, self-published sources are allowed under certain circumstances. It doesn't matter that the information hasn't been reviewed by anybody else; that's what being self-published is. If it was reviewed by editors, then it would be a published secondary source. Policy has already been satisfied. It's up to a consensus of the editors working on the page to decide whether and how to use it as a source. Now, I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourself of this web page as a source, as long as the citation explains who wrote it, and a supplemental footnote explaining that this is the author of the two Ghost Cities books may be in order. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif (talk

) 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/14/350794/tough-choices-world-air-forces-directory-2010.html Download your free copy of the World Air Forces directory, including global fleet analysis by Flightglobal Insight

RS? Enough of an RS to go marching through the articles and "correcting" numbers of aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. It's published by Reed, a highly respectable business/technical publisher, and bears the imprimatur of Flight International, which is surely a reliable source if ever there was one. See http://www.flightglobal.com/staticpages/aboutus.html - Flightglobal.com is the website of Flight International, Airline Business, ACAS, Air Transport Intelligence (ATI), The Flight Collection and much more. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a RS and checks out with other RS. An IP account (which I suspect was linked to the company) spammed its contents into Wikipedia's articles on air forces a few months ago, and the information was actually very useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it meets the requirements for a

WP:RS, particularly in this topical area. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a minor edit war at Cyrus Cylinder, part of which concerns whether this source [53] can be used [54]. I can find various mentions in other scholarly works of Lenderinq,

eg [55] [56] and [57]. I think Lendering can be used for this but I'd like other comments. Thanks.

Thank you for bringing up this issue, DougWeller, it was the right thing to do:

For the record and for the benefit of other editors. Here is one excerpt from the talk page on Cyrus Cylinder:

DougWeller, there is no 'edit war' occurring and the Lendering issue is being dealt with appropriately.

Regarding the issue of 'edit war'...as the record on my talk page indicates:

You've hit WP:3RR. Maybe you should self-revert that edit and take your concerns to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"I count 3 reversions of various text in the last 24 hours. No violation yet, just don't do it again and I do suggest you self-revert on your Lendering complaint - discuss, don't just revert. I've raised it at WP:RSN. What do you mean how do you send messages to people? I'm going out now walking the dogs so won't be able to answer quickly. You aren't in any trouble right now. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"

"I only count 2 in the last 24 hours, FWIW. Swarm X 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"

As well as the record on your talk page:

::Please see my response to comment on 3RR on talk page. I don't see a violation and I've requested Swarm for assistance: User_talk:Swarm GoetheFromm (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you had violated it, I said you'd reached it. I'd also appreciate it if when you quote me on other talk pages you'd inform me that you've quoted me. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)''

So, this issue is not becoming an edit war, as you claim it to be.

Next,

With regards to 'Lendering' as a source, I refer you to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The Lendering source is a self-published online source. The source itself contains very little in-text citations (especially in relation to the reason why it is being cited) and seems to be more of a reflection of the author's opinions.

Doug, as your extensive edit and talk page history indicates

User_talk:Dougweller Special:Contributions/Dougweller

, you've been involved in this issue before, so I'd like to extend a friendly reminder that you, yourself, might be complicit in promoting an 'edit war.'

Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GoetheFromm (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The site says that almost all articles are by Lendering, so I guess this is indeed self published. According to our policy pages, the question therefore turns to whether he is a published recognized expert in this field. He certainly does appear to be a published "expert", in Dutch, but with serious publishers. On the about page it says that "Livius is a website on ancient history written and maintained since 1996 by the Dutch historian Jona Lendering. [...] He is the author of several books, all in Dutch; some other bits and pieces can be found here. For the Livius website, which was awarded the "Oikos publieksprijs" by the Dutch classicists in 2010, he collaborates closely with Bill Thayer of LacusCurtius." The prize seems quite real, confirmed on multiple Dutch language sources, but I don't see his articles and books being widely at first sight (but I note Doug's link above). I think it is also worth remarking that the format is not a normal blog, but clearly more carefully constructed. I'd say it is usable at least for non-contentious things. For example if there are highly controversial "

WP:REDFLAG" things being cited, I guess some more debate might be expected. Is there anything "redflag"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that he should be used judiciously, but I'd probably say that about a lot of reliable sources. GeotheFromm, the minor edit warring I was referring to is taking place, you can see it in the article's history - Lendering, which paragraph should come before another one, etc. That often happens, and a discussion about that is not really appropriate here and perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it, but I wasn't thinking of your 3RR at the time, which is a separate issue and doesn't belong here. I've replied to that on the article talk page where you brought it from your talk page - but it really should stay on your talk page. Oops, I did forget to sign.

talk

) 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm assuming that this is you directly, above. You forgot to sign...GoetheFromm (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on Wikipedia about this author at Jona Lendering. Judging from the discussion page Talk:Jona Lendering, there seems to be a campaign against him by some Iranians who object to his historical research. Some Googling reveals that there is even a petition against him by Iranians (can't link to it, search for "lendering petition") and an article by an Iranian publication [58] complaining about his work on the history of Cyrus the Great (relating to the Cyrus Cylinder). However, the Wikipedia page that GoetheFromm refers us to says specifically "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I see that GoetheFromm has been advocating at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence#Declaration of Independence as Object of Propaganda (New Section?) to label the US Declaration of Independence as a "propaganda text" on the basis that the Cyrus Cylinder is called a propaganda text by, among others, the British Museum. I think this is more about politics than sourcing problems. -- Prioryman (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Prioryman, I'm not sure why bringing my proposal for a new section on Declaration of Independence has to with Lendering as a source. You argument seems disjointed to me. But if it helps you, it is no secret that I will be suggesting a "propaganda section" for every article related to proclamations and documents related to human rights and allow the discussions to develop a general consensus for an eventual to add the section or not. I think that the discussion is very useful and addresses many points at one time (you will see that the Declaration page is addressing the propoganda question since it was brought up).

Also, Prioryman, the question presented by DougWeller on this noticeboard is whether Lendering's online source is credible. Are you trying to disprove Lendering's credibility by stating that there are those (via petition, a publication, on wikipedia, etc) )who object to the credibility of the works that otherwise make him unuseful? I highly doubt it. So, please provide your rationale for bringing it up.

And exactly, let's keep politics out of it and focus on the question at hand: reliability of Lendering as source. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller has provided clear evidence that Lendering is a notable and cited historian. The Wikipedia policy page that you yourself referred us to says that self-published works by experts in the relevant field can be used. There is no dispute, as far as I'm aware, over the accuracy of the information for which Lendering is cited (i.e. the fact that people have circulated a falsified translation of the Cyrus Cylinder), so it is not contentious. It is highly relevant that there appears to be an online hate campaign by Iranian nationalists against Lendering; his article's discussion page shows that he is being targeted here on Wikipedia. Frankly, it is hard to see the objections to using Lendering as a source as being anything other than politically motivated. As for your campaign over the US DoI, there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between the DoI and the Cyrus Cylinder (which wasn't even discovered until 100 years after the DoI was written). Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lendering is certainly a respected scholar, but his website is self-published and offers very few references (as he himself admits, though I don't understand the reason he gives). On a controversial issue, as this surely is, we would do better not to treat him as a reliable source unless he gives adequate citations to justify his view. In this case he doesn't give adequate citations. I wrote this much before reading Prioryman's comment above: I would just add that to say the translation is "falsified" is bound to be contentious if some are still relying on that translation, which seems to be the case. Andrew Dalby 12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your last sentence. There is a false/fake translation out there, eg if you search this book [59] for cylinder, you will find it translated "down on or insult them as long as 1 am alive. From now on, till Ahuramazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign." This substitution of Ahuramazda for Marduk is simply wrong. Lendering is pointing this out. I'm not clear what is controversial about this. I don't think you will find any scholars suggesting that it says Ahuramazda.

talk

) 15:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's wrong, and I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear. You make my point better than I did. We aren't here to talk about what's right and wrong. That author (like some other recent authors) relies on the fake translation; simply for that reason, to say that's it's fake is contentious. Because it's contentious, we need documented, reliable references about the issue. A web page that isn't documented is not our ideal reference. Andrew Dalby 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like point out that Lendering, as per his wikipedia page, holds a masters, which doesn't necessarily make him an less reliable, but does help. After all, masters level work certainly isn't as rigorous as a doctrate.

But anyway, I think the contention for using Lendering as a source doesn't lie in the issue of the existence of a fake translation (I'm sure that there a many fake translation about many ancient artifacts), but rather his unsupported assertions that the fake translation is related to Pahlavi, propaganda. That entire section is speculative, contentious, and unsupported. GoetheFromm (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lendering qualifies as an expert source. This website can be used in the narrow manner laid out in

In Unite Against Fascism the Times and IBTimes have been offered for the label of "left wing" for the organization. [60] TimesOnline 10 Aug 2009 "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism " and [61] IBTimes 19 Nov 2010 "the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter)". were offered for the claim. Are they RS for such a claim? Collect (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times and IBTimes are certainly reliable sources. The sources are news stories, not editorials. The description as "left wing" is made in passing and cannot be characterized as any kind of reasoned in-depth analysis. But, when are convenient labels ever supported by reasoned in-depth analysis? All that being said, I don't see any problem with the sources being used in the manner thay are being used in the article.216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

They are certainly RS for this. They views on the political leanings of protest groups and parties are considerd RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case, might a disinterested admin examine the edit war going on to remove the RS sourced claim? I think one editor has broached reasonable revert levels by a goodly bit. Collect (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No challenge to The Times being a reliable source (and that has only been presented today for the first time by the way). The IBT has been challenged in this respect on the talk page. The issue is one of

WP:WEIGHT and the refusal of Collect and others to engage in discussion. In particular its difficult for one casual reference in a news story to overcome the support for UAF by the leader of the leading RIGHT WING party in the UK. There has been a long term edit war to label UAF as left wing. Recently this has been a concerted effort by a small group of editors, end result was a massive edit war a few pages ago and a general refusal to allow the stable version to stand while a consensus was reached. There have been a few other examples of AGF failure. It certainly needs some new eyes to take a look at it. --Snowded ^TALK

16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times is certainly reliable enough. That said, these kinds of labels are generally a bad idea, especially if there are contradicting views on this. Are there reliable sources that state UAF is not "left-wing"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that terms such as left-wing and right-wing need to be used with care. Usually, we go with self-identification, except in cases where academic analysts are pretty much speaking with one voice (which does usually mean they're more extreme). In this case, I think "left-wing" clearly does not deserve to be there. On their website, they identify as anti-fascist only, not left-wing. The website contains a list of signatories to their founding statement, including some Conservatives, such as

SWP has someone on their national committee, but they turn up to anything involving the organisation of students and not too much attention should be paid to it. I think the label should absolutely be removed as undue. It's against standard practice to include it like this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk

) 03:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The process is to use RS on the basis of "verifiability not truth." In the case of John Birch Society, the JBS denies that it is "radical right-wing" (a bit further off the chart than "left wing" is), but the "radical" term is found in the WP article. I would be happy if there were a policy that no articles whould place anyone or any group on any "political spectrum" but we have to deal with what the current policies and guidelines are. If we allow such, then RS is all that is required ("left wing" is not an accusation of terrorism or anything remotely like that). Collect (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The enemay of my enemy is my friend. There are many instances (such as the animal rights movemnt) where persons at opposite ends of the political spectrum come out of the wood work to suport a group or cause that expuses something tehy agree with. That does not alter the basci politics or attitude of the group reciving support. Its also not true to say this label appears in one source. I agree that what is needed is perhaps some kind o=f guidlines as to how to label such groups rathyer then the rather add hok system we have now. What we have is a situatioin wehre group A can be called FAr naughty becasue (even though they deny it) 20 RS say they are where as Group B cannot be calle wicked wing becasue (even though they have not denied it) only 3 RS call them it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorting some guidelines would make sense. However we so far have one independent view (VsevolodKrolikov) given that all others are active on this issue or more generally on the various political and pressure group pages. I suggest those players hang back and see if we can get some more perspectives. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question of reliability per se, but whether undue weight is being given to the label. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's analysis. Two, very brief, throwaway mentions in the media (including from one at rather weak source on the reliability scale (IBT)) are not sufficient to label an organization in this fashion, most especially in the Lead, particularly when its founding membership clearly belies it. In contrast, the label of the John Birch Society as right-wing has been made by many more, much higher quality sources, including academic ones. --Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources, my support of which has led to a threat of ANI, are these RS for the claim? [[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] We also have this sources which can be read as saying that the UAF are left wing (it does not attempt to differentiate between them ans the other left wing demonstrators [[66]] Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven is one of a couple of POV warriors on this page. It needs other eyes to (hopefully) avoid the need to go to ANI. His links in the message above include the Daily Star, which for those of you from outside the UK is a notorious soft-porn newspaper with little reputation for factual reporting, and a webpage from pakistan.tv carrying BNP supporting material. (And one of the other links actually makes clear that the group is not simply left-wing, actually against his case. But he doesn't seem to care). On the page itself he's also citing the opinion column of a light-entertainment compere in a local paper (I'm not kidding). RS (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian) describing the UAF as mainstream or cross-party has also been provided by other editors, but is being ignored by those determined to include their favoured text. They appear to have no guiding principle behind their edits save a content outcome, making discussion futile.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the sources presented by Slatersteven, I would say this is a reliable source, but the characterization is made in passing, so I would suggest it would be of little weight. Use of this to support the claim would be, IMO, OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources that is used to refute the claim [[67]] actualy uses the phrase 'left wing criminals'.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a reported quote from the leader of the far right BNP Slater, its not a statement by the Telegraph. --Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow!! are you actually suggesting we pay any attention to want Nick Griffin thinks about UAF? I'm speechless. VsevolodKrolikov's analysis is looking more and more on the money. --Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its in the same line as the comment you say opposes the idea that the UAF are not left wing" (which is also a quote from Mr griffin), So if its RS for the line "notes that "mainstream politicians" support the UAF" its must be RS for them being left wing. There has been an accusation made (more then once) that those of us who want to include the liine 'left wing' have been cherry picking souces. Well what is this? You cannot use a source when it supports your view and then refuse to allow it when it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nick Griffin's attributed opinions are in a completely different league from the reportage of a newspaper with editorial oversight. It's so obvious I can't believe I even have to say it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It in the saem sentance as the claims that it has mainstream support, both statemnts are attributed to Mr griffin. How can nthe telegraph be used as RS for a stament when its repeating Mr Griffin and then the same sentance cannot be used as RS for something else?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(reinserting material accidentally deleted by user answering another topic)

It is a reliable source for what Griffin said, but not for the rightness or wrongness of Griffin's opinions. --Snowded ^TALK 15:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nice try, Slater. Nick Griffin's opinions start with the quotation marks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. Not the greatest source for the fact that mainstream politicians support the UAF, and if it was the only source making the point (or even used in the article) it would be problematic. But it isn't, of course.The BBC is cited in the article for this, and thus this is line of argument is a something of a red herring. --Slp1 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reponding to the statemnt that sources have been presented on the talk page that the UAF is not leftist. But it does not mdeny the group is itself left wing, just that it enjoys support from a wide spectrum (in much the saem way that the anti-globalisation movment contains many disperate and some times (in other areas) hostile groups). The case being made is that no source denies that the UAF are actualy left wing (its just as OR to say that becasue they enjoy wide support as the Express arctiel thyat says that left wing groups), nor have they temsleves denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pakistan.tv is not a reliable source, as there is no sign of any kind of editorially oversight. Websites ending with .tv sound official, are mostly just self-published websites. The Daily Star is a tabloid with a very poor reputation for accuracy, and the Daily Mail is not much better. The Sunday Business Post is a reliable source and the best of the bunch, but it does not support the notion that the UAF is a left wing organization; it states that the UAF is "a loose collection of left-wing and anti-racism organisations in Britain" (emphasis added).--Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Nuujinn: the problem with the Daily Mail on this topic is firstly that it's an anti-immigrant newspaper with a history of skewing or on occasion simply inventing stories about immigrants, and secondly, as a paper it's fair to say that it pretty much despises the chairman of UAF, Ken Livingstone. It's a very popular paper, so perhaps its opinion is noteworthy, but not as a source representing considered opinion, which is how they want it to be used. As for Slater's comments here, he's just illustrating the problem with his editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is obviously not a RS issue at all. It's pretty obvious (i) that there are RS that call the organization "left wing"; (ii) the organization doesn't view itself as left wing; (iii) even reliable sources can have biases, which is irrelevant, and (iv) there are edit warring editors who either like or dislike the labels in this instance or on principle generally. The text was pretty balanced when I looked at it back when this first came up at RSN a few days ago, other than I'd think it sufficient to mention the "left wing" label once. I'm not going back again to see what's happened in the meantime. Not gonna pick up this tarbaby. This is not a RSN issue; take this dispute elsewhere.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 15:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree that RSN editors don't have something to contribute, since various sources have been claimed as reliable when they are not, such as pakistan.tv and Nick Griffin's opinion. On the other hand, I think all agree that this is mainly a question of Undue weight, and that discussion should be held elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be about undue weight, but the undue weight argument has been met with trash sources to add ballast.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is primarily a question of weight. Many of the sources presented are clearly not reliable, but do keep in mind It is to be expected that some reliable sources have a bias, see for example the numerous discussions of Fox News. Most of the discussion above does not belong here, really. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the "left-wing" epithet in an article in The Times is still unresolved. In my view The Times is clearly RS. Whatever bias it has is normal in UK broadsheet papers and must be disregarded. The problem with this particular article is that it only uses "left-wing" as a brief throwaway. Shorthand, even, for those opposed to fascist groups and therefore "left-wing" in comparison with fascism. The senior Conservative Party politicians in membership of UAF are undoubtedly to the left of BNP and EDL. I wouldn't support the addition of "left-wing" to the lede on the basis of this source. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The presentation here of the dispute about the Times being questioned as RS is a clean misrepresentation. As you rightly note, it's an issue of proper weight to this single comment. In actual fact, this all appears to be a

retaliatory dispute because of the labelling of the EDL elswhere on wikipedia, as discussions show.VsevolodKrolikov (talk

) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Show me any edit I have made conscerning the EDL in any venue whatsoever - then iterate that I am "retaliating" about something! Nor do I give a whit about what the EDL is labelled as long as it is supported directly by reliable sources and attributed properly to them. Now can we stop the side circus? Collect (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice you put up spirited arguments in the article about

Southern Poverty Law Centre (not RS), court records (primary source) and his book about the supremacy of the white race and a revisionist view of the holocaust.(synthesis). You even edited the article to make it appear this description was an opinion, after it was sourced to The Guardian.[68] TFD (talk

) 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I was referring to the discussion in general where the labelling of the EDL as right-wing appears to have incited a few editors. Of course there are other far right groups which editors are feeling sorry for. You in particular have compared this situation to the phenomenally well-sourced description of the John Birch Society as radical right. As TFD notes above, you're not applying the same standards of editing across the encyclopedia, but picking and choosing positions to suit a pretty consistent POV. You've got editing the wrong way round.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, I am using exactly the same position everywhere on WP. And it is TFD who wobbles. I would oppose calling any group "radical" or "extreme" in the lede absent an overwhelming consensus of sources for the precise adjective. Absent any such agreement among sources, the adjective is not needed. Here there is no such dispute among sources, and no use of the adjectives "rextrem" or "radical" etc. My "POV" is in exact agreement with WP policies and guidelines here. I would also suggest that my edits on totally apolitical articles is consistent with this, as well as my edits on such "rightwingers" as Alex Sink, David Copperfield and Huey Long. Did you know that iterating false claims is not a great idea? Collect (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You have not provided evidence of overwhelming consensus on this point (I've asked you on the NPOV noticeboard three times for the "dozen" sources you claim to have), yet you continue to revert the material back in. It is "disputed" because there are RS that contradict the description. They don't say "a bunch of editors are wrong on wikipedia", they describe UAF as cross-party and non-partisan. You raised the issue here, you've had your answer, and it seems you don't like it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: A number of editors have pointed out that this is not an RS issue. Should we maybe take further comments to the NPOV discussion (which has been moved here, for reasons I can't quite work out: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF)? --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, FormerIP, that those wishing to continue with the insertion of this material are dancing between claiming they have lots of sources (which are not actually RS) and pretending that it's really about editors challenging the RS status of the Times, which, as you point out, it isn't. That is, although several outside editors have stated this is an issue of weight, there is a refusal by Collect and others to address this point. It's a behavioural problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And lots that are (three at least, and thats being generous to the other side).Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a follow on to a request made at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, which didn't really get any usable response. There are 2 questions I'd like answered, the first a generic question and the second a specific one.

1. Can a diagram/map be primary source? or does a source require words? and
2. In the case of this edit, is that a piece of
   WP:OR
   on my part?

The background here is that there is a very common construct used in climate articles and sections right across the pedia, where the local climate is put in the context of a region or area. It provides location-based contextual information and is an extremely useful construct for imparting information to readers. Some examples:

• Geography of Cambodia#Climate - Cambodia's climate, like that of the rest of Southeast Asia is dominated by monsoons, ...
• Mequon, Wisconsin#Climate - The climate of Mequon is much like that of other midwestern cities in the United States....
• Kottayam district#Climate - Kottayam has a tropical climate like that of the rest of Kerala, ..
• Middleton, Greater Manchester#Geography - Middleton experiences a temperate maritime climate, like much of the British Isles, ...

Rarely are these similes referenced in any way. So when I added something similar to the Belgium article's climate section, I wasn't expecting to be reverted. However I was, and a short edit war ensued, which ended up with LemonMonday (talk · contribs) being blocked. The context remains in Geography of Belgium#Climate, but with the dispute unresolved.

Can anyone offer any opinions and/or suggestions around the 2 questions above? I guess the first might be better phrased as

1. Under what circumstances can a diagram be used as a primary source?

Cheers Fmph (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if a map is necessarily a primary or secondary source (I think they can be either) but I think the key thing is whether it has some sort of fact checking. Concerning synthesis/OR I think the key thing is whether the facts being put together are fairly obvious. Considering both these points, I'd think your edits are OK at first sight as long as your source maps are reputable. I am not sure what the argument against is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. TBH, neither am I. I felt the edits were totally uncontentious and found myself in the middle of an edit war and quite vitriolic talkpage argument. The maps are extremely reliable. They are a 2010 (I think, from memory - could be 2009) update on the climate classification 'bible'. Hey ho! Fmph (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a look at the talk pages, it does not seem the source was being questioned but instead your own working definition of northwest europe? That doesn't mean I disagree with you, but not sure this is a question for this board?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I agree. I'm more interested in the answer to the generic question of a map being a primary source. After that it's really a matter for discussion and negotiation wrt what the best form of words are. I still believe that the phrase "..., like most of northwest Europe, ..." adequately describes the area in question. But I'm open to suggestions on alternatives. Fmph (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused by this; the content being added essentially breaks down as "the climate in region X is Y", it is not "country Z is in region X" (for which a map is a correct primary source). So a map is not necessarily the source you need; the source needed is one that shows either the climate of region X is Y or that the climate of country Z matches that of region X. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether a map is a primary source is not a matter of it being a type of diagram rather than all text, it is a matter of who drew it and how. If it was drawn by someone who was not directly involved by any event depicted by the map (if there is such an event) and it is based on maps drawn by others, it is a secondary source. If it was drawn to depict an event by a person or organization directly involved in the event, or if it was drawn by making direct observations on the ground, it is a primary source.

The way the question is phrased makes me wonder if Fmph understands our

Verifiability policy. Why wouldn't one be able to use maps (whether primary or secondary) freely, as long as one does not draw one's own conclusions that are not evident from looking at the map? Jc3s5h (talk

) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. A primary source is really dependant on how you use it. If you have a reliably published news editorial using that to say "the writer said XYZ" is using it as a primary source. If a map is drawn based on other maps it can still be a primary source, especially if it is interpretive (i.e. it includes shading showing rainfall data) and you relate that interpretation. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are not subject to any of Wikipedia's policies. Unlike Wikipedia editors, they are allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from their source documents. In Errant's example, a map that includes shading showing rainfall data would be secondary if the rainfall data was previously published, or primary if the rainfall data had been collected by the authors. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it can be used as a primary source. For example, if you are using it to source that "X country had the highest rainfall" (for example), which would be 100% fine I think, but primary sourced to a map graphing the primary data. Primary/secondary is almost entirely decided by how you use a source, nothing else (this is not really even WP's definition, just how it is :)). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with ErrantX's concept of primary and secondary sources. Sure, the same publication (say, the New York Times) could have primary and secondary components (news articles vs. ads) and thus could be used as either a primary or secondary source, the nature of a particular passage wouldn't normally depend on how it was used (although you could always come up with a pathological case). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What about this? A map as a primary source might be for example the Ordnance Survey which publishes large files full of raw data that is considered authoritative. I think an example of a map as a secondary source might be a fancy coloured map put together using various different data sets from other sources, then mapped out graphically for comparison. Does this sound about right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It kinda depends on your definitions really on whether in plotting data on the map they are making interpretive commentary on that data (i.e. the highest rainfall is in country X). But, yeh, it could be used as a primary source. This is something of a weird conversation TBH because this is a key and simple distinction - how a source is used defines whether that use is as a primary or secondary source. It's very hard to dispute that as it is the accepted approach used in academia --Errant ^(chat!) 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Andrew and I'd suggest that is exactly what Peel and Finlayson have done in their research. They have analysed weather observations to produce climate classifications. The final output of the research is a map. And this map does not contain regional labels. So if we are to use the map as a source - and I think it's a primary source, but others might justifiably say it is secondary - we need to interpret the diagrammatic output into words. Hence, the green part of Europe from the map, is IMHO "... most of northwest Europe ...". Fmph (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I disupute ErrantX's claim that "because this is a key and simple distinction - how a source is used defines whether that use is as a primary or secondary source. It's very hard to dispute that as it is the accepted approach used in academia" and request that he/she prove it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC) None of the examples shown above (Cambodia's climate, like that " etc.) is cited to ANY sourcing, primary or otherwise, and thus if

Not sure I follow the relevance of this point. Are you saying that the articles need more footnotes etc? If so then it sounds like Fmph could do that and so no deletion need be done? But is this relevant to the question here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Most reference-free statements are challenged by adding a {{

fact}} tag. In each of those cases, wee that done, I could add a similar reference to the map. But would that be sufficient? Would the map be a reliable source? Fmph (talk

) 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course; the question being asked makes the mistake of asserting that a map is a reasonable source for that sentence about climate. Which it is not. Maps can be used as primary or secondary sources depending on the context, but in this case it would not be a sufficient source for that sentence. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Errant, just to make sure we avoid confusion, you are now talking about the sourcing for the definition of northwestern Europe, right? On this I think I agree. That map contained no such definition as far as I could see. I think this whole discussion is a little confusing because the example being given obviously is not an example of the principle Fmph wanted to discuss. If we wanted to discuss cases where a map might not be a good source it would help to have a real example. Indeed there have been many discussed hear over time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Errant, can you clarify that statement for me please? Why in this case is that map NOT a sufficient source? Are you saying that because the definition of NWEUR is hazy? or because the words NW Europe are not on the map? I'm not quite with you. Fmph (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, given the following sentence; Cambodia's climate, like that of the rest of Southeast Asia is dominated by monsoons. As I make it out the original question is "could a map be used to cite that Cambodia is in Southeast Asia and would it be a primary source" - to which the answer is yes, yes and its use is fine. But the issue with that sentence is not the location of Cambodia, which is simply obvious information and does not need to be cited, but that Cambodia's climate is the same as the entire region. That is the information requiring citation. Now, the Belgian link seems to have a source which might cite that information (I have only read the abstract, which is unclear) in which case that is fine. But the other examples are uncited. EDIT: of course, a reliable map showing common climate across the region, with the region labelled (or the region being an accepted and undisputed definition) that would work as a source, it occurs to me now that this is perhaps the question being posed - to which my comment would be, lets see an example! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, ok. Apologies for not investigating this close enough, the OP should have linked to File:Koppen classification worldmap CfbCfc.png which was the source being used. I would say that it is, sadly, not a reliable source due to where it is hosted :) And also I would have concerns over the broad area of the map lacking detail. A clearer map hosted somewhere reliable would seem fine to me though. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say it is not a reliable source due to where it is hosted, I presume you refer to the copy on Wikipedia? The original is available here together with all the research data. Check the supplement link. And there are more in depth maps of each of the continents, actually embedded in the PDF of the paper. It's not clear that permission has been given to extract each of those individual maps for use on WP, although the main map is released. Fmph (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A much higher res world map is here Fmph (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it appears to me that the map is being used as a

primary source, and the claim being made is interpretive. You should find a source that explicitly makes this statement, rather than interpreting it from a specific climate map. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Can a diagram/map be primaryreliable source? - yes, a diagram can be a reliable source. Depending on the context and source material it can be either a primary or a secondary source
2. or does a source require words? - not necessarily, but it helps!
3. In the case of this edit, is that a piece of
   WP:OR
   on my part? - We are not agreed on this.
4. Under what circumstances can a diagram be used as a primary source? - I think we are mostly agreed that this particular map IS a primary source.

Is that a fair summary of where we are? Fmph (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Probe Magazine is used as a source for a few articles (mostly American politics). I am not familiar with this magazine, would it qualify as a reliable source? P. S. Burton (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found this, is it the same mag? P. S. Burton (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

PROBE News Magazine [69] is a weekly, formerly fortnightly, English-language news magazine published in print in Bangladesh, concentrating on Bangladesh national and regional news. It appears to be a genuine newsmagazine with an editorial board and professional jounalists that has been in business for many years. A Google search doesn't turn up a lot of hits for it in the news, book or scholar archives, but it does appear to have been cited as a source in at least a few books and even scholarly articles. I would think that it is a RS, but I am curious as to why one would use it as a source on US politics. A quick glance at the table of contents for the current issue online would lead me to believe that US politics is not something it concentrates on, but that does not mean that it is not a RS if it does publish an article on the subject.

On the other hand Probe Magazine [70], a former publication of the "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" is something completely different. It is published by a self-described "activist group". There is no indication that it has any editorial oversight. The group and the magazine is devoted to conspiracy and fringe theories about the Kennedy assassination and other matters. It most definitely would contain lots of articles on US politics, but if that is the Probe Magazine being used as sources in Wikipedia articles on US politics, that would be a big problem. It is definitely not a RS for such purposes.

Fladrif (talk

) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's used in articles on American politics, I suspect it's the latter. P.S. Burton, which articles did you mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy and Bob Woodward for example. Fortunately it seems to have been removed from all articles now. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ RSN: www.al-islam.org → ANI: User abusing other editors → Talk:Battle of Karbala: www.al-islam.org is not a reliable source → SPI: investigations/Faizhaider

This website is an openly

At the death of

Muawiya was actively plotting a major deviation from Islamic norms^[4]

.

This kind of material, and its citation by al-islam.org, is slanted in justification of one side of the battle against the other. That there was a "plot" for a "major deviation" and that the losing side signed a treaty only to "avoid further bloodshed". These should be presented as "according to Shi'a sources" etc. Also please see the current discussion thread in Talk:Battle of Karbala#http://www.al-islam.org is not a reliable source.--AladdinSE (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding the phrase "According to Shia Sources" is not an issue nevertheless AladdinSE just has problem with the source as its a Shia one. - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this site has a reputation for accuracy, or is notable enough to have the opinions of its writers taken into consideration? (i.e. what makes it a good "shia source"?)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with User:AladdinSE. www.al-islam.org cannot be accepted as a reliable source for being used in Wikipedia articles. We must acknowledge that there is a very big religious issue between Shia (10-20% minority) and Sunni (80-90% majority) groups, it is unlike any other sects among other religions. I.e. the Shias in general call the Sunnis kafirs (infidels)[71], and the Sunnis usually call the Shias kafirs [72], etc. This is well known and if you want quick evidence there are many online forums and chat sites where you often read this on daily bases. Let's not allow these type of people to use Wikipedia by expressing their natural hate toward one another through the use of these websites. Therefore, we should not allow any source that is openly a Sunni or a Shia-centric who are only there to promote their own sect by all means nessary. By the way, there are so many major academic sources (such as Britannica and others) easily available for references so why not cite those instead? Let's not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used for official educational purposes and its content must be well balanced.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether it's a reliable source though. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

These don't look too good though from About Al-Islam.org

• "operates through the collaborative effort of volunteers based in many countries around the world."
• "we in no way can guarantee the absolute authenticity of all of the data and should not be held responsible for any errors herein"

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, this could be a problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for highlighting the two statements. I do agree now with you. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Whether a source has a point of view, is biased, slanted, etc. -- is a question that is pretty much completely irrelevant when judging whether its use in a particular citation fits the
  WP:NPOV, which despite its rather confusing name, does not mean from a point of view that is neutral. It means we include all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me to be a reputable site and, in principle, a reliable source for much of its content. Sean: I can understand why you have highlighted those quotes from the about page, but similar statements would be true of Project Gutenberg, for example, which would seem to me to be a good parallel, and we certainly would consider that a reliable source. Whether any given text from the site is biased or significant is another matter, but that's not for here. There also seem to be certain parts of the site such as "An Islamic Encyclopedia" (currently seems inaccessible anyhow) which are probably not reliable, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's similiar to the Jewish Virtual Library in the sense that although the JVL isn't an RS like the BBC etc it contains many documents that do qualify as RS. In the JVL's case it's usually possible to cite the orginal document sources rather than cite JVL. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If we consider sites such as al-islam.org as RS then we may add many other sites such as WordPress and so on to the RS list, which only further destroys Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable place for info. In order to strengthen Wiki's reputation we have to get rid of such sites being used as references and only cite academic sources, especially when dealing with Islam and different sects. That way we don't get to see too many POV-pushers and edit-wars--AllahLovesYou (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would we be adding WordPress? Don't be silly. A new rule saying that articles to do with Islam can only be sourced to academic publishers would be an interesting one, but it is not currently the rule and so, however good it is as an idea, it is not a good reason for excluding this source in particular. This site should not be used to present POV as if it were fact, though, which does appear to be an issue. --FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree with FormerIP and others who are of opinion to cite from this site, I shall be re adding the materials which were deleted referenced from this site.- Humaliwalay (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)