Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 87

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

Could you kindly comment on if a Yale University PhD Thesis would be a reliable source for the article Kilgour-Matas report? Some material sourced to it - "In April 2007, a Yale University student submitted a PhD thesis that evaluated the allegations and concluded that Falun Gong prisoners' organs were being harvested," to be specific - had been removed under the claim "PHD thesises are not reliable sources".[1]. Could you guys kindly look into the issue and please share your views on if the source may be used? Thanks in advance. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

[2] is a docstoc.com. [3] shows a discussion thereon (the site you use is clearly not going to pass RS, I fear). The existence of the thesis is thus RS, and statements made in it attributed to the thesis author as his opinions. docstoc.com was not ruled to be "self-published" which would be the only real problem with a thesis. Collect (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More generally, there are theses which are themselves cited in reliable sources; in those cases the theses may also be looked upon as being reliable. I'd have to read the report and see what sources are cited for the contention of organ harvesting; however, my personal opinion would be moot as a thesis generally speaking is not considered a reliable source, as already indicated. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PhD theses are reliable sources.[4] However, I see nothing saying this is a PhD thesis. Also, being a reliable source does not mean that the conclusions reached are notable, and therefore it may not be acceptable on that ground. TFD (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely to be a PhD thesis. Among other things, the Meta-comments call it a "Senior paper", and neither the length nor the depth match expectations for a PhD thesis, even at Yale (*duck*). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; this doesn't have the usual format of a doctoral dissertation or thesis making it essential that evidence be provided proving that claim. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely too short to be a doctoral thesis. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Given it is a Yale PhD Thesis - is it acceptable? The conclusion of the economic analysis aligns with the finding of a report that won its authors Nobel Peace Prize nomination - and the thesis is cited by the same authors on their website. Please see: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/studies.htm . Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A doctoral dissertation would be a reliable source. But this isn't a doctoral dissertation so it doesn't matter. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is very unlikely to be a doctoral thesis. It's difficult to say what it is, but it may just be an extra-curricular essay produced for publication on the internet. I don't think it can be taken as a reliable source without knowing the purpose for which it was produced. --FormerIP (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What happens when something is easily verifiable by anyone but there is no reliable source for it? Is it OR? At Derren Brown was the following:

• "For this reason, it was available only to practitioners through a password-protected "magicians only" area of his website; as of the redesign of his website in mid-2009, the magician-exclusive area has been made harder to find, but is still accessible. The clue to the password, which is "tenkai", tells you that the word itself begins with T and is a type of palming trick.[5]"

Much of this was removed as OR, the final stumbling block being the "password". Before continuing, it is necessary to point out that this is not a password in the traditional sense. The page deliberately gives clues to the password, which can then be found by a Google search or by looking here at Category:Card tricks. Entering the password takes you to a page where you can buy products offered by the site owner, a magician. The reason the password is required is that these items are supposedly only available to magicians but the site owner is publicly known for his ability to manipulate people and the password seems more a marketing ploy - by "restricting" sale of the object, it makes it more desirable (Marketing 101). The password is accurate, and can easily be verified by entering the password into the website. It was added by an IP on January 3,[6] and because I was able to verify it, I didn't remove it, I just copyedited the article to fix the citation.[7] So, since this is verifiable, does it stay or get removed as OR? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You apply them in combination; along with other guidelines such as

WP:NOTHOWTO and come up with the question: Is that really encyclopedic content that belongs int the article? Active Banana (^bananaphone

14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the question remains, does it constitute OR if it's easily verifiable? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's more the other way around... it constitutes OR if it isn't verifiable (the ease of verifiability is a different issue). That said, it is possible to have OR that is based upon verifiable information... it is still OR if you are the first to analyze or interpret the information in a particular way, or the first to draw a particular conclusion from the verifiable information. The idea is that Wikipedia should not be the first place to publish the analysis or conclusion. In your case... while the pieces of the puzzle are all easily discoverable, it does not sound like anyone has published the solution before. Therefore, it would be OR for us to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I am saying the same thing in a different way but my understanding is that if something is not obvious at more or less "first sight" to a normal editor working on the article, then putting the conclusions together counts as "research". There will always be a grey area, but if there is a riddle/puzzle then pretty much by definition I think that to solve it requires non obvious thinking - or else it is a pretty bad riddle/puzzle. If the solution is deliberately as obvious as 2+2=4 for some reason then I guess we start getting close to the grey area? But that does not appear to be relevant to the case described above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Blueboar - I sort of understand what you're saying but... "it constitutes OR if it isn't verifiable" - well it is, I verified that the password was correct, which is why I didn't delete the addition. "Therefore, it would be OR for us to do so." - I agree, but if I can verify that a claim made by somebody else is true, is it really OR? If it is, that surely would make a lot of images OR. For example, File:ForsterNSWAus2.JPG claims to be an image of Forster, New South Wales. I can't verify that it is and I can't find a similar image published by a reliable source so isn't that image OR?

It is OR if it has not been published elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It can't be that cut and dried as that would make most images created by Wikipedians OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

True, Blueboar perhaps stated that too simply. Obviously not everything on Wikipedia is published elsewhere, but what is not should be just an obvious extension of what is, such as rewordings or summaries. But I think it can not be denied that leaves a big grey area. However, I am skeptical about this case being in the brighter side of that grey area as it is normally interpreted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster - How obvious does it have to be though? I follow the link to the source, put in the "password" and voila! it works. The claim in the article is confirmed. That seems pretty obvious.

I don't really have an issue with OR generally, as it's usually pretty obvious when something is OR. For example, "as of the redesign of his website in mid-2009, the magician-exclusive area has been made harder to find" is not supported by the citation and isn't verifiable but the password issue is different. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be the relevant policy content:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" (emph added) Active Banana (^bananaphone

17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, unless the password is published by a reliable source, doing the lookup of the palming trick that begins with a T is original research, and testing the password is an experiment, and thus also OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the password is "tenkai" isn't a primary source and testing the password is essentially what anyone does when they verify any source added to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What source asserts that that password is "tenkai"? The link provided does not. If that's your source, it's "A", and you're then looking at Google or WP to find palming techniques that begin with "t", then that's "B". And if you are next drawing the conclusion that the password is "tenkai", that's "C" and you've just violated

WP:SYNTH. That you then test your conclusion at the web site is also OR, since you're performing an experiment to verify your research. What you need is a reliable source that says "the password to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php is "tenkai". --Nuujinn (talk

) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in the first post of this discusssion, the claim was added by an IP on January 3,[8] and because I was able to verify it, I didn't remove it, I just copyedited the article to fix the citation.[9] I didn't do any research. I just checked to see whether the claim was correct by going to the source. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I would say the IP engaged in SYNTH, and you did an experiment to verify. I think it's still OR, and that what you need is a reliable source that says "the password to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php is "tenkai". --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be taking a slightly different approach to others here. I think that the logic of saying a password is verifiable is not necessarily wrong in itself. I think if someone wrote "The Times on date z could be accessed using url etc" this would be ok I think. But I think that the concern here goes beyond that because what is being sourced is not just "one password which works on website x is y".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can this comment from the IE for Windows Phone Team Weblog be used as a source in the

Because it was removed as an unreliable source, it is now replaced by this article by wpcentral. wpcentral however uses this mobiletechworld article as a source, and mobiletechworld uses the first blog comment as its source, so after going through 2 other sites we end up with the same source so this isn't any more reliable. --Chris Ssk _talk 22:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris Ssk: Yes, you can cite it as a primary source.

WP:RS only bars comments by readers, not the author of the blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

an example of plainly ridiculous claims, if not outright lies and outrageous grammar and spelling is found on the FTOW's page on the Xibei San Ma (China)

is not a reliable source since it is self published, and in addition to that, it is full of misinformation claiming that Ma Hongkui fled to turkey (in reality, he fled to taiwan, then the united states, he had zero connections with turkey). And ma bufang never proclaimed himself sultan. And the Qinghai was not ruled by Ma Bufang until 1937, the website says 1911, in addition, the grammer on the website is horrific, an example here- "together with his brother Ma Buqing, and has the power until 1950 when it fell to Saudi Arabia because of the communist advance." (would anyone mind explaining how the province "fell to Saudi Arabia", if the communists took over it?)

On the Ma Hongkui article, i have sources, books and news articles which explicitly say he fled to and lived in the united states , he did not set one foot in turkey. Go look at the references on the article. In fact, i'll post them right here, which say Ma Hung-kwei (old romanization for Ma Hongkui) fled to formosa, and then to San Francisco in the USA.[10][11][12][13]

In addition, his entries at the rulers . org website note that he moved to america, not turkey

On the FTOW website, it claims Ma Hongbin was proclaimed sultan of ningxia in 1912. since reliable sources on the Ma Hongbin article note he was a suboordinate commader in his uncle Ma Fuxiang's army, how he got promoted to sultan? His entry at the rulers website indicate he was a military officer, never a "sultan", of a "sultanate", which never existed in real life. NO entries for "ma hongbin sultan" come up on google books if you just type in "ma hongbin", numerous sources will say he was a provincial governor and general, and say nothing about sultan

the entry contains numerous spelling errors, like Taso Tsung Tang, which should be Zuo Zongtang, "first months of 1878 chine completed the conquest", should be, "first months of 1878 china completed the conquest", "Tu Wen Hsiao", should be Du Wenxiu or Tu Wen Hsiu, according to proper chinse romanization

this whole sentence from the entry is just atrocious in spelling and grammar- "Yakub Beg was born in Kokand and was send to East Turkestan by Kokand Khan acompanying to burzurg Khan kodja in 1865 and with conquered the last Chinese positions"

Also this totally made up, non existent claim was posted on the FTOW entry- "The last sultanate that I know of is Kweichow - that seems that has a white flag. The sultanate also was born from a Muslim revolt directed by the sect of White Lotus."

I didn't know that the Buddhist White Lotus sect was really into directing muslim revolts, especially in alleged "sultanate" of Guizhou province (kweichow is another romanization of Guizhou), which never existed.Дунгане (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the reason im bringing this up, is because a certain user thinks that Flags of the World Website is a reliable source, offering no evidence at all that it is reliable

You are complaining about a Wikipedia article about a volunteer-run Yahoo mailing list on flag information. Here on the

Flag of Baltimore, Maryland

.

"Flags of the World" does not appear to be reliable for historical information on countries and their flags, because it is a volunteer-run mailing list which anyone can join without proving qualifications. It would therefore seem to fall under the following language in

WP:RS

: "

For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated...

Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As i said, a User:Kintetsubuffalo claimed Flags of the world was reliable at Talk:Flag of Tibet, to advance his position regarding the article Flag of Tibet, i request a third party user go to the Talk page and make it clear that it is totally unreliable.Дунгане (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About this source - it includes it in a "Countries with which the PLO maintains diplomatic relations: ...Swaziland...Vanuautu..." and the next paragraph is "The following states, while they do not recognize the State of Palestine, allow the PLO to maintain a regional office: ..." While this arrangement may imply that the first list contains states that do recognize

I added 'not in citation given' tags [15], but Night w removed these with explanation "implication is obvious". We should not make "obvious assumptions" about what a source has not written, but maybe should have written - and use such interpretations to contradict information from official MFA pages of Austria and the Vatican City.

The source is useful to show PLO diplomatic relations (elsewhere in the

At the discussion linked at the top you can see examples of N2e tagging with [citation needed] data piece sourced in the way described above and of N2e deleting such data piece. So far he doesn't dispute the sources in these examples as unreliable or anything like that - he just insists that somebody else should copy the sources to the list/comparision articles from the rocket articles after he has tagged/deleted the respective data pieces. Alinor (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone should absolutely copy the citations over. You shouldn't expect readers to have to go looking for references. Each article should be able to stand on its own, with its own list of references. Nightw 11:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, unlike the other debate that you and I still haven't finished - where you question the data itself and where there are other things you considered as controversial - this case is different. There are no controversies or anything - it's just that the sources are at the linked pages. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Every claim that isn't considered common knowledge should be referenced to a reliable source wherever it appears. No matter how ordinary the claim, nor how lazy the editor who added the information is, there aren't any exemptions. Nightw 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some established practice, recommendation, rule/policy or whatever over the issue of copying vs. not copying source over into summary lists? And if this noticeboard is not the right place to ask about this could someone point where should I ask? Alinor (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

yes there is somewhere. the reason is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Something that is as of today sourced on some other article page cannot be guaranteed to maintain that source on that article page as it is edited by freelance editors. Once it is removed from the other page for whatever reason, there is no way to know what other pages had been "using" that page for the reference. the fact and the verification belong on the same article page. Active Banana (^bananaphone 08:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability" Active Banana (^bananaphone

08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant in this case.

The problem with applying WP:CHALLENGE is that N2e, the user putting the 'citation needed' flags is challenging almost all data pieces in the summary lists - without checking if they are sourced at the linked articles. So, sooner or later he will delete all data pieces - and then the lists will become useless. This seems as a sneaky way of avoiding AfD nomination.

WP:Source list is OK, along with WP:BURDEN and WP:V and this relates to your main argument above - that even if the data piece is sourced at the linked article today it may become unsourced after subsequent changes to the linked article. I agree with all that, and won't raise the issue if N2e was checking whether this is the case (a data piece lost sourcing because of changes to the linked article) - but he doesn't and insist that others should do this after his tagging and that unless others do it he will delete the data pieces tagged. I have given him 2 examples of sourced data pieces (that got deleted/tagged) months ago, but he just ignored these. Alinor (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

YES circular applies. You are using content in another wikipeida article as the basis/souurce for content in the list article. NO, N2e nor any other editor does not have to go looking anywhere else for sources. If xe challenges the content in the list article, AN INLINE CITATION IN THE LIST ARTICLE is required. Active Banana (^bananaphone 09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply - I don't propose to use the Wikipedia content as basis/source - I propose that we use the EXTERNAL SOURCES referenced at the linked articles as basis/source. IMHO it's not a good practice to copy all sources from all linked articles in the summary/list. If a data piece isn't sourced at the linked article - then it should be challenged, tagged and eventually deleted. But if a data piece is backed by EXTERNAL SOURCES at the linked article - then I don't see it as beneficial to just copy these sources in the summary/list - this will only make it cluttered.

The key here is that these articles are not regular "List of ..." articles - these are summary/comparison articles that present content that is mostly already present in the individual rocket articles - it's just that in these summary articles the stats of the different rockets are presented side-by-side, for comparison purposes. Alinor (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Each article should have its own references. If you already have references to cite, 6 weeks seems like more than enough time to copy and paste the cites from one article to the next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are references to cite - I gave the examples on the talk pages. But for the moment I have no intention to clean up after N2e who tags everything (is there such thing like "deletionist"?) I really think that if he is interested in having the citations copied in the article (as "challenger" of the data pieces) then he should first check before tagging. And even if he missed something - it's he who must copy the source/correct his wrong tag/deletion - when somebody points it out. He just ignored the sources I shown him. Alinor (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

inline citation". That means in every single article. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, N2e has been involved with improving referencing in Wikipedia since before you were even editing. It might interest you to know that many editors, myself included, learned proper citation style from him. Given your own appalling laziness when it comes to citing sources, perhaps you should refrain from attacking him, and ask him for a lesson instead. Nightw 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone and I don't think we should engage in measurements about who edits since how long, whether you like N2e or me more, etc. I agree with some of his edits, but disagree with his application of this particular process of tag-wait-delete in this particular set of articles (that mostly summarize data pieces from other linked articles). Regarding my "laziness" - most of the things (if not all) that N2e tags/deletes were not added by me, for what it counts. If you refer to whether I use the exact citation style when I add sources (we had such discussion before) - I don't see this relevant here at all.

I just ask here about whether there is some specific policy for such articles that summarize data pieces from another articles. If there isn't - fine - I will let N2e delete/tag whatever he likes, even if it's backed by external sources at the linked articles.

I asked him to first check before tagging/deleting - and if he wants to improve referencing - to copy the sources. He refused. He even ignores the examples I gave him. That doesn't seem to me like improving, but like harming - albeit 'technically' supported by the WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:BURDEN. Anyway, that's just IMHO. Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not his responsibility to "check first" or to "copy the sources". The

WP:V, which requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation", and which is "strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". Nightw

10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems that there is no special policy for summarizing articles - can someone point me where should I make proposal for such change? Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:V would be the place to do this. Nightw

10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here it is. Alinor (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One reason why every article (list, ...) needs it own sources and shouldn't rely on linked articles for the sources is that when you create e.g. a Wikibook, you can include the list without the linked articles, which would mean that in the wikibook, you would have no means of providing or checking the sources (or to put it otherwise, you would force a creator of a wikibook to include all the linked articles in hiw wikibook if he wanted to include the list, which is often not what we want).

OK, it was already explained that this is not a RS noticeboard issue, but policy-change/editing process issue, so let's close it here. I copy below my suggestion to N2e. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From here: N2e, if you really want to improve the summarizing articles - would you agree to employ slightly different process: instead of "tag-wait-delete" use "tag-wait-check-delete"? (and if the "check" step reveals that the information is backed by external sources at the wikilinked article - then "copy" or "don't delete/continue wait")? Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

N2e, When I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the policy question asked by Alinor on 4 Jan 2011. I did not know this conversation was going on for over a week, and when I did, I found it adequately addressed by editors uninvolved in the controversy of the particular instance. Since I am an "involved party", I felt it best to not weigh in personally after that time.

I will note however, since Alinor has continued to importune me to answer questions about my editing priorities and use of my time as a Wikipedia volunteer editor, I have attempted to write a final response to Alinor on this controversy of the past four months. That essay is

here

, should anyone be interested in reading it.

Kind regards, N2e (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor is repeatedy removing two sentences from the Civilian casualty ratio article, with a claim of "unreleiable sources". One of these sentences is presented in the article as fact: "In 2007, Israel achieved a ratio of 1:30, or one civilian casualty for every thirty combatant casualties" - and sourced to an article by a well known military journalist, Amos Harel, writing in a mainstream newspaper (Haaretz). The other is an an opinion, attributed to its author - 'According to Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, "No army No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting"'. Opinions on the reliability of these sources for those statements are requested. Two for the show (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you took it in! The reason for the RS objections, voiced by more than just me (here's the relevant talk page), is that Dershowitz is not an international monitoring agency, nor a reliable source for statistics, nor an academic specializing in international conflicts, is writing an op-ed, and is actually contradicting the Israeli Supreme Court which holds that people subject to targeted killingsare not combatants. Sources must be considered RS depending on the circumstances; this isn't in his area of expertise. This is just straight up wrong information. That brewcrewer keeps pushing to include information that he's even admitted is wrong is pretty hard to believe. If the argument is now that the source is reliable for Dershowitz's opinion than you can look at the undue weight arguments in the talk page. Simply put, why does the incorrect statement of a man with no expertise in the target area belong in the lead? It doesn't even meet lead policy, brewcrewer's just copy and pasted the same thing into the body.

As to Haaretz, please find where Amos Harel talks about a 30:1 combatant ratio. You can't. He doesn't. He talks about the terrorists to civilian ratios. That's not the same as a combatant to civilian casualty ratio; combatant has a very precise meaning in the laws of war and, as pointed out above, these are definitely not combatants and it's OR to construe them thus. Sol (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any statistics would have to come from investigators who actually went into Gaza, or secondary sources quoting such investigators. It's unlikely that Dershowitz has either done one, or is doing the other. There is also the small matter of whether policemen are militants or whether they're part of the civilian infrastructure - I think the international consensus is settled in that regard. Templar98 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC) struck comment by banned editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Haaretz article does refer to the combatants as terrorists, but not exclusively. That is the Israeli view of the combatants, and not appropriate for NPOV. The word was juxtaposed to discriminate "civilians" and "innocent bystanders" from combatants. He also uses the word "gunman" as "In all the attacks of recent weeks, only gunmen were hurt, as confirmed by Palestinians. The rate of civilians hurt in these attacks in 2007 was 2-3 percent." Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. It doesn't call them combatants and they are not, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, combatants. Sol (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about what the Israeli Supreme Court calls anyone. It is about the civilian-to-casualty ratio which is based on an international understanding of who is a civilian and who is not. It is likely that Harel did not specifically call them "

unprivileged combatant. Simply because Harel did not specifically use the word "combatant," did not mean he was intending to imply that these "gunmen" or "terrorists" were therefore civilians. Civilians who directly engage in hostilities ("gunmen")are understood to be combatants, if "unlawful" ones. Any honest reading of the article should make his meaning clear. Opportunidaddy (talk

) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This debate is about a sentence of two in the lead of an article. Leads are by their nature a brief summary of an article. To be a reliable source someone has to be reliable, if a person is publishing biased opinions that are inaccurate, or use weasel words without citing their sources, and we republish them without pointing that out the article is breaching NPOV. There may be a place in the article for this short paragraph, (particularly if there is a retort) but not in the lead. --

talk

)

Dershowitz is a reliable source and cites sources in his academic work. He has made factual errors in his lifetime, but there is no academic that has not. He has been highly criticized, but also highly praised. D acknowledges his bias, but bias does not make a person's facts wrong. I don't know anything about the Harel fellow though. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a criminal law specialist who has taken on a role as an aggressive advocate for Israel. He is a reliable source only for his own opinion, and not for the truth of statements like the one cited. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz is also a supporter of torture, a supporter of mass-demolitions (pogroms by all the usual definitions) and seeks to blame all the Palestinians for one of their leaders fleeing to Berlin in the war. There are numerous specific allegations that he's falsified quotes, here's another one of many. Templar98 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz has a record of poor scholarship in his works on Israel. There are many more reliable Israel/Palestine scholars that can be used. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@Jrtayloriv. What's your basis for saying that?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps his use of turnspeak. un☯mi 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. A now debunked claim by his enemy of minor plagiarism does not detract from his long list of books on the subject published by academic publishers. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing debunked about it - first ghit for "turnspeak" is at History News Network "On a note both humorous and pathetic, Peters, in From Time Immemorial and claiming to be inspired by George Orwell, coins the term "turnspeak" to signal the inversion of reality (pp. 173, 402). Dershowitz, apparently confounded by his massive borrowings from Peters, credits the term "turnspeak" to Orwell, accusing critics of Israel of "deliberately using George Orwell's `turnspeak'" (p. 57) and "Orwellian turnspeak" (p. 153). Is this scandalous scholarship, or is it plagiarism, or is it both?" Templar98 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I am not too familiar with how his writings in those matters have been received, I note though that google brought me http://opiniojuris.org/2009/01/03/dershowitz-on-israel-and-proportionality/ where an actual expert on international law refers to Dershowitz's arguments as strawmen and ends with "I would simply add that talking about the facts without understanding the law is equally problematic, as Dershowitz’s editorial demonstrates." Clearly the man is not infallible, and he is likely out of his depth unless referring to US criminal law. un☯mi 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One academic bashing another academic. Big deal. Would the other academic be considered a poor scholar if Dershowitz said as much about him?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Unomi. Dershowitz and the Anti-Defamation League would deserve exactly the same consideration on issues pertaining to Israel--reliable for their own opinions, not as sources of objective fact.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I may agree with that, but unfortunately editors seem intent on removing any mention of Dershowitz from the subject despite the fact that Dershowitz's article is directly on point regarding the article's subject matter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean Dershowitz's op-ed. On a subject, international and domestic Israeli law, that he has no expertise in. For the purpose of including what you've called facts, not opinions, which are demonstrably wrong. Heller is an actual international law scholar (and OJ is worth reading), Dershowitz is not. Dershowitz has even declared himself the enemy of international law and voiced his intention to delegitimize it. Why would you want to include this? Sol (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@ BrewCrew - being misled on the question of Dershowitz's plagiarism is no crime - but it's difficult to understand your defending him after you've been shown the evidence. The discredited Peters invented the word "turnspeak" and ascribed it to George Orwell and the book "1984" - much later Dershowitz does the same thing on the same topic. Templar98 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what matters as far as the wiki-RS policy: A) Source is wiki-reliable and the content was published on a wiki-reliable publisher. That both could have an error here and there in their vast body of work, most reliable sources have such errors as well and this does not negate their status as notable wiki-reliable sources. B) Source's pro-Israeli perspectives have no influence on the fact that he is considered a wiki-reliable source and his information was published by Haaretz, a wiki-reliable publisher. The information is not an opinion of who is right/wrong in the Arab-Israeli conflict but rather a statement of fact. Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The question still to be resolved is whether this academic is writing in his area of expertise. I would say, on this occasion, not. Ha'aretz is highly reliable for news, and the op-eds it carries are often notable commentary. They are always still commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is not so much about reliability (Dershowitz's publisher has almost certainly captured Dershowitz's opinions accurately), but instead about quality and bias. Since the article in question is a rather contentious subject, I think the threshold for sources is a bit higher than average. Dershowitz is a very intelligent author, with wide-ranging opinions, but any information he has on war casualties is third-hand, at best. Readers deserve better. Also, Dershowitz has taken on the mantle of a polemicist or advocate, and (if his material were included in the article) that bias would need to be mentioned. For that reason, Dershowitz should only be utilized if better sources are not available. In this particular instance, it appears that there are better sources, so Dershowitz should be omitted or - at most - mentioned in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can MTV3 Katsomo's (which is a video bank) video be used as source in Wikipedia? Also, is the source not acceptable if some of the Wikipedia users can't view it? Here is link to the video, which we are having conversation about in Bart Simpson's discussion room. --Pek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these two publishers reliable for content on Libertarianism? I'm concerned that neither has apparent editorial control indicate they're not reliable for transmission of texts intact, invariant, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Is LewRockwell.com ( About page) reliable for the accurate transmission (archival collation) of Walter Block's political writings as an archive?
   • Block, Walter (February 17, 2003). "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Walter Block: Archives. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ : anti-state, anti-war, pro-market. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
2. Is Liberalia ( www.liberalia.com ) , which appears to claim to be a libertarian interational ( [http://www.liberalia.com/celebrating.htm example page, no pages found from head with content), a reliable source to publish the following political essay:
   • Machan, Tibor R. "Revisiting Anarchism and Government".

I don't see why we would need to use either of these sites when there are so many published scholarly works on the subject. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: [16] has the Block book, and the Rockwell site appears to faithfully copy it, but the other cite is less problematic. Liberalia.com appears to be a formal organization, and, to the extent that publication of opinions is notable, the opinions expressed there are certainly usable. Note also that http://www.libertarian.nl/wp/2001/01/revisiting-anarchism-and-government/ contains the same material, and is certainly a valid Netherlandish source. There is, by the way, no reason to restrict "reliable" to "scholarly" in any WP policy. Collect (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that given the number of high-quality, scholarly sources that are available from across the political spectrum, I think we can do better than either of these sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and I would say that lewrockwell.com is not what we'd consider a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question is [17]. The editor has justified it at

Dougweller just because a person works at some job does not mean they are not qualified or degreed in other fields. Rosa has been invited to talk at places many other historians of Columbus never went. He was invited professor Jesús Varela, Director del Centro de Estudios de Iberoamérica - University of Valladolid http://colombo-o-novo.blogspot.com/2010/10/esposa-de-colon-comendadora-de-santiago.html and invited by Professor Consuelo Varela at Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos CSIC, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Ciencia e Investigación, Spanish National Research Council, Science Scientific in Seville. http://colombo-o-novo.blogspot.com/2009/10/lancamento-do-colombo-portugues-em.html Both of these are leading professors in the history of Columbus and neither has come out against Rosa's research but in fact appear to support it. In the 5 years his books have been out, I am not aware of one historian that has refuted it. Plus the guy is fluent in four or five different languages which is not indicative of your typical IT tech.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk)

• Please supply a full citation, as indicated at the top of this page. Of particular interest for reliability is the name of the publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For the claim "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints." I don't see why we can't use the primary source. Ie. the document itself.

Taemyr (talk

) 13:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The original research policy. Such judgements are not simple nor trivial, and wikipedia editors are not acting as historians when they are encyclopaedia editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouold not be OR if the sources actuly has him on that list in that role.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, actually, it would. Archival material is not in any way reliable without the interpretation of historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used, but with care. Nor is there an OR issue if a user is just repeatinf what the promary source says. It only becomes OR is only an issue of interpriation comes in to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• All historical material requires interpretation, archival material especially so. Organisations ritualistically and routinely lie to themselves about the most basic things, and, documents do not exist in isolated from the context of a wide range of other documents which need to be read simultaneously. Users repeating primary material in historical articles is original research: users are not capable of the professional expertise required when they are acting as users; and, users who are capable of exercising such expertise can neither evidence their capacity to wikipedia as users nor ought they to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, interpretation is not about reporting what a text says it’s about what you think a text says. Thus just repeating it does not involve interpretation (thus dos not involve OR). If the text was saying that he was “therefore…” it does not it just repeats (without any extrapolation) what is contained. Thus I could say that “according to the big book of things what I did “Peranious went shopping in Tuesday” If on page 9999 it said “I went shopping on Tuesday”, I am merely repeating what the primary source said. If I said “Peranious went shopping regularly” or “Peranious went out and brought a big cake” that would be OR. That does not seem to be the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But how do we know whether the document at the Torre do Tombo archives is itself reliable? For that we need expert opinion in a secondary source. But back to the OP's question--has the book in question by the IT professional received critical review by professional historians or in reliable sources such as a major newspaper or magazine? Has the book been citied in works by other historians? Being fluent in multiple languages does not indicate expertise in this area, nor does not receiving attention from reliable sources. But if the book has been cited by scholars, I think we could accept it, but perhaps with qualifications. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable source Conspiracy theory published outside the mainstream academic press by Esquilo Ediciones y Multimedia. TFD (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A source does not need to be published in an academic press to be reliable. And the author does not need to be a "professional historian" to be reliable. There are many amateur and semi-professional historians who have written reliable history, and who published outside the mainstream academic presses. The question is whether this particular author qualifies as reliable? And more to the point, is he reliable for supporting the specific statement for which his book is cited. The statement reads "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints". Given what other sources say about Filipa Moniz, this statement is not that controversial. So the question becomes, do we think that this document exists, and do we trust this author to accurately describe it. The first part of this question can be answered easily... access the Torre do Tombo archives and see if the document exists, and says what the author claims. The second part is more problematic. No source is ever 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Given the fringe nature of the author's take on Columbus, I agree that we should at least question his reliability ... but, he might be reliable for something as mundane as this. It is really a judgment call. Do we trust him to get this right. Of course, all that being said, as long as we have gone through the effort of accessing the archives to verify that the document itself exists... the best source for the statement in question would be the primary document itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If the fact is really mundane/uncontroversial, shouldn't there be multiple sources (potentially higher quality sources) that confirms the same point? Why do we have to dig the gutter for sources? Jim101 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Becasue the m ore mundane and uncontroversal the 'fact' the less lightly that any one has botherd wiiht it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really buy that argument because if a fact is really uncontroversial, some form of consensus must be demonstrated. Besides, sky is blue and one plus one equal to two. Even if a fact is so mundane and uncontroversial that no mainstream scholar even bother to dispute it, what does that tell me about the unknown guy with no credential that actually made a huge fuss out of it?

WP:FRINGE perhaps? Jim101 (talk

) 19:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Posibly (and most likly definatly) but that is a differnt argument.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but

WP:REDFLAG. We could either a) prove that the claim itself is not uncontroversial by providing higher quality sources, or b) prove that the sources itself is of high quality. So far the discussion has rule out option b), but going with option a) pretty much made the source itself redundant. Is this source reliable for this fact? Maybe, but do we really need to waste time debating a source dug out of the gutter instead of providing a better source for the same claim? I don't think so. Jim101 (talk

) 20:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your rhetoric is rahter extream. To say this may not be a high quality source is a matter of opinion but seems reasoned. To say its been draged out of the gutter implies contempt for the source that seems unwarented. I see no reason given (other then he's not a historain, which is no reason) as to why this book is not RS. Other (and in many reepscts more concearning) accusations have been made (and I find the COI argument particulay persausive) that cold render this whole discusion mute. But this is about the source being RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not that "he is not a historian", it is the fact that he received almost no recognition for his historical work that really scares me. Passing an author with no reputations as RS is just as bad as citing Wikipedia's FA as RS, just on the ground that a lot of people reads them and they are factually correct on uncontroversial facts. Until the author's reputation is establish, his work is really no better than my edits in Wikipedia. Jim101 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question that this is a less than perfect source. The question is whether the source is "good enough" or whether we should look for better sources to support the statement. I would say yes to both parts of that question. It is "good enough" but we should find better ones.

That said, I have to admit that the statement itself strikes me as a week attempt to bolster notability beyond the subject's connection to her famous husband (Christopher Columbus). I suspect that someone is worried about a notability challenge and finding that there are not many sources that discuss the subject in any depth. So they are reaching for any scrap of information they can find on the subject, and having to rely on less than perfect sources to support it. I have no opinion on whether the subject is actually notable on her own, but one thing is definitely clear... the article needs a lot of work, and much better sourcing in general. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just make a quick pass through Google books and scholar, and through my local uni library, and it appears that the book has not been referenced in other works, nor has the author. There may be an inherent bias towards English works, although I have tried to mitigate that by added searches for Spanish and Portuguese sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use other country-specific versions of Google - I haven't tried it for this specific issue but I've done it before with different results - unless that was due to the way they were presented.

talk

) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a catch 22. There are no other sources and the source utilized in seen as unreliable. However, it is a fact that in 500 years no one really bothered to investigate or write about the wife of Columbus until now. This vacuum created the biased acceptance that she was of no importance in her day. This bias of the "poor noble girl" and "so unimportant she could marry a peasant" is coloring the decision of all involved in this discussion. I had presented in the past a study by Prof. Joel Mata of Oporto as the first source of the document, but that was also not acceptable. [ A Comunidade Feminina da Ordem de Santiago: A comenda de Santos na Idade Média, Prof. Joel Silva Ferreira Mata, Universidad Lusíada, Oporto, 1992.] I then presented a source that shows an image of the document itself, and that is also unacceptable. It seems to me that if I a document exists in an archive and that it has been correctly transcribed, the document speaks for itself as presented in ROSA, Manuel da Silva; "Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada". Lisboa: Ésquilo Edições, 2009. 393p. il. photos, maps.

ISBN 978-989-8092-66-3. Columbus's son wrote the his father's wife, Filipa Moniz was a comendadora of All-Saints, low-and-behold the document lists her in 1475 as a comendadora and part of the management of All-Saints and thus she required authorization from the King Himself to marry anyone. It is the implications of this document that prevents the editors of Wikipedia from accepting it. Once accepted the whole history of a "peasant Columbus" starts to unravel as does the notion so often touted that Fernando Columbus "was inventing that his father was nobleman".Colon-el-Nuevo (talk

) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that we're an encyclopedia, so our mission is to document what already exists in reliable sources, and we prefer secondary sources. I see another catch 22 of a sort--in your first post, you're suggesting that Rosa has the support of academicians, but if that were the case, and if the information was supported by historical documents, one might expect to see academic work based on Rosa's findings, or discussion of same (and the latter would be ideal for our purposes). Instead, when I look for information on Rosa's "Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada", I find a press release suggesting that the book is being pushed for a movie. Odd, if the work is truly historical in nature. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what press release you found, but in the things I have read there are well-known academics supporting the research. Note that the book is prefaced by Professor Serrão, a well known and trusted academic and top Portuguese historian. Former Dean of Lisbon University as well as other professors. I don't want to get into a debate into whether his work is being debated I only wish to adda a citation to a document. I don't see that this is such a complication. I have 2 sources, Prof. Joel Mata and Rosa. Even if we accept Rosa as not reliable, certainly Prof. Mata must be.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Primary sources are not reliable for history. Documents never speak for themselves. On the other hand, Mata, Joel Silva Ferreira. A comunidade feminina da Ordem de Santiago: a comenda de Santos na Idade Média. Porto, FLUP, (photocopied), 1991 (Master’s degree dissertation). may or may not be reliable, depending on FLUP's research component of the Masters in 1991, if it was externally assessed or not, and if the claim directly related to the assessable topic of the thesis. The first two elements of reliability here: proportion of research component and external assessment of research are the cores. I'm still waiting on a full citation of the initially challenged work to test its reliability. Works by non-academically trained historians are acceptable and even high quality under a variety of circumstances, mainly to do with their publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. This appears to be the work, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Manuel da Silva Rosa, Colón: La Historia Nunca Contada. Badajoz, Spain: Esquilo - Ediciones y Multimedia, 2009.
• Unreliable The publisher has no website: they let their domain name lapse. The Google Cache of the Colon page (cache of Colon) indicates this work is FRINGE, "Twenty years of research wipe out the version of the official history: Columbus was Genoese , and was serving a project Templar.. [Veinte años de investigación arrasan con la versión de la historiografía oficial: Colón no era genovés y estaba al servicio de un proyecto templario..]" The publisher makes basic typographic errors (double full-stop). I'm terribly sorry, but wikipedia does not deal in FRINGE theories from presses that normally deal in novellas of historical fiction and mystery conspiracies such as "Herodes, el Grande" or "Biblioteca de Alejandría - El Enígma Desvelado" as Esquilo - Ediciones y Multimedia did, before they forgot to reregister their website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rosa's two latest books, which I have read, are raising many doubts of what was accepted and is the cover of NEWSWEEK Poland. Is it really worth all this discussion to add a citation that is lacking? The fact is that Filipa Moniz was a noble in Portugal, everyone knew that, but she was also aunt of two Counts and one Marquis. Her sister Violante Moniz living in Seville mentions her niece, the Portuguese Marquesa of Montemor, in her Last Will. The King of Portugal's Lord Chamberlain was their nephew since he was brother of the Marquesa. All of this means that Columbus by marriage in 1479 was uncle to the King of Portugal's Lord Chamberlain. Again all this is contrary to the wool-weaver birth so often touted. The Marquesa de Montemor's connection to Violante Moniz is given by Consuelo Varela in Cartas de particulares a Colón y Relaciones coetáneas, Recopilación y edición de Juan Gil y Consuelo Varela Alianza Editorial, S. A., Madrid, 1984. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, we have what is virtually a single purpose account, pushing the fringe ideas of Rosa multiple times on talk pages (including this interest in Filipa Moniz, to the extent of indulging in sock puppetry during the first month of the account's creation.

talk

) 09:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, it might be worth an SPI if only to establish the context. But in regard to the primary question, I think unless some reliable source is found for the notion that Rosa's work is accepted by the academic community, it cannot be considered a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At a conference at the Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos (CSIC) de Sevilla,(School of Spanish-American Studies) Professor Antonio Vicente, who introduced the conference on Rosa's work said the credibility around the genealogy of Columbus's wife was the main point for his support of the book. Furthermore many other language wiki and even the page gives Rosa as a source on other issues. Does all of this boil down to Dougweller's view about IT workers? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(ha!). Not at all, I'm an IT worker, and Dougweller has had minimal participation in the discussion here. The fact that other wikis in other languages give Rosa as a source is not relevant here, as wikis (including WP) are not consider reliable sources. I note that in the reuters piece you cite, Vincente compares Rosa's work to a police thriller, and that Rosa's work which raises questions about Columbus's origins is leant credence by Rosa work on the "genealogy of the Navigator's wife." I think that source is sufficient to establish that Vicente believes that Rosa's work raises questions about Columbus's origin and that Rosa has done some work that suggests that Columbus and Moniz may have been a nobles, and might well be used in a section in the article on either for that fact. But I think to link that to the edit in question posted by Dougweller above for this discussion would cross into OR. This source is essentially passing mention of Rosa's work, and does not establish the Rosa's work is a reliable source for the assertion that "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints". I also think that we have consensus here that the source in question is not a reliable source for the edit in question. My feeling is that the source in question could be used in a section devoted to the questions surrounding the origins of Columbus (and there's a brief treatment of that in the Columbus article that might be expanded somewhat) or in the article on Moniz, but not much else. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Richard Winger (March 1, 2008). "Early 2008 Registration Totals". Ballot Access News. 23 (11). San Francisco, CA: Richard Winger. Retrieved 2010-07-19.
• In Libertarianism
• To support: "with over 225,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a libertarian" regarding the Libertarian Party [USA]

My question is: Is Richard Winger an acknowledge specialist allowing him to produce such SPS as reliable sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Edward Stringham (2007). Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice. [Unknown]: Transaction Publishers. p. 268.
  ISBN 9781412805797
  .
• Libertarianism#Anarcho-capitalism
• To support: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as "libertarian anarchy" ... "free market anarchism") is a libertarian... political philosophy.

Transaction Publishers is widely known as a bad press, including during the year 2007. As such, should Transaction Publishers be used to support the content above. (It appears as though there are many reliable and high quality sources which support the above). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(1)Transaction Publishers is widely known as a bad press. You may be right, but would you please elaborate.

(2)It appears as though there are many reliable and high quality sources which support the above. So what is the issue with using them and what is the issue with citing verifiable information to an arguably inferior source if it might save some drama.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They are a partisan U.S. conservative publishing house and should not be used. No evidence that they follow any fact-checking or peer review, and their books are all polemical. I would definitely avoid. Notice though that the article in the Transaction book is actually a reprint of a paper published by an academic journal (see p. xii). In the case of a collection of essays, each one should be assessed separately. Often collections will contain writings by individuals who are involved in the topic and are not specialists. TFD (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Karen DeCoster (2006-04-19). "Henry George and the Tariff Question". Mises Daily. Auburn, Alabama, USA: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Not peer reviewed, no editorial control.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Foldvary, Fred E. (2002). "Editorial: Geoism and Libertarianism". The Progress Report (Benjamin Banneker Center for Economic Justice and Progress) (June). http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm.
• In Libertarianism
• To support, "Geolibertarianism is a political movement that strives to reconcile libertarianism and Georgism (or "geoism")."

The problem with the first source is that it is published by Mises Daily website. Mises Daily lacks an about page, and has no indication of editorial control. Could other editors please assist with the reliability of Mises Daily, given it has no indication of editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the second source is that it is published by The Progress Report, a daily aggregator that takes no responsibility for the opinion content it hosts; and has no indication of editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My initial thoughts:

• WP:CIRCULAR
  . So I wouldn't use that source at all for this statement.
• As for the second source, I don't see where it's a daily aggregator. According to our article on the author,
  Fred E. Foldvary, he is affiliated with that site, and has apparently has written dozens (hundreds?) of editorials for it.[19] According to this bio[20], Foldvary has a degree in economics, taught at several universities and published several books so he may qualify as a published expert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk
  ) 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The following quote which is quite detailed is a milder version of what is currently being used in the article Chrysostomos of Smyrna:

"The tales vary as to the manner of Chrysostom's death, but the evidence is conclusive that he met his end at the hands of the Ottoman populace. A Turkish officer and two soldiers went to the offices of the cathedral and took him to Nureddin Pasha, the Turkish commander-in-chief, who is said to have adopted the medieval plan of turning him over to the fanatical mob to work its will upon him. There is not sufficient proof of the veracity of this statement, but it is certain that he was killed by the mob. He was spat upon, his beard torn out by the roots, beaten, stabbed to death and then dragged about the streets." Chapter 16, p. 86.

4. See talk at bottom of the following talk page: [[21]].

Also, George Horton is discussed multiple times on this talk page: [[22]] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The book appears to be a personal account, and has been criticized for it's POV. It's clearly a primary source, and as such, to be avoided. Why do you feel it is "impossible to replace as a source"? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

George Horton, as the US Consul General of the United States in the Near East, was in a privileged position:

• • • he was there;
    • he was a witness of events leading up to the Great Fire of Smyrna;
    • he was not Greek, Armenian or Turkish;
    • he was a highly educated individual;
    • he had excellent connections to many notable individuals throughout Smyrna (as such is an excellent linkman to record what had happened);
    • his openness and honesty is sincere;
    • he was so affected by what he had witnessed himself and what he had learned from other witnesses that he was compelled to write this book;
    • there is no source that has more detailed first-hand-accounts or is more connected to what happened in Smyrna;
    • there is no source concerning these events that is quoted more. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a question. If this was not a primary source. Is it reasonable for any Wikipedia Editor to claim that George Horton was a racist and therefore cannot be quoted? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the first part does not really answer my question, which is, why is it impossible to replace as a source. Are there no 2ndry source from academic journal or books by professional historians that treat the subject? In regard to the second question, if it were not a primary source, it might still not pass muster, as he's not a professional historian, and, given the option, we generally prefer to use articles and books written by historians for articles on historical events--they have training in shifting through primary sources, and their works are vetted by peers. As far as I know, Horton has no training as a historian, and his work did receive such evaluation. I cannot say whether or not Horton was a racist, but it does seem that he had an axe to grind, which does not add to his reliability as a source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are secondary sources but one has to use several just to get a partial picture of what Horton wrote in his book. For example, he had a complete record of all ships radio messages to the consulate and you don't get a feeling for the atmosphere or the context of the events in secondary sources. The secondary sources are detached. But I guess that is one of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, use of multiple 2ndary sources is preferred, as it helps reduce the chance that we will inadvertently introduce POV. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok. Thanks for all your help. I understand why primary sources written by non-professional-historians should be avoided. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, best of luck! --Nuujinn (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know about the general quality of works published by Infobase Publishing? When we have plenty of books from publishers like Greenwood, Routledge, and university presses, should we be using Infobase as well, or is it generally of lower quality? To me it appears that they mostly specialize in junk reference books like the World Almanac, "mass market" encyclopedias, and the "Facts on File" series. What are your opinions? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That would depend largely on what you are trying to source. I will note that it's a tertiary source, and in general, such are used only for broad overviews of a topic, and it does not appear to be of high quality. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

According to their website, "Infobase Publishing is one of America's leading providers of supplemental educational materials to the school and library markets."[23] I would avoid. High school text books are tertiary sources and probably not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Infobase: no, aimed at schools; comprising Facts on File (aimed at schools); Chelsea House (aimed at schools); Ferguson Publishing (aimed at schools); World Almanac (aimed at schools); Chelsea Clubhouse (aimed at schools). Bloom's Literary Criticism is a more interesting imprint, use with extreme caution as Infobase is willing to publish any of Bloom's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Tony Meakin, A Basic Church Dictionary. Canterbury Press 2001 ISBN 1-85311-420-0, p. 18)" (an Anglican church dictionary of liturgical terms published by the Anglican Church, with a distribution of just over 10,000 copies)
• "Peter C. Bower, 'The Companion to the Book of Common Worship. Geneva Press 2003 ISBN 0-664-50232-6, p. 163)" (an Anglican Church companion to the Anglican Book of Common Worship, published by the Anglican Church)
• "Steven J. Schloeder, Architecture in Communion. Ignatius Press 1998 ISBN 0-89870-631-9. p. 113)" (a Catholic work published by a liturgical press, discussing the Catholic liturgical implications of church architecture)

I ask because I can't find any evidence that they meet the criteria for a scholarly acceptance of a source ("The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes"), nor do any of them appear to be standard scholarly reference sources (none of them published by an academic press, none of them self-identify as a standard scholarly reference work).--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't seem like very high quality sources, but it would be better if you could share with us which articles are using these as sources, and which statements they are backing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They are being included in the Immersion baptism article under the title "Scholarly reference sources", in order to try and dispute the statement "Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism", which is followed by six citations of actual standard Bible dictionaries.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: What would be a more authoritative source for the subject? Who would be more expert? The works in question do seem to appear on a Google Scholar search even if they don't return that many hits. Lambanog (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be more authoritative sources for the commentary of scholarly reference sources on baptism, would be actual scholarly reference sources on baptism. The works cited here are perfectly authoritative sources for the subject of Anglican liturgy (though they would be primary sources). However, they are not being used as sources for Anglican liturgy. They are being represented as "standard scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism. There is no debate about their inclusion in the article (they are all already included in the article, in a different section), what is disputed is whether or not they are "standard scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism and can be included in the section reserved for "Scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism. They are actually all commentaries on the Anglican liturgical POV of baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They are being used as sources for the statement, "Others use it (the term "immersion baptism") to refer to a mode of baptism through partial immersion of a person who stands or kneels in water, while the baptizer pours water on his or her upper body, a mode of baptism that these writers distinguish from affusion baptism" (lead of the article), and again for the same purpose in the body of the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, where "others" means "other scholarly reference sources"; they are being represented as scholarly reference sources without any evidence being advanced that they are scholarly reference sources. Despite me challenging this several times, no one has provided any evidence that they are scholarly reference sources. All three of them are commentaries on the Anglican liturgical POV of baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a section heading 'Scholarly reference sources' pretty much original research? I don't think it's an appropriate section for this article.

talk

) 14:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't original research. How would it be original research? Wiki policy tells us how to differentiate accepted academic material; "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes".--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

this section is usually called "References". Anything that doesn't meet the "scholarly" requirement can just be thrown out on sight. --

dab (𒁳)

15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They are already included elsewhere in the article. There is no need for them to be in a section entitled "scholarly reference sources".--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The same question about why we need to specifically decide which sources are scholarly at all was also my first thought reading this question. (I don't agree that this means WP only ever should use scholarly sources, but I guess that is not necessarily what dab intends. We can use no scholarly sources in many contexts of course.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why we need to specify which sources are scholarly, apart from guidance such as "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes", is that readers need to know when they are reading

WP:FRINGE sources. There is no dispute that non-scholarly sources can be used. These sources are already used in the article. I repeat, these sources are already used in the article. The issue is that one editor wants to quote them twice in the article, once in a section entitled "Scholarly reference sources".--Taiwan boi (talk

) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an unusual approach and I am not sure it is going to add anything? But just following the apparent logic, I guess that if you are trying to designate some sources as being of a more scholarly quality than others, then the implication is that those designations should also need to be sourced or shown to be verifiable. But because you probably won't be able to find any standardized way to make this distinction in secondary sources, I fear this is just "asking for trouble" because it will be hard not to give the impression that this non-standardized way of favoring some sources over others might be used in order to push a POV. (I have not looked at the actual case. I am talking in principle, based on problems that "tend to happen".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of

WP:WEIGHT. There is nothing unusual or non-standard about this, and it is not a matter of favouring some sources over others. The other sources are already used in the article. Wiki policy informs us that not all sources are of equal value, that some sources are scholarly and some are not that "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes". If it is unusual to treat sources as having different value to an article, then I'd like to see the evidence. Or are you saying that all sources are of equal weight and we can't differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources?--Taiwan boi (talk

) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a fine line you are crossing perhaps. WP policy tells us as editors to look out for the quality of sources when editing, yes, but it does not tell us to publish our opinions about this in WP itself and make the article say which sources are better or worse. Policy actually suggests that to pass OPEN judgement on a source we should find another source to do so. You could say that our selection of sources as editors shows what we think and is itself original research "between the lines" (and on the talk page) but this is not an accepted sign of "Wikipedia OR" except in extreme cases. The community has come to see this "fine line" as important partly because not to do so would make our way of working difficult, because it would cause interminable arguments. Once people start making their own judgments of sources something which others must "obey" as an explicit rule rather than just work around and compromise with, this gets in the way of consensus editing. I recently engaged in a very long discussion on Philosophy which tried to come to agreement about what kinds of sourcing would be required for naming the most important philosophers of the 20th century. The discussion never actually came to any conclusion. Another way of discussing this theme is that WP accepts that all editors have a POV about stuff we want to add, and encourages us to add sourced POV rather than subtract the work of other people with another POV, which is what happens normally when one editor starts trying to dictate rules too strictly about sources which are reliable but should not be used. Hope some of this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok that's all very cool and stuff but it doesn't address what I wrote. 1. No dictation of sources is being made here. No one is suggesting that source X can be used but source Y cannot be used. No one was trying to say which sources could or could not be used. 2. No removal of sources was made. I will repeat again, the other sources are already used in the article. The issue is whether they should be used twice in the article, one of those times under the heading "Scholarly reference sources". 3. What I get most from what you wrote is that

WP:OR (which is apparently less flexible). So that much is clear.--Taiwan boi (talk

) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Short version: I still don't get why there needs to be a special separate scholarly reference sections to begin with, and having one might add little but create distractions. If I read dab's comments below and your replies it sounds like there is lots more going on and I really wonder if this is a proper case for RSN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some cleanup edits to the article. I don't know why people spend time with lengthy discussions when there is such obvious need for basic cleanup. Once the most obvious stuff is out of the way, it may make sense to revive the discussion on details, but glaring structural deficits like the ones in this case should just be fixed before any discussion on "reliable sources" can begin.

Seriously, I don't understand the mindset of the editors who tag a dozen footnotes to the statement that "Modern, professional lexicography defines βαπτίζω as dip, plunge or immerse,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]" [24] Wth? This is supposed to be an article about "immersion baptism", not the Wiktionary entry on βαπτίζω. Not to mention a lengthy discussion of "Meaning of the English word immersion": guys? This is silly. I am not sure why you need external input from a noticeboard to point this out. Articles that get stuck at such a level simply need input from experienced editors that cut away the cruft.

Then separate scholarly discussion no how baptism was likely practiced in antiquity from disputes about how baptism should be performed today. These are two entirely different questions, and it is the job of our editors to prevent pov-pushers from unduly conflating them.

As far as I can see, it is assumed that John the Baptist actually immersed his customers, but that the early apostles baptized either by immersion or affusion as was convenient. If I am mistaken, just replace this by the actual scholarly consensus. The endless bickering about methods in baptism as they have taken place since the Reformation should be treated as a separate topic. --

Cleanup was impossible because it was being prevented by Esoglou, an editor who is on record as consistently demonstrating ownership behaviour. Every single simple factual statement was being disputed by him. He was even challenging the definition of the English word "immersion", which is why the word had to be defined. Of course it's silly! I don't need a third party to tell me that, but I wasn't the one who raised the issue; Esoglou insisted on evidence from dictionary definitions demonstrating how the English word "immersion" is typically used, even though several editors said it wasn't necessary. Do you know why I had to add those footnotes? Because the definition of the word in question was being challenged repeatedly by Esoglou, and when I sought the advice of a Wiki Administrator he advised that I should add as many footnotes as possible to every single statement I wanted to make, or it would be susceptible to deletion. This was not a matter of input being required from an experienced editor to "cut away the cruft", the simple fact is that other people were prevented from making edits such as yours due to Esoglou's repeated reverts and edit warring. He is less likely to challenge your edits, not because you are an experienced editor but because you are an admin. The scholarly discussion about how baptism was likely practiced in antiquity is already separated from disputes about how baptism should be performed today.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Karen Zittleman; Sadker, David Miller (2006). Teachers, Schools and Society: A Brief Introduction to Education with Bind-in Online Learning Center Card with free Student Reader CD-ROM. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. pp. 48, 49, 108, G–12.

This source is being used in special education.

Students with special needs are segregated in separate classes exclusively for students with special needs for the rest of the school day.

I would like another editor to take a look at the source because I have this textbook and it does not mention that at all. It doesn't mention that these students are segregated as this textbook talk about how special education is done in the United States. I mean, they were segregated in special education classes before mainstreaming started. I like the information changed to say that mainstreaming is not about segregating students with special needs. Or have it entirely removed since that information is about the United States. How can I get this source removed since the source does not support that information? Zxavion Pilkington (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the source does not support the statement, start off by removing the citation and replacing it with a {{Failed verification}} or {{fv}} tag. Leave the statement, for now (it can be changed later). Then open a discussion about the issue on the article talk page... explain why you removed the citation, and present your suggestions for replacement language. Work with others to find sources that discuss special ed and the issue of segregation vs mainstreaming, and compose language that reflects what those sources say. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The source does not support the statement, I was asking on this board if someone also agrees with me then I can remove the citation and replace it with that: {{Failed verification}} or {{fv}} tag. I thought we needed consensus before making changes to the article. But I see now that we need to be bold first. I'm going to do that now. Thanks for your suggestion. Zxavion Pilkington (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: User blocked as a sockpuppet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the usability of John Little's book as a reliable source for claims to Bruce Lee's physical feats. Could someone please instruct us as to the proper steps we should take? Padillah (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look, does not look reliable to me. The claims made are extraordinary, and I think we'd require more than one source for this kind of information. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns about the extent to which the following source can be used reliably for material on the history of a given company:

• (Penderson, Jay P. (2011). International Directory of Company Histories. MI: Cengage Learning.
  ISBN 978-1-4144-6881-5
  .)

An editor wants to use it at Books-A-Million and there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Books-A-Million#History_Section. There is a relevant backstory here as well. When the editor first added the "historical" material they simply copy/pasted it from Answers.com. I reverted and pointed out that this amounted to plagiarism, and that I wasn't sure of the reliability of Answers.com. In response the editor rephrased the same text and added it back, but this time sourced it to the afore mentioned book. This is where I became concerned with the reliability of the book itself. The same text, about the history of Books-A-Million can be found on several different websites - [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. I'm not exactly sure what this means. My initial guess was that the original source of the information was a Books-A-Million press release and that this is why the same text is reproduced all over the internet. I have just now discovered that one of the websites listed above, actually cites the International Directory of Company Histories in the copyright. Note that in some other reproductions of the text the book is listed as "further reading", among other books. What do people make of this? I admit that I'm very unsure about this myself, but would like some more expert input on the matter before a non-plagiarized summary of the information is added back into the entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would add that 3 of the 5 sites listed above (here, here, and here) reference the international directory. Answers.com does as well. In fact, this site seems to present itself as a direct excerpt from the book. The reason it appears over and over is that, as is typical on the internet, there are few reliable sources for such information as company history that are not simply PR fluffery, so all these places that try to offer such information found it from the same source, being famous and popular for its reliability. This is the same way that I posted it originally, no plagiarism intended the way I understand it, though I now understand that the way Wikipedia would define it it goes against their policy.Eikou (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:ABOUTSELF be used unless "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK

) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)