Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91

• Nanobear offered this ref as an example of offering an article from a blog site. FWIW, this particular url is not used in any wikipedia articles. Not everything called a "blog" is unreliable. There are dozens of things that are called blogs that I use that are so reliable they are routinely cited commentators in the mainstream press, and not vice versa.
  Scotusblog is a good example. I don't know the background of the blog the globalsecurity.org page Nanobear cites. Nanobear, do you know whether that blog is from the tiny percentage of things that call themselves blogs that are, nevertheless, quite reliable? Geo Swan (talk
  ) 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK. I think that most contributors here are willing to regard most of those 10,000 references to www.globalsecurity.org remain -- depending on the context of how they are used. FWIW, any reference can be used improperly, if used in the wrong context.

  Some contributors here have repeated that primary sources are not prohibited, that they merely have to be used carefully, and in a way that complies with policy. I believe I had used the reference carefully, and that my use complied with policy. Sorry that I didn't supply the right diff in this discussion. I have fixed that. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree - Your use of primary sources with which to denote notability, and which create articles that are, in fact, original research, has been raised here: [38]. "most" members of this community have expressed their views on your use of primary source materials in your articles, and you have cosen to ignore that advice. This thread is no different. The only person who has made a statement that these edits should remain is you. Two editors have stated that your use of primary sources is incorrect as a matter of policy, one has said it depends, and one says as a source it is reliable. Everyone has added caveats, except you, as to their use. The issue is not one of "reliability", the issue is
  WP: Primary. I am also quite certain that the DOD is a "reliable source" for primary materials as well, yet the use of this source in an article violates WP policy. The excised portion of the article is also illustrative. You placed into the article the fact he prepared a report, linked it, then provided a synopsis of what the report stated in summation fashion. This abaolutely violates polic which states quite clearly: " 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. [Emphasis added]" Therein lies your problem. You link the primary source from a reliable source, then provide an intepretation based on your own POV without the use of a secondary source to support your statement. --Yachtsman1 (talk
  ) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that if there's any question regarding whether this is the same Shabir, and whether a particular Shabir did these things, it might be good to find a better source than a military press release. Military reports are often self serving. And there are

WP:BLP issues, too. It seems like if this were significant, the media would have reported it. TimidGuy (talk

) 12:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I need more comments on commons file:[39], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [40] and commented by user:Benlisquare:here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang ^talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly VOA represents the view of the U.S. and is biased, but in that sense, all of the mainstream media in the U.S. have the same bias. Since it's been posted on the VOA Channel in YouTube, I believe we generally view such videos from mainstream media as being reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the question is whether inclusion of a video file on the Wikipedia project is encyclopedic. If you take a look at my original argument, my main concern was not POV or reliability, but rather the file's inclusion being pointless. If Fox News was public domain, would we have video clips of Fox News reports on every single politics-related page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss reliability of particular sources. I don't know that we can make any broad statement about the use of video news reports. That might be a discussion appropriate to the Talk page of

WP:RS. TimidGuy (talk

) 12:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comment, TimidGuy. Arilang ^talk 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I raised the issue of the reliability of

The two respondents in the discussion above who objected to the use of practically all references from the US Department of Defense or the US Department of Justice, characterizing them as primary sources, and routinely making the mistake of asserting that primary sources are not allowed, when policy does allow them to be used, so long as they are used with appropriate care. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Academic journals published by DoD educational institutions and essays published by DoD employees

The DoD includes a number of colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. In addition to the service academies, the DoD runs the

Is there any reason to treat the journals published out of these institutions as any less reliable than any other academic journals? Do these journals have an inherent bias? Maybe. I don't know. I am not myself an expert in any of the fields these journals cover. It is my impression that the professors and instructors at these DoD institutions are proud of their qualifications and feel their scholarship, their reasoning, their arguments, can hold their own when compared with the work of civilian scholars.

Similarly, I think when a student or professor who is a DoD employee has a paper published in a civilian journal, or reasonable equivalent, it should, in general, be regarded as just as reliable as one published by a civilian.

Are there exceptions? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't believe there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

American Forces Press Service

I first raised the question on whether articles by reporters and journalists at the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. Some respondents offered their opinions there. I've read and used many articles by AFPS reporters and journalists, some of whom have worked there for years. As above, I think they write to inform, or to entertain, as some of their articles are lighter, human interest type articles. As above I do not think there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda.

The key passage from the AFPS article that triggered my question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org seems to have been: "In other news, Afghan and coalition forces have positively identified a Taliban leader detained during a Feb. 25 joint operation in Ghazni province as Mullah Shabir." The American Forces Press Service writer did what we would do -- they made clear who identified Shabir as a Taliban leader -- "Afghan and coalition forces". Sure, it is possible the individual was misidentified as a Taliban leader. And the American Forces Press Service writer used the same kind of careful wording as we would have used -- attributing the claim to "Afghan and coalition forces".

I do not believe there was a policy based reason to excise this reference as unreliable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Afghan Forces Inflict Losses, Detain Local Taliban Leader".
  American Forces Press Service
  . 2008-03-05.

Local DoD publications

In the discussions above I asked for input on whether we should regard articles written by reporters and journalists employed by the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable.

A couple of the contributors who have weighed in there routinely object to the use of any material written by employees of the DoD. Well, when I first started contributing here I didn't realize how many journalists and reporters the DoD employs.

In this diff you can see three references excised with the edit summary "Eliminated primary sources and self promotion. Use secondary sources. Thank you."

The third reference excised was:

• Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner (2006-06-23). "Osan's vulnerability assessed" (PDF). The MIG Alley Flyer. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-03-07. Many people think the bomb used by the Oklahoma City bombers was much larger than the car bomb used by the Khobar Towers bombers. Not so, according to Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, team chief of the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability Assessment team that began their analysis of Osan this week.

I used this reference in an article about a USN Captain John F. Murphy (JAG). I used it to substantiate that, at one point in his career, he traveled as leader of a team that assessed the vulnerability of US bases to terrorist bomb threats. Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner, the author of the article, was not Murphy's subordinate. She had no reason to distort the truth in her coverage of Murphy. I don't see why her article should be considered any less reliable than if she was a civilian reporter.

Was Murphy's assessment of the Osan base's vulnerability reliable on some kind of deep level. I don't know. I don't care. As a wikipedia contributor who complies with

It turns out that lots of US bases, lots of US commands, have publications, generally published weekly, generally containing relatively light and uncontroversial material. Occasionally they will publish material that addresses a larger issue, that touches on that base, or command, and when those articles back up what is in the civilian media I think they can and should be regarded as just as reliable as civilian articles. Sometimes those occasional articles that address a broader issue covered in the civilian media will quote what is for them local officials, not quoted by the distant civilian media. And when they do so I think they should still generally be regarded as just as reliable as those by civilian reporters. Like any other reference information from them should be properly attributed to the source, not stated as a fact with no attribution. As with any other reference they could be misleading, if not used carefully. Well, when I use them, I will use them carefully.

I don't think they should be excised, as "primary sources", just because the writers work for the DoD. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Geo_Swan

- IQinn (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

THanks for important hint.

@Geo Swan: There is no blanket answer. In some contexts scholarly DoD-Publications can be considered relatively reliable, but in other they might not be. To the latter scenario belong in particular cases, where the DoD is an involved party in a current/ongoing event. If we are considering an ongoing case in which he DoD as an involved party, the reliability of DoD publication regarding it cannot be treated as realiable 3rd party sources, but they are in doubt not much different from lawyer statement regarding his client, a party spokesman regarding his party, etc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo, for your sincere efforts to clarify this. I believe that the above comment is a good way to look at it. In one sense, you're right: a primary source shouldn't be deleted just because it's a primary source. But on the other hand, primary sources must be used with caution, and in this case especially so, since there have been instances in the past where press statements by the military have turned out to be self-serving fabrications. (As the saying goes, "Truth is always the first casualty in war.") And as the poster above says, in some cases scholarly publications by the military can be considered reliable. In the particular instance above, have you searched resources such as Lexis/Nexis and Google News Archive to see if other media picked up the report about Shabir? If they did, then I'd say this information could be added to Wikipedia. If they didn't, and if there's some question about the information, then because it's a primary source (per the strong consensus at the earlier RSN), one must be cautious about using it as a source. Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.

I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman events of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.

The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order".

On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.

My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views, though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.

I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

I know of no reason to believe that The Economist has any bias against Hindus. If there is specific disputed text on a specifiic article please say what it is. Otherwise this is just pointless "venting". Paul B (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is silence over ethnic cleansing and massacre of pilgrims any good for "a reliable source of the highest order"? I don't think so. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

Can you just say what this is about? Is there an article in The Economist that has been quoted somewhere on Wikipedia? You keep repeating this phrase "a reliable source of the highest order". Did someone say that to you? If so where? About what? There is no point is criticising The Economist for being silent on a topic, since it couldn't be used as a source for something it did not say. So what is it that this journal says that you are objecting to? Paul B (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see this related to this exchange User_talk:Eraserhead1#Changes_reverted_in_article_on_Narendra_Modi regarding the article Narendra Modi. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This link may help. http://www.economist.com/node/16213932. Though, questioning silence of those who should not be silent, is not too contradictory is it? http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html

The source should be the book itself, not the Economist's review. And the book clearly has a point of view (a memoir of someone directly involved in events). Because it's from a major publisher, it's a reliable source for that point of view. I agree that just because something is in the Economist doesn't mean it's sacrosanct; we always take various factors into account. In this case, it seems like information from this book, if expressing a strong point of view, should be attributed. If you feel that the information from this source is skewing the point of view of an article, you can take that to

WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk

) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A previous discussion about Vigile.net declared that it was not to be used as a source of archived newspaper articles. In a contemporaneous AfD, one editor also said "I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source". French-language writings on Vigile.net, which are not copied from newspaper sites, are being used by a small group of editors on articles relating to the Canadian province of Quebec. My specific concern relates to the use of pseudonymous writings used to support statements in Vladimir De Thézier. Should Vigile.net be considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Vigile.net may have been hastily judged not to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but it's a
   Radio-Canada
   . Several political figures and organizations publicly declared their support for Vigile.net when it faced criticism.
2. Several prominent Quebec politicians, intellectuals and activists have published articles on Vigile.net, which indicates that it isn't a fringe website regardless of whether or not it is “biased”.
3. I would therefore argue that Vigile.net is an appropriate reference source for brief statements of minor facts that are neither controversial nor disputed in the article in question.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping to hear comments from other editors, but it seems only fair to point out that sentences like "In March 2010, De Thézier began advocating for the convergence of the Quebec sovereignty movement with bright green environmentalism into a “sovereign green movement” dedicated to the creation of a “green republic of Quebec”, a constitutional republican state organized according to the principles of deliberative democracy, green politics and co-operative economics" is not a "minor fact". That particular statement is sourced to a blog post from a free small-market news weekly and four French-language articles from Vigile.net all written by the same single-named pseudonymous author (it seems unlikely that this is in each of them). Unless Vigile.net is a reliable source and, in particular, a source which is qualified to recognize De Thezier as an important thinker on such matters, what he advocates is no more relevant here than what he eats for breakfast. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. By “minor fact”, I meant to say that we are not using this source to support a claim about a major fact of history in an article about an event (such the identity of the perpertrators of the 9/11 atttacks). It is simply being used to support a claim about a minor fact of history in an article about a living person (such as a retired hockey player joining the Green Party of Canada and working for the inclusion of an innovative proposal in the party's platform).
2. The issue of whether or not he is an important thinker is irrelevant since no one claimed he was an important thinker on such matters and we aren't debating on this noticeboard whether or not he should be mentioned in the Green politics article as an important thinker on the subject. Ultimately, according to a growing consensus, the notability of this individual as an activist has been established for him to deserve a Wikipedia article. The fact that he has received some press for his advocacy of an original idea should be mentioned in any biographical article about him for the sake of comprehensiveness. It therefore makes no sense to oppose the inclusion of this information.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't get into a debate here, but the source is not being used to confirm facts (such as birthplace), but to justify the inclusion of De Thezier's opinions. If De Thezier isn't an important thinker in this area, there is no reason to include their opinions in an encyclopedia. This is why I am asking for input on this use of the source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense since the goal of a Wikipedia biographical article of a notable person is reporting significant facts in his or her life and career. If he has gotten press because of his advocacy of an opinion, it is a fact that should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Reporting this fact doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article on him is claiming that he is an important thinker on the matter unless a sentence in the article explicitly stated that he was, which it doesn't. That being said, whether or not Vigile.net is judged to be a reliable source, the Vigile.net articles are being used as secondary sources to 1) support the primary reliable source, which is an article published in the printed version of Voir (as well as on one of its blogs), and 2) expand our understanding of the concept discussed in the primary source. --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster where you write "a fact that should be mentioned" I would tweak that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable "fact". So should->could? Whether a fact should be included on WP is normally something there should be a certain level of consensus on, although WP editing policy is clearly written with a bias against deletion of anything properly sourced and notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. You are correct that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable fact. However, I would argue that this particular notable and verifiable fact deserves to be mentioned in this article because it seems to indicate a decisive change in this notable person's worldview and career. --Loremaster (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The following was recently added to Misogyny:

Critics claim Islam as a misogynistic religion where women are captives, "honor killing" exists for even rape^[13] and women are considered inferior in every way: physically, intellectually and morally.^[14].

Those refs need to be filled out, of course, but I'm not sure that they actually are reliable. Both are reprints hosted by the "Council for Secular Humanism" website. The first, by Judith Hayes, originally appears in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. As the internal newsletter for an explicitly POV organization, this seems to definitely fail

That seems reasonable to me. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree, that seems sensible. While you're at it, the phrase "Critics claim Islam as a..." doesn't seem quite the correct English. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree also, that's a reasonable approach. That said, I would imagine there are various reliable books or scholarly sources that discuss the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is the single one that supports the

Yes, I think your list of sources should be preferred over this website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources support the theory of the Vlach (Romanian) origin. The (fringe?)theory of the Cuman origin is an alternative theory supported by a single questionable source. I was asking if the respective source is valid. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

This appears to be an online version of a published work. I remember, Iaaasi, that you suggested (somewhere above) removing the other source that was cited for this scrap of information about John Hunyadi. I'm surprised that you've forgotten to mention that fact!

I agreed with you there; I don't agree here. The reader may as well know that this theory of John Hunyadi's origin exists, and this is a useful source for it. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My comment above didn't take into account the particular article that this information was being used in. Agree with Andrew. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been the main editor working on keeping the

I would say yes. Apart from the "opinion" disclaimer, everything about it looks like serious reportage, including the "Tehran" byline. It definitely needs to be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing better is available imho you can use it with caution but you need to attribute it explicitly ("according to ...").--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can be used with attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Siberiankiss1989 has been adding more than a few reviews to music article infoboxes. The site linked to is DEAD PRESS. User also tried to create a page for DEAD PRESS, but was A7'ed. I'd like to remove these reviews as non-notable/unreliable, but will wait for a second opinion before doing so. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Chrome gives me the following warning: "Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer! The website at www.deadpress.co.uk contains elements from the site adarchitect.net, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent." I don't know if we have a policy about linking to web sites which contain malware, but on the basis alone, I would say to remove these links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry to expose you! Firefox didn't do me the courtesy of a warning. I'm going to start yanking these. The Interior (Talk) 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its just the banner ads. Chrome isn't giving me a warning though. I guess it must not care as much about me as it does you, AQFK. I don't think it is an RS for reviews, though, unless someone can demonstrate that it has some sort of standing in the field - the fact that it was A7ed suggests probably not. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, it redirects to another site which gives me a fake JavaScript dialog claiming, "AVG has found suspicious activity on your pc and will perform some action on your pc." It then loads up a realistic looking but fake Windows XP Explorer-style screen which performs a fake scan of your system. When the 'scan' is complete, it displays a fake Windows Security Alert which claims to have found numerous viruses. Clicking anywhere on the page gives you a download dialog for "setup.exe". That's about as far as I went. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the articles where it's being used.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, there are more than I thought. Most look to be the work of the account above. I've started, but many hands make for light work hint hint. The Interior (Talk) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed these links to DEAD PRESS. It very much appears to be a spamming effort on behalf of an amateur music site. If other editors feel strongly that this site is RS, I will take responsibility for rolling these removals back. Thanks AQFK for the list, much more efficient than my approach. I have notified Siberiankiss1989 of this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly fails

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the link in my original post because of bad juju issues at the DEAD PRESS site, see Google warning here: [42] The Interior (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman.[43] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.

The text added to the article reads:

In 1978, LaRouche's newspaper the Campaigner carried the editorial Zionism is not Judaism:^[15][16]

"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.^[17]

Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax:^[18][19]

These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications[...] LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’.

Feldman also said that the notes which

Jeremiah Duggan made at a 2003 Schiller Institute conference were evidence of the LaRouche movement's antisemitism.^[20]

There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.

The essay can be found here[44]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor.[45]

I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a partially relevant comment but isn't holocaustresearchproject.net blacklisted ? I remember tripping a filter just a few weeks ago when I tried to link to an essay on their site and being completely baffled as to why. I found a discussion but I forget where...hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be an issue with the website that hosts the essay, but the author and the essay itself seem reliable. Was it ever published in another venue? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha...discussed here although that still left me somewhat baffled. I recall I was looking at something by Matthew Feldman too. Seemed perfectly fine to me as a source but I couldn't find it elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location.BillMasen (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and potentially good news. I tripped the filter on Feb 5th just over a month ago at Talk:Chetniks with this link. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No filter tripped this time. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my doubts about this site remain. It may not be blacklisted anymore, but that does not mean it can be used: So far, it seems that the site is nothing more than a blog and thus the article itself remains selfpublished under

WP:SPS. If evidence is presented that the site provides any kind of editorial oversight, I'd gladly revise my doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk • contribs

)

The claim is not being made by the site, but by Feldman. Surely it is him who should be considered the source. BillMasen (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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. Feldman has previously published articles in academic journals about LaRouche. BillMasen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've sent an email to the "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" asking about their editorial practices.

As i still have grave doubts about the merits,reliability and publishing practice of this source, i would love to hear their response. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BillMasen that Feldman would qualify as an expert, however we can't use the self-published sources of experts for comments about living people.

WP:BLPSPS. If it turns out to be self-published, then we could use it as a source for the movement, but not for LaRouche himself, if I understand correctly.  Will Beback  talk

  23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, thanks Will. Feldman cites the Campaigner, and I've verified the quote; it is accurate. If there are other sources from within the movement writing about the Holocaust that accept the generally agreed figure of 6 million, then that might affect my views on how to handle this, but as it stands, Feldman's criticism seems fair to me. --JN466 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

JN, the "Views" article had, as a quick review of its history from 2005-2010 proves,always some paragraphs about different assessments of the Holocaust and featured LaRouches condemnation of Antisemitism. Those different views were deleted in 2010. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that worries me about the text that has been introduced is that Feldman is reported as saying, "Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax." That's a subtle misquote of Feldman, and a misrepresentation of what the Campaigner argues. The Campaigner doesn't argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. What the Campaigner describes as a hoax is the notion that Zionism is a justified and necessary response to the Holocaust. It argues, essentially, that Zionists have used the holocaust to their own nefarious ends. I would delete the reference to "Holocaust denial" from the section's heading, drop the sentence ""Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax," and instead just use the actual quote of what Feldman said (including, if you will, his reference to a "coded form of holocaust denial"). Just stick close to the source. --JN466 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the campaigner quote does say that only 1.5 million Jews did die, through 'labour policies' which weren't directed at them. This is very common holocaust denial, and Feldman calls it so. See [46] Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition,

I have no objection to your suggestion of using a direct quote from Feldman. Thanks! BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed it BillMasen (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The 1.5 million figure does not work in the Campaigner's favour. Other LaRouche publications are more mainstream, however; here is one clearly referring to "the murder of 6 million Jews", and here is an essay by LaRouche in which he says, "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews", extols Mendelssohn as the saviour of German classical music (of which he is definitely a fan) and argues that Jewish contributions made German culture and science what it is. I think it's possible that his beef is with Zionists and certain Jewish financiers rather than with Jews. --JN466 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I sent an email to the webmaster asking about their editorial practices and received an automatic reply saying they're too busy to answer emails.   Will Beback  talk  14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767

This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fifelfoo, it appears to meet all the requirements of

WP:RS. Do you have any reason to think it doesn't? Jayjg ^(talk)

18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Wikipedia with it.

Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know too much about BR but our page on

talk

) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One-off publications like this are the hallmark of a self-published book. I'd say not RS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One editor recently claimed that the sources used in

I see that it's been nominated for deletion. Newspapers can indeed be reliable sources, but the issue seems to be notability. Perhaps post here again if the article is retained. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the nominator's rationale in the AFD was that the sources used in the article were unreliable. I didn't mention that it was at AFD since I didn't want to come across as canvassing. I've used USCHO and Collegehockeynews.com on a few articles so I was curious whether I should remove them from others or not.

talk

) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Those all appear to be reliable sources — recognized publications with editorial oversight. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article

If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Wikipedia article, that is because several Wikipedia editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Wikipedia article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Wikipedia article does not. Mlm42 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. It might have been a reasonably well regarded effort when initially compiled but it has gone out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, given how out of date it is, it can't be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 1 January 2001? Yes I don’t see why not. Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 15 March 2011? No of course not. - dwc lr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using a self-published source for material about living persons. As I understand it, it's being used to include details of illegitimate children, which would be a violation of the BLP policy. See
  SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}
  18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A search of the archives brings up five results, but I don't see that Rootsweb was discussed in any of those threads..[51] Ancestry.com has been discussed. In this thread from last fall[52], the response was that it fails to meet the standard because it contains user-generated content. This discussion is from last September is also helpful.[53]. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This web news service, "Zurf Military Aircraft," is cited as the only source for a claim in

I am a bit dubious. I have looked at the site and it looks SPS to me. No editorial team not by lines.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I found where they said Al Jazeera had reported it, but I could not find it at the Al Jazeera site, though they might have said it. I found an AP wire service report that quoted the rebels as saying they had attacked the Libyan Navy, but that is a reliable source mirroring an unconfirmed claim by a partisan source. I could not find the name of the editor or reporter at "Zurf." Edits citing Zurf Military Aircraft in th

2011 Libyan uprising article were by User:AircraftZurf, who links to the website on his userpage, and who inserts references to Zurf Military Aircraft various articles: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. I have notified User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk

) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the modifications there are sometimes subtle changes in the articles. In [60] for example a line is added about commencing sea trials in 2011. and replacing Ka-31 will with Ka-31 may because China is also testing the Z-8 as an AEW aircraft as is shown with photographs (flying in the CAW-article and in Wuhan Naval Research Institute). We will only know which one is chosen when the aircraft carriers will appear at sea. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 9, concern was expressed on the talk page of

original research, he cites instead in his Wikipedia edits the original news sources he is getting the information from, and that those sources be cited rather than his website in the various additions if information to aviation related articles. If it is not his website, there is still a concern about whether it should be cited in Wikipedia, since links are not always provided to the source stories, just vague assertions that Reuters or Al Jazeera said something. Edison (talk

) 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Zurf Military Aircraft I'm the editor of the article of Zurf Military Aircraft. The purpose of the article about the Libyan Uprising is to create an overview of all military aircraft related news in one article. In the timeline with the article its sources are listed. When the information is not confirmed it is mentioned in the article (On 15 March several sources (Al Jazeera and Reuters) reported ... Details and reliability of these reports are unknown.)

References are (which are present in the timeline):

• http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/libyan-navy-attacked-by-fighter-jets.html for reuters/al jazeera and possibility of other countries Title: Libyan Navy Attacked by Fighter Jets - Updated
• http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/march-15-updates/ al jazeera arabic news named Free Libyan Air Force Title:BREAKING: Ajdabiya is NOT in the hands of Gaddafi's forces
• http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-15 Title:Libya Live Blog - March 15

Also some other snippets which weren't put in the timeline mentioned it. Original sources seem to be limited and originate mainly from the opposition website Libya al-Youm.

In the wikipedia-article Details and reliability of these reports are unknown were added because the reliability of the statements is doubted by us. It should be mentioned though, because the opposition has at least control over a Mi-24 helicopter (see bottom photograph of Mi-24 #854 and click to go to the source) and an attack by helicopters was mentioned in the articles above.

Zurf takes credibility and reliability seriously. To avoid confusion its probably better to list the references (similar to wikipedia) in the article on Zurf Military Aircraft?

I'm sure you do, I hope more do! However, given that this has had no play in any mainstream US or British medium, I would think we would do well to be cautious. I suggest inline attribution, and no "According to multiple sources", I say name them. I just have difficulty believing, given the tenor of the reporting which is (to put it mildly) bending over backwards to be fair to the rebels/insurgents, that if there was any credence to this, it would not have been trumpeted on CNN.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, but strange things are also happening there. I've also read reports that Egyptian soldiers are fighting with the rebels and I wouldn't be surprised if another country would even the odds a little without anybody knowing (by attacking beyond visual range) . The western media focus is now on Japan and Libya seems to be yesterdays story. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not cite yourself anymore in Wikipeia. That is

original research and perhaps a conflict of interest. Just cite the original sources you have found when you wish to add the information to Wikipedia. I have no complaints about the information being accurate, but you cannot cite yourself as a reliable source, when the site is anonymous, and it has not been acknowledged as a reliable source by mainstream news media or book authors. Places where you have quoted your own website need to be converted to citations of the original sources. Edison (talk

) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an RfC

ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,

"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."

As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost article

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

It's not a reliable source because we can't tell who writes the entries. But it is quite useful, because it can indicate where there might be an error in a Wikipedia article, and we can then look up reliable sources and correct the error if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In a case such as this, where several apparently useful factual statements are made (some of which might not be easy to source), I wonder whether it would be a good idea to include a link to the ICorrect page among the external links on our John Bond page, titled e.g. "corrections to an earlier version of this Wikipedia page". Would others agree or not? Andrew Dalby 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears information posted on iCorrect is not checked by the site. All they do (or claim to do) is verify that the author is who they say they are. As such it is no better or worse than the users blog - an authotitative source on the opinion of that person.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS

says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Bond's correction of his birthdate, schooling etc. seem to be

reliable under this section and a link to iCorrect would be appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That all hinges on the belief that ICorrect's verification of identity is sufficiently rigorous that we can take these statements as being actualy from the people specified. I, for one, have some difficulty believing that Bianca Jagger, for instance, spends her time correcting minutia about her family. I would say that until we have some reasonable certainty that ICorrect's proffer of identity is factual, it cannot be a reliable source. Once we have sufficient assurances, then the statements can be used as statements by people about themselves in the manner quoted just above, but until then, they should be used as pointers to information that may need to be corrected through reliable third-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Their verification is probably through the credit card payment system. Paying $1000 just to post corrections is a pretty big deal, and the likelihood that someone would forge a credit card identity for Bianca Jagger for the purpose of paying money rather than stealing money seems slim. But you're correct, we'd have to know more about their verification methods. ~

talk

) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the chances are that Bianca Jagger did nothing of the sort. If she did anything, she told an assistant or her PR person to do it -- that's just not the kind of thing that celebs generally do for themselves -- so I wouldn't assume that there's a credit card slip somewhere with Jagger's signature on it to make this all kosher (although there could be a written authorization from her - we just don't know).

That's my speculation, of course, but it's reasonable speculation based on the way the real world actually works. If ICorrect is serious about being a conduit for necessary corrections for living people that have had information about them misrepresented, then it's up to them to publish specifics about their verification regime before we begin to take them at their word. (Online, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no idea who's behind those claimed real world identities.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care if we accept or ban iCorrect as a source, but would note your objection--that Bianca Jagger may not have been much involved personally--would also apply to any self published web site of a celebrity, official facebook page or Twitter feed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor (199.246.40.54 (talk · contribs)) yesterday added a link to a blog post as a reference for this article. I reverted, and today the IP editor reverted back, with edit summary saying Undid revision 419029356 by Looie496 (talk) This is not journal but a wiki article. blog is one of oldest sources to explain this effect through experiments. In my view this reference should not be used because (a) it violates WP's policy against using blogs, and (b) it actually is not very useful in understanding the phenomenon in any case. Although I see this as an open-and-shut case, I have a personal policy of never multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I am bringing the problem here in the hope that somebody else will take a look at it. I will notify the IP editor of this request. Looie496 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to this edit[62] which is sourced to this blog.[63] This is the blogger's profile.[64] If so, I don't see how this meets Wikipedia's definition of a

WP:SPS for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 1[65] (in German) is of the product "The Zattoo software", not a reliable source ; Ref 12[66] is a blog,(
  WP:SPS ) clearly not a reliable source. --TheMandarin (talk
  ) 09:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the references, I feel that most of the sources are primary and this article needs significant secondary sources. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the non blog commercial webpage being questioned here as primary, what is the practical concern with primary information in this source. For those who do not read German, I guess it is like asking whether the BBC website should not be used as a source concerning programmes made by the BBC, because primary. I do not deny secondary sources might be better here but are we really saying that primary sources are worthless in such a case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Read #3 - the article I cited above from techdirt is the one that says he didn't need to make it public. It is the only site called out in the entire article inspite there being a number of sites who posted negative comments about the report.陣内_Jinnai 03:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only insofar as it clarifies what Sanger was responding to, but probably not going beyond that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley have been the subject of "satire" which a reasonable person would find offensive but are well remembered in the UK from the 1980s. In Hattersley's case, I amended the article to show it was unfair but

I remember the 'Spitting Image' satire well, and don't think that many saw it as that offensive. Kinnock and Hattersley were no more badly treated than Thatcher, and the way the vegetables cabinet were portrayed was if anything worse. Good honest knockabout comedy, in the tradition of political cartoons, or even of William Hogarth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These are notable portrayals of the politicians. We need to ensure that they are not given too much weight and that Wikipedia doesn't endorse the portrayals, and then the readers can make up their own minds what they think. There may be statements by the politicians themselves of how they considered these portrayals, and those should be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hattersley has regularly commented on his portrayal in Spitting Image, generally joking that he was the hero because his was the only image that actually spat. The expression "Welsh windbag" has a long pedigree predating Kinnock. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm actually posting this, but here goes. Are Joshua Levy's The Agony of the Promised Land (self-published through iUniverse) and Joshua Bloomfield's Palestine (self-published novel through AuthorHouse) reliable sources? I argue that they are not, because these are pay-to-publish services that require only money - rather than expertise, factual accuracy, or research skill - to publish, and because one is moreover fictional. Epeefleche argues that they are, because the facts in them are supposedly contained in "other" reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm .. yep. Look what proposition they stand for. Look at the other sources. Take Levy, for starters, as you start with him. He says "A said X". Which he views as "Z". We also have a ref of A. Saying ... you guessed it ... "X". Levy is fine to quote for his opinion of that. (N.B. -- this is an outgrowth of a much larger issue, involving witiguette issues, tag-bombing, asserted wikihounding, etc., which are beyond the scope of this board).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources are reliable for their own opinions, but Joshua Levy not being a notable person and his opinion not being reported on in any third-party source, there's no reason to include it. Including Bloomfield is simply inexcusable. Please keep your personal feud with me off RS Noticeboard, which is not the place for it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS is completely clear: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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." Books published by Authorhouse, iUniverse etc. are highly disfavored here (and I would think most people previously published by reliable third parties wouldn't need to resort to them). Both references should be removed from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 07:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

An example for discussion: I'm currently using an ancillary source that was published by iUniverse, but it is a niche topic, reliable enough to be in circulation as a definitive source in my library system, and recognized as reliable enough by history and wildlife experts to be cited in reliable sources. I think the part about reliable third parties using them is important, and it is important to note that when we use sources like this, they should be used to illustrate and expand upon the topic on points that are either already accepted and published widely in other sources and/or are uncontroversial and not found elsewhere. In other words, removing them would not change or alter the topic, but including them is more of a service to the reader. For example, the work, Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island (2003), is a self-published biography of a fascinating subject written by his grandson, Tom E. Unger. According to reliable sources like Mark Rauzon, "Biologists are most interested in Max Schlemmer's Laysan years and Unger provides details and photos not found elsewhere in print." Unger is carefully cited, again, as an ancillary source, by a journal article published in Waterbirds (The International Journal of Waterbird Biology).[67] It is my understanding that many or most of the corroborating sources that Unger uses can be found listed on a circa 2000 annotated bibliography hosted by the USGS website, which was put together "because this material is scattered over hundreds of professional journals and other periodicals". The use of the SPS in this particular instance, provides a central repository of related, uncontroversial information that is recommended by third-parties. In this particular instance, this source is added to articles as more of a note or further reading suggestion that supports previously documented information found in other reliable sources. My position is that when a SPS is used in this way, it is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the self-published source is not cited in reliable sources, and indeed the only review I could find says that it is not "a tool for serious academic study." And of course, the fictional self-published source is just that - fictional. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, in this case it isn't an issue as it doesn't apply to Levy, but in the past I've seen sources discounted because they were published through iUniverse, AuthorHouse or similar, when the case was they they were reprinted as self-published works after the initial print run with a traditional publisher expired. (It is getting to be a good alternative for some authors - when your work goes out of print, reclaim the rights and self-publish). Anyway, not, as mentioned, an issue here, but being printed by iUniverse isn't a guarantee that the work is self-published, only that the current edition is. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(off-topic but interested) I suppose we'd have to check to make sure everything was the same, or at least that the fact it was cited for was also in the proper edition. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: There's a cited, but unattributed quote from NYT reporter Deborah Sontag in the lead. For some reason, it is followed by a cite to a novel by Jonathan Bloomfield. Sontag doesn't mention the novel,[68] and unless Epeefleche can show otherwise, it should be removed per Roscelese. Second, the statement, "The Associated Press ran the story with the headline 'Jewish toddler dies in West Bank"'" needs to be directly cited with the appropriate link. You've got the ref following Levy, and it doesn't belong there. Third, Levy's quote about the AP story is polemical, and as it appears self-published and without any indication of importance by third parties, it doesn't belong there. Epeefleche, in controversial articles, we don't get to debate whether self-published and fictional citations are relevant; we remove them immediately and debate about whether they should be restored. As far as I can tell, Roscelese has made a good case for removal, and I agree with her. You may have a case for including them in a further reading section, but you will need to demonstrate their importance. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we consider TMZ reliable for the purposes of citation? Why or why not? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that

TMZ.com? Andrew Dalby

16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. After I posted this here, I checked the archives and it seems, so long as there is attribution to TMZ (so the reader can weigh the statement based on its source) that we can use them as a source. Is that a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With caution and due care, I think the answer is a qualified yes. Can you provide a specific example of some statement you would like to attribute to TMZ? My thinking is that for non-controversial information they would be fine, but since their gig is sensationalism and reliance on paparazzi, one would need to take care with this source. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is Vanessa Hudgens, and [ "Sources connected to Vanessa tell TMZ the bit from TMZ] is about a more recent "discovery" of yet more instance when she apparently forgot to wear clothes while using a cam phone. The source, citing "sources close to Hudgens" (which could be anyone, really), talk about the origin of the images. Someone wants to note that all of the pictures come fromt he same batch. I don't see the source saying that, but that isn't why I came here. TMZ just seems like some gossip rag, a step above some of the London rags that aren't fit to line birdcages. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's painful to look at that article and to see how gossip publications are being used as sources. I have reservations about TMZ, but I don't see how it's any different from the other gossip sources being used in that section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your distaste at the choice of sources. I think they should likely be banned from usage within BLPs, as they can cause real and lasting harm to the careers of celebrities. Not that Hudgens isn't doing that readily enough with her self-destructive behavior; we are an encyclopedia, and we should be fllowing the latest scoop by some celeb rag weekly.

That said, I had just wanted to get some extra opinions on keeping TMZ as a source - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about it. Why should we be using gossip websites for our sources? What value do we gain from including Hudgens' "forgetting to wear clothes" in an

WP:IRS states "being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable. Several news sources have reputations for—and have sometimes admitted to—either incomplete or biased coverage, a failure to do due research, and, in egregious cases, complete falsification of some stories. Even for reputable sources, there are various articles which may not be reliable....While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." NW (Talk

) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TMZ has been brought up before and deemed reliable. They meet

WP:NEWSORG, they have editorial staff, lawyers, etc, and I'm not aware of any problem with any of the stories they've printed. In fact, they seem to have a reputation for breaking stories and for providing access to primary sources. Now, some of what they publish is trivia, as is the case with many other news soruces, but the many guidelines we already have about trivia should be enough to deal with that. TMZ seems to me a usable source, particularly for augmenting stories that have appeared in other media. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd post here to get further advice and guidance on the use of Governmental Tourist brochures on pages about towns and villages in Lebanon such as Kfar Qouq and Ehden.

The series of brochures in question can be found on a Ministry of Tourism website here [69]

An example of the one on Rashaya district is here [70]

They have been compiled by the Ministry of Tourism from the Mayors of the various towns and villages covered, along with the work of Anis Freiha [71] and an unidentifiable author I can't find called Tony Moufarrej.

The question that hangs in the balance is whether this source can be used or could be defined as promotional and therefore a questionable source.

I tend to argue for the use of information in these brochures on several grounds :

• a) Wikipedia's need to improve the balance of coverage about this culture-rammed, but little-covered country.
• b) I see these tourist brochures as more informational than promotional as they promote places, rather than businesses.
• c) The source is the Lebanese Government's Ministry of Tourism, information from which should be considered reliable, no matter the country's size and status.
• d) The information is available online and verifiable in PDF format and represents the most up to date available, whilst I quote Anis Freiha's work to backup the source, other sources seem unduly out of date and do not provide any in depth coverage.

I think Lebanon's an amazing place that's chocked full of undiscovered wonders. I really want to bring them to Wikipedia but thought I'd check here first for comments about my approach and use of correct sourcing. Look forward to your opinions. Thanks! Paul Bedson (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, it would seem to depend on what they're being used for. If they're being used for simple facts, then fine. But promotional brochures can also exaggerate or skew information, so one would have to be cautious about making claims based on these sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The website seems like a

It really does not look as

WP:SPS, and it is contact with Scottish Parliament.It does get independent news coverage: [72];[73];[74], and it is used as a source in at least one wikipedia article--Mbz1 (talk

) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Their notability isn't really the question here. If it's true that this is how the murder was reported in the Egyptian and Iranian media, why is a pro-Israel group the only source we have on it? Why don't we just go to the Egyptian/Iranian source? I would not consider this group a reliable source for this information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The question here is not the notability of the organisation, but its reliability/reputation as a news source and definitely additional or better news reports should be used here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the requester of this post claimed it to be

WP:SPS,so I tried to show it is not. I do not believe we have a reason to doubt their reliability. I would have gladly gone to Egyptian/Iranian source, but the language is a problem.--Mbz1 (talk

) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

From their website, it seems that 'Scottish Friends of Israel' isn't a media organisation, but a campaigning group. On that basis, one would have to ask where they are getting their information from. If they state this, then we can check, and presumably use the source they did. If they don't give any source, one should probably discount them as a reliable source - not because we necessarily see them as biased, but because we have no explanation of how they are acquiring information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Wikipedia article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. There must be a huge scholarly literature on Stephen King. What sorts of things is this website being used for? Wouldn't the scholarly literature be a better source? It's not clear that this book from a small press qualifies him as an expert. I think we need to know particulars here — how the website is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The website was used for the material supported by footnotes #4 and 5 in this version of the article on The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole.

As for "scholarly literature", the problem with this is that editors don't necessarily the perfect source that you would prescribe on hand. They are often limited by the sources that are available to them, which is why online sources may be favored in some cases. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are

WP:BLP implications here, I think we need to do better in this case. It's not an article on a videogame. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the specific example you give, the information that was added to WP doesn't really seem encyclopedic. It makes the article itself sound like a fan site. I guess I agree with Jayjg that we can do better. We don't usually use fan sites as sources. Also, I question whether there should be an article on this book even before it's out. I'm' not sure how to deal with the issue of material disappearing from King's site, other than to suggest that we use third-party sources. Any book that comes out is going to get covered in the media, and eventually in the academic literature. Note that Google Books can give convenient access to some of the academic literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the official site but note that the info is archived on the fan site. If you didn't see it on the official site yourself then refer to the fan site and note that it claims to quote the official site. Just so long as anyone wanting to check knows where the info came from.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 85. Yours seems like a valid compromise, at least until third party sources become available. Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe another option would be to take a snap shot of the current page using a service like webcitation.org and then include that in the acrhiveurl portion of the citation template. Robman94 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean a snap shot of King's page? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At Lowculture the site is listed under "external links" -- naturally enough. I gather you're not talking about that, but about some other page. Which page? Please provide a link. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog and a forum: those are negative indications. But really we need a specific case to comment on. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Using it as a source for reception in the article Steph Cunningham. The cited info is a author's opinion on a fictional character.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting enough blog, but I see no indications it meets the requirements of

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The site has some very good reception for ALL soap characetrs but in my opinion i dont think it is a blog. people can reply on it,yes but you can do that on Digtial Spy,Daily Mail,so on so on..... It's just a authors view on something. I think it should.

talk

) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction; there is "Dialectical economics", published in '75 by Heath. The argument, that LaRouche never "independently published as [economist] is not valid.

http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-economics-introduction-Marxist-political/dp/0669853089 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from my youth, LaRouche and his organization first made the claim that LaRouche is an economist. They also apply other labels to LaRouche, such as "statesman", "presidential candidate", and so forth. LaRouche does write (self-publish) prolifically on economic, scientific, political, historical, and philosophical topics, but he is free to write about anything he wants; doing so doesn't make him an economist, scientist, politician, historian, or philosopher, respectively.

I suspect those reliable sources (including the New York Times) who call him an economist do so because he and his organization advertise him heavily that way. I note that these sources give only a brief, trivial mention to that title. None of them, as far as I can tell, have actually given coverage of LaRouche as an economist. Are there any sources that go into detail about LaRouche's economic theories? Those would be the ones to use, not trivial mentions.

The question is whether a Wikipedia article should state the same thing in Wikipedia's voice. I'd say yes, provided a reliable source gives more than a trivial mention to the term. Surely, a reliable source can be found that discusses LaRouche's economic views, more than trivially mentioning the title "economist". Otherwise it isn't necessary to state that he is an economist. ~

talk

) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How's about "amateur economist?" Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources? As I said earlier, if there are reliable sources out there that discuss LaRouche's status as an economist, or discuss his writings on economics, then it's fine for Wikipedia to label him that way. ~

talk

) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• LaRouche's abovementioned work was published under his pen name at the time, Lyn Marcus. It was reviewed in the American Economic Review, by the American Economic Association. Here is a citation of some works of his, in a University of North Carolina Press book. There are more of those, but it's late here. --JN466 03:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just clarifying here that that was an ad from the publisher, not a review. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the overall question, but I don't think those links are convincing, JN. They show that he has published a book with a title that seems like the title of a book about economics, but that's all. Given the overall remit of The Party of Fear, I think we should wonder (Gbooks, for me at least, isn't giving access to the relevant page) whether he is being cited as an authority or as an example. Except in very rare cases - and I personally cannot think of anyone who it would apply to who did not die long ago - I think "economist" has to mean that the subject has been employed as an economist. --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that The Party of Fear doesn't cite him as an economist; I was hasty there. Forget that one. :) But according to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you end up influencing governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book.

I can only see snippets of the review in the American Economic Review, but it's a prestigious journal, so to be in there at all counts for something. The review begins:

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [75][76]

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. It's got a few reputable citations in Google Scholar. --JN466 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already discussed those Google Scholar cites on the article talk page. All that glitters is not gold.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We did not discuss the Lyn Marcus book, nor its citations, nor its having been reviewed in the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review is a general-interest economics journal. Established in 1911, the AER is among the nation's oldest and most respected scholarly journals in the economics profession and is currently celebrating 100 years of publishing. It's not just an academic source, it's a rather influential one. The whole premise of denying him the label "economist" was the assertion that no one in academia had ever taken any notice of him; that's not the case. --JN466 05:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just writing that a book was reviewed in an economics journal does not make one an economist. For one thing, we don't even know if the review was positive or negative. For another, we don't know if they only review books from recognized economists. There's no question that people in academia have taken notice of him, but being noticed does not make one an economist.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, among the six citations in Google Scholar to his book, which no one here is proposing as a reliable source anyway, two of them go to his own magazine, The Campaigner.[77][78] The rest are apparently articles about Marxism. They might be used to suggest he's a noted writer about Marxism, but four independent citations are weak evidence for that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true that no one is asking for this board's opinion on citing these sources, but it wasn't me who brought this dicussion here, and to three (!) other noticeboards simultaneously, without any apparent notification of involved editors. Or did I miss one? I can't find one in Slim's contributions history. Now that we are here, let's note that sources that have described LaRouche as an economist include:

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• The Los Angeles Times
• The Milwaukee Journal
• Associated Press
• UPI
• CBS News[
• Dennis King, probably the most widely cited LaRouche expert, says he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist", resulting in meetings with the Peruvian, Mexican and Argentinean presidents; Brazilian officials widely citing his "Operation Juarez", and Fidel Castro developing his own version of LaRouche's "Operation Juarez".
• The Wall Street Journal reported in 1997: "Mr. LaRouche has long been at odds with the U.S. political mainstream, which regards him as an extremist in his views about reforming the global financial system. But his theories receive a warmer reception in Malaysia, where the 60-page EIR report on Mr. Soros has been passed among Malaysian editors, intellectuals and politicians." (offline source, quoted by Will here)

Most people on this board would agree that these qualify as reliable sources. LaRouche taught "Elementary Marxist Economics" at the "Free University" in New York, he published a book based on his course through a reputable publisher, and his writings on the IMF were noted by, and affected the decision making of, at least a half dozen heads of government. --JN466 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you aren't the editor who carried to the three (or so) noticeboards: you're just the editor to brought it to six user talk pages.m ;) How many pages in all does that add up to? If I add it to a few more we could get an even dozen. Let's just wrap this back to the article talk page to consolidate the threads. If you have a point, make it there.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference which your post does not acknowledge. I contacted editors already involved in the RfC to advise them of evidence added since their comment that they might want to consider. And I told you and everyone else on the article's talk page that I had done so. I did not solicit comments from uninvolved editors using a wording that misstates the facts, and without disclosing it to other interested parties. That said, I am happy to repair back to the article talk page. --JN466 10:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's standard to post neutral notes about RfCs on noticeboards, then wait for people to arrive at the RfC to discuss. But you've started a forest fire on user talk pages, openly trying to persuade people, and even when they tell you they're not persuaded, continuing to post, e.g. this discussion. You also didn't let me know that you'd started a discussion about me here. It's not acceptable to start these forest fires, because it means people can't keep up, and it shouldn't happen just because someone tries to get fresh eyes on an RfC. Uninvolved eyes are badly needed on that page, and they have to be allowed to make up their own minds. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been canvassing from both editors and it needs to stop. I'm personally perplexed about why a notice was made to the Fringe Theories noticeboard, as that seems unlikely to get neutral responses. Editors who already consider LaRouche to be fringe are not going to give him any leeway of credibility and, indeed, it is show from the recent oppose votes that they are ignoring any sources or reasoning given whatsoever. Silverseren^C 09:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

He's the very definition of a fringe thinker, so it's important to involve editors who have experience of dealing with that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whichever way, this isn't really an RSN matter. Let's move this back to the relevant talk page.   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: User:Volunteer Marek has checked the AER issue in question; the snippets are from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than from a proper review. --JN466 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll jump in again. As I wrote earlier in this thread, trivial mentions in reliable sources don't carry weight. This isn't really an issue for RSN. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources, and there doesn't appear to be any argument about the reliability of the sources mentioned. Rather, this is a