Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 94

The following source [13], apparently some Bulgarian government agency on minorities, is used to make the following claim [14] in the article on the

What user Athenean fails to realize that the only purpose of this source is to establish that such opinions exist and that their inclusion in the article is justified. Obviously, if even a government agency supports such an opinion, it can hardly be argued to be a fringe view and therefore needs to be included as an alternate theory. Also, I'm afraid that Athenean's opinion about this theory is not entirely accepted: there are in fact scholars who support the Vlach origion theory of the Sarakatsani: see here. Kostja (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because an agency of a Balkan government supports a theory does not mean the theory is automatically mainstream. According to the Turkish government, there is no such thing as a Kurdish people, only "mountain Turks"? Does that mean it is a "mainstream theory" that "needs" to be mentioned? As another example, the Greek government posited at one time that the Vlachs are descended from "Latinized Greeks", clearly nonsense. The point is, when it comes to the origins of minority in the region, the opinion of regional governments needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And what kind of source is it that doesn't even mention the possibility that the Sarakatsani might, just might, actually be of Greek origin? As for the link you provide, it shows the opposite of what you claim: John Campbell, the only scholar quoted in the article supports the notion that the Sarakatsani and Vlachs are distinct groups that are not ancestrally related. The only scholars that support the Vlach-Sarakatsani connection are Romanian, just like the only scholars that support a Slavic origin of the Sarakatsani are Bulgarian. Surprising? Hardly. Fringe, politically motivated theories? Definitely.

talk

) 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You have chosen a bad example, as the "Mountain Turks" claim is actually mentioned in the

Kurdish people article. And you are not trying to treat the opinion of a regional government with a huge grain of salt but to remove it altogether. And while John Campbell doesn't agree with the Vlach origin of the Sarakatsani, he does the mention that this opinion is supported by Romanian scholars as does the article. Kostja (talk

) 08:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The arrangement of the article is odd. It deals with questions of the origin of the Sarakatsani much earlier, so why does the question arise again in the subsection "Bulgaria" of the section "demography"? Presumably because the Bulgarian government, and maybe the Bulgarian Sarakatsani too, have strong views on the question that may differ from the mainstream.

Government agencies' views on ethnicity should be taken with several grains of salt, but they can be very influential (to say the least) and therefore worth knowing about. People's self-identification and their own views of their origin are also important. My suggestion would be, first, to reconsider why origins bulk so large in the "Bulgaria" subsection; if the emphasis is indeed needed, then make it clear thoughout that what are being quoted or summarised are local views, official or otherwise, not necessarily scholarly. Give quotations or summaries in the text and also mention the source in the text. I don't read Bulgarian easily but the one in question seems to be a National Ethnographic and Demographic Agency or something like that? Andrew Dalby 09:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I suppose it would be alright to include the statement, as long as it is properly qualified then ("According to the Bulgarian government...."). I also think we can all agree that this [15], on the other hand, definitely has no business in the article ("Wonderland Bulgaria" is definitely not a reliable source of any kind).

talk

) 15:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, except that one might see a reason to include [16] under "External links". It can't be called a reliable source, but it may offer a handy overview. [Added: - It mentions the annual fair near Sliven, which the article itself doesn't.] I haven't compared it, though, with whatever the article already has at "External links". Andrew Dalby 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a reliable source for this article? Normally I'd go with it, but since it's a newspaper excerpt from 1875, I'm a bit hesitant. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would see yes, it is hosted on a University server, I see no reason to doubt it`s authenticity. I have often used newspapers from the 1800,s as sources. Tentontunic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It may or not be. What does it say and what is it used to support? TFD (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above linked Wikipedia article states that, in 1875, William Barbee staked 21 mining claims and published an article on his claims in The Salt Lake Tribune. The above linked newspaper article is the very same one Barbee wrote in 1875. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a primary source. So long as the article cites it in the way that you describe, and doesn't base interpretations on it, that's fine. That's just the way we should use primary sources. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to include a reference to a common slang phrase in one of the Wiki pages, but I am being challenged because the reference I cited was Urban Dictionary ^[1], because it is a user-generated resource. However, it is not fully open (membership is required to edit).

It is considered to be the best reference source available for slang phrases: by their very nature, slang phrases evolve and are not written in mainstream dictionaries. I cannot see where else such a phrase could be cited.

With this in mind, am I right to use Urban Dictionary as a source?

regards, RJM

Posted twice by mistake, sorry. Don't know how to delete it.

What is the phrase by the way and which Wikipedia article are you referring to ? I can't tell from your contributions from your current IP address. If you have an account please login and don't forget to sign your posts. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary isn't reliable in our terms: anyone can register, expert or not.

It isn't true that mainstream dictionaries don't include slang. There are, in addition, specialized dictionaries of slang. Very recent slang, not yet in published dictionaries, is often discussed in newspapers etc. and in reliable online sources (both news sources and specialized English-language sites). Andrew Dalby 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if this site would be considered a reliable source? It dose have some very useful information, but I don't want to be using it if its reliability is going to be challenged later. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a self-described "e-zine" on the county web site with no information about professional editing or fact-checking, and the authorship and sources of the particular article you want to use are unknown. So it is essentially a

self published source analogous to a blog. It would therefore only be useful if the author was a recognized expert in the field previously published in other reliable sources, and we don't know that. Therefore I would say not to use it, but to look for better sources. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 13:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looking at the site I've got to agree with all that, if it doesn't even name an author it had better be a very reliable site and it isn't.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking, and accept the points raised. I'll leave it here for additional input, and will remove it from the article based on the current findings. Thanks for your help. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, our article on Noli notes that he received a PhD in history from Boston University (1945) and that his dissertation was titled "Scanderbeg in the Light of Archive Materials". Based on that, I would say he sure seems to be a reliable source (although, given the date, probably a bit out-dated). Do you have a reason to question his work? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And looking at the other sources ... they all seem reliable to me. Again, is there a reason you question them? Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This was dealt with here recently under the section name Help needed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was questioned under

Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Sources_on_Serbian_origin, so i don't know can we trust any of the sources on that page. As that dissertation may be politically questioned. Dont know, what do you say... See talk page. --WhiteWriter ^speaks

16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I see that there is a debate on the page as to whether the subject was Albanian or Serbian in origin... with both sides questioning the reliability of sources that support the other side's viewpoint. All editors involved should make sure to read to

WP:NPOV. Now... where did I leave that ten foot pole? Blueboar (talk

) 16:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aahaa, ten foot pole! I asked only because one uninvolved editor questioned in per that question... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what is required is a fifteen foot Slovak. Really, a good bit of it is OR, and it needs trimming. Glad to see I'm wrong as someone's been busy there, looks better now! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at the situation here? An IP, and now a named editor, have been trying to put in dates and places of birth and death. I did a fairly extensive search and could find nothing to support it -- and the editors involved have not provided specific sources -- so I've been routinely reverting the changes. Now, the named editor says that he or she got the death info by putting the birth info into SSDI, a references that I am unaware of that the editor claims covers all births and deaths in the United States. I can accept that on GF, but if there is not reliable source for the birth date -- which as far as I know there is not -- then the connected death death is purely an instance of GIGO. I kind of get the feeling that this may be a family member (is SSDI a Social Security database?) with privy information, but I really can't get the involved editors (either IP or named) to be clear about what is, exactly, going on.

It would be good for an uninvolved party to examine the situation. As long as there's no verifiable death date for Ms. Hines (an actress) the article is, tecnically, a BLP. I'm going to back off and take it off my watch list for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If the new editor has any connection to the subject, then s/he should know which newspaper(s) ran an obituary. My own search of the Times-Union (the main paper for the alleged location of her death) since the alleged date of her death turned up nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if SSDI is a reliable source, assuming that any given death record is this particular person is

OR at best and speculation at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk

) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Those thoughts were in line with mine. I'm just not seeeing sufficient RS support for these "facts". They may be correct, in which case I wish we could get the IP/named editor (whom I'm assuming are the same person) to come clean about the source of their information, perhaps it would direct research to the right place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this source okay to use in the article G.I. Joe: Resolute as reception information? It has a little bit of critical analysis that may be useful. They have an about and contact section for any info.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like you to look into this source for the same article stated above, using the same context. As a reception reference, using the info from the review.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

iI went to the About page[17] for Latino Review and saw that it was filled with grammatical errors, which doesn't give a good impression regarding fact checking and accuracy. I don't understand why one would use the BSC page, since it says very little about the movie. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources for reliable sources for critical reception of movies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I know that this is a page for the

I've been repeatedly reverted by a user adding citations to the work of conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs to a number of articles related to the JFK assassination. Marrs has written extensively on a wide number of conspiracy theories, promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, esp, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. (He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations.) A consensus here against using this material would be helpful in preempting a lengthy edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there would be a consensus that a particular author is never a reliable source. If there are specific sources you want to discuss, please list them here, preferably with the assertions that they are being used to support. But it sounds as if you are more concerned about

undue weight being placed on his work and this is more a matter for the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk

) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was wrong and replaced it but it was removed again [19] with the edit summary "The reliable source that told him that is not quoted and couldn't be verified so the statement is not reliable as we do not know who the source is (maybe a passing peasant? )".

A statement backed by an article in the Smithsonian Magazine [20] was removed here [21] with an edit summary saying "this is an accusation not backed up by any evidence, just supposedly said by Schoch" (it's actually a quote from Schoch from a letter to Science Magazine).

I'd appreciate comments and maybe even a few eyes on this. It's a difficult one as it is a fringe subject and needs a good cleanup as well and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Thanks.

The Smithsonian Magazine [22] doesn't mention the inscriptions, so it does not support the assertion, and I agree that an assertion made by Schoch in a letter to an editor is a less than ideal source, shall we say. Schoch is apparently not an archeologist, so I'm not sure he's a reliable source in the general sense on the topic of inscriptions. That being said, this claims to have been published in a journal, so my suggestion would be to use the journal article directly as the source for a general statement that Shoch questions the pyramid theory. He's clearly fringy, but documenting the dispute seems appropriate. That he's using an unnamed source he claims to be reliable does not carry much weight, honestly, and I would suggest avoiding that bit, enough to say that he asserts these are natural geological formations, since that appears to be his academic area of expertise. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Schoch a reliable source for inscrptions, but he isn't authenticating them himself but saying that he was told that they were recent, so why can't we use the quote? Is it worse than the quote from Zubrow sourced to [23] who asks questions about these without presenting any archaeological or geological evidence?

talk

) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the letter in Science Magazine -- I assume it's Science 10 November 2006: Vol. 314 no. 5801 p. 925 DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5801.925b -- should be a reliable source for a statement of the form "Schoch said X". It is not a reliable source for the assertion "X". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - we can use it but it must be clearly attributed to Schoch.

talk

) 12:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I would suggest just a passing mention of the inscriptions, and relying more on this, if it checks out that it was published by a journal. It's a better source, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A note has been left at

After looking at the web site of Expressen, I believe it has merit as an RS. It may be on the dramatic side of the news (like the NY Post) but it also contains serious reports on politics etc. [24] So my vote would be its OK depending on what's being reported, the context, whether its a BLP etc. are all considerations for its application but I don't see grounds for a flat rejection of it as an RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for comments on the reliability of www.newsarama.com. It has been used to support notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 8 (comics) where it was said that although http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=113158 looks like a forum posting, it is in fact the site archive and that the first posting can be considered reliable. Is it possible to identify reliable sources within this site? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Although the Newsarama forum server seems to be glitching right now, I looked at the Google cache of that thread[25] and I agree with what User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said in the AfD thread: the content of the initial post in that thread (the interview and context) is Newsarama content, not a reader post, and can be used as a reliable source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute in the article

From

WP:V

• Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
• Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:...'

If the sources are extremist or otherwise questionable then they would not be suitable for general use, and should only be used in articles about themselves.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the correct thing to do would call them something more neutral, like leftist militants, but then if there are notable organizations/governments which label them as communist terrorists, than you can attribute it to them by saying " Organization X, who are perceived to be/labelled as/seen as communist terrorists by government Y, did this and that and..." Passionless -Talk 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Passionless is on the right track. I add that if document #1 says "communists" and document #2 says "terrorists", then the accurate representation is "The government called them 'communists' and 'terrorists'" rather than "The government called them 'communist terrorists'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Per

WP:LABEL "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.". No article should describe an organisation as 'terrorist', except in the form "described as terrorist by..." or similar. As to whether a source that describes a group as both 'communist and 'terrorist', I'd say using this to justify a claim that they described them as 'communist terrorists' might be synthesis, unless the source suggested a causal linkage between one and the other. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Windrich is a reliable source that the white racist Rhodesian government called these groups specific names. It is not a reliable source for accepting the labels plastered on these groups by the Rhodesian government. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is taken from a Note to the United Kingdom Government from the Rhodesian Geovernment, 28 August 1967, C.S.R. 45-1967) and is listed as "document 52" in Windrich's book (p. 278)[26] This is not Windrich's opinion, but a passage from the Rhodesian government, which she refers to as "propaganda" (p. 278). TFD (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help clarify the situation if, instead of saying that the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa labeled their opponents "communist terrorists"... we instead said something along the lines of: According to Elaine Windrich, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa labeled their opponents "communist terrorists". Proper attribution can often make it clearer who says what. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: That is all fine. We simply indicate that in the article. That does not mean "do not include." IMO, the entire phrasing of your question seeks to quash content as opposed to including it responsibly. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, what do we indicate in the article? TFD (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like "According to Elaine Windrich, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa proscribed groups Xxxx and Yyyy as communist terrorists" would be suitable. --

talk

) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not need an in-line citation unless we determine that she was expressing an opinion rather than a fact. She is referring btw only to Rhodesia. But the source does not say they were called CTs. That terminology had already become outdated. TFD (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean an

WP:MINREF list. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I work with the ACE Group and have a question about an external link that a disgruntled claimant has persistently been linking to the page since this past summer. We feel that this link has no relevance to the broader context of the section and would like to take it down. Does anyone have some experience with this kind of problem and can share some insight as to whether this is legitimate in the context of the community? You can find the story here [27] and the link we think is irrelevant is here [28].— Preceding unsigned comment added by CWACE (talk • contribs) — CWACE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For clarity,

• article is
  ACE Limited
• the About ACE Insurance Litigation Watch page for the organization providing the source
• the statement in the Wikipedia article, "The Spitzer investigations also triggered civil litigation by policyholders who claim they were victimized by the bid rigging and commission schemes."
• the ACE Insurance Litigation Watch page used for the citation

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that new civil litigation mentioned at the end of the article have any independent coverage? If so, then it's valid to keep it in. If not, then there's no need to keep it in because companies get sued all the time as a normal course of their business and we don't need to mention each lawsuit. ~

talk

) 21:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Within the category Labeling, the RoHS II attempts are shortly mentioned. Now, I've found some more information on the topic and would like to add the following:

"The European Parliament completed its first reading of the draft of RoHS II in November 2010. Items that were previously in question have now been clarified and RoHS II is on its way to becoming a

The information is interesting and relevant. This commercial newsletter may not be the best source. Seems RoHS II this would have been covered in the mainstream media. On the other hand, since SGS is the leading testing company, it's quite likely the information is accurate. I'd be inclined to leave it in the article and to continue to look for an additional source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your opinion! I see you know the company as well... I'll try to find further references on that topic, too. Portrino (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am asking about the credibility of this source "L'Aeronautica italiana nelle guerre coloniali", which has been added to this article on

A search on Google Scholar doesn't bring up any citations. However, a general Google search on the title brings up over 1,000 hits[30], including a discussion among historians in which the book is cited. My impression is that it's a legitimate source. This description says it's based on a large amount of archival research.[31] TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

hello,

please check reference 40 (Zobbel) and 41 (ChartStats) for reliability.

I would like the opinion of editors on this web site as a source. It is being used on this Article to support the suggestion that the name of the hotel was Hayes Hotel, while it actually calls it 'Hayes' Commercial and Family Hotel'. I have two sources, W. F.Mandle, (1987). The Gaelic Athletic Association & Irish Nationalist Politics 1884-1924, Gill and Macmillan. pp. 6.

The website

(I believe I am one of the most active editors in the general area of card games. The question arose in a discussion between me and Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus.) The site is currently linked to from 337 pages, and more than half of them are in article space. So I would guess that it is linked to from roughly 200 articles. In my experience it is of key importance for developing card game articles because it contains information about the distribution of games, and about game variants, that cannot be found. Such information is regularly added without sources by anonymous editors, and it is impossible to source unless pagat.com happens to have it as well. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I want to make sure that we get a decision now that I can really rely on with my continued work in this area. At first I am focusing only on the question whether the site is a reliable source or not.

For me there is no doubt that pagat.com is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of John McLeod who is an expert on the history, rules and distribution of card games by virtue of having co-authored an influential two-volume scholarly book and being regularly quoted as such an expert.

• ISBN 978-0-7734-6447-6
• ISBN 978-0-7734-6449-0

The above book is the most important single source for the following book:

• ISBN 978-0-19-214165-1
  .

The latter scholarly book (note the publisher) also includes numerous comments and footnotes such as: "I am indebted to John McLeod for helpful additions to the train of thought at this point." Another footnote in that book reads as follows: "McLeod, John, 'Ulti', in JIPCS (May 1976), p. 15. McLeod tells me that many such methods of ending games are to be found throughout what was once the Austro-Hungarian empire." (These are just examples taken from the first 2 of 23 chapters.) JIPCS refers to the Journal of the

International Playing Card Society, of which a much more recent example can be found here

. The journal is probably not peer-reviewed, but to the best of my knowledge no peer-reviewed journal exists that would be appropriate for the publication of technical articles on card game history.

Some other high-quality books that cite pagat.com as a source or recommend it for further reading in general or on specific topics:

• ISBN 978-0-19-860870-7
  .

From the introduction: "Researches [...] have revealed that every country [...] harbours local communities, often quite small, who play games or variations unique to their region or locality, such as All Fours and Don in Britain. These are well described as folk games, not being recorded in books and subject to no universally accepted set of 'official rules'. [...] Fortunately, they are now recorded and regularly updated by regular contributors throughout the world on John McLeod's award-winning 'Pagat' web site, where you will also find further information on most of the games described in this book, as well as many more that are not." The introduction ends with a "useful links" section that has pagat.com first (the other three useful links being http://www.davidparlett.co.uk, http://i-p-c-s.org and http://www.playingcardsales.com). There are further URLs from pagat.com in the body of the book, where Parlett did not have the space to describe a game in detail.

• ISBN 978-0-14-103787-5
  .

From the preface: "The exploration of card games has become a particular pursuit of the International Playing Card Society, founded in the late 1960s originally as a forum for playing-card collectors. Many field researchers are members of the Society, and report their findings in its bi-monthly Journal, known as The Playing-Card [or JIPCS]. [...] The most important [among the card game sites] is the Pagat website, <http://www.pagat.com>, conducted by John McLeod, a prominent member of the IPCS and himself a well-travelled field researcher. Its intrinsic authority is constantly enhanced by the contributions of interested and knowledgeable players from all over the world, making it a living, growing, interactive encyclopedia of the cybersphere. [...] Many thanks are due, and are duly rendered, to John McLeod and Andrew Pennycook, with whom I have shared much information and discussion over the years, and both of whom read various drafts of the text and rescued me from a number of errors."

• Kastner, Hugo; Folkvord, Gerald K. (2005), Die große Humboldt Enzyklopädie der Kartenspiele, Humboldt Verlag,
  ISBN 978-3-89994-058-9
  .

This German encyclopedia of card games (including historical ones) has the following recommendation in its foreword (my translation):

"The following links are in any case much to be recommended, in particular the Card Games Web Site by John McLeod: (1) The Card Games Web Site (2) The English Playing Card Society -- The World of Playing Cards (3) The House of Cards (4) US Playing Cards". As for Parlett's books, there are deep URLs to pagat.com from various individual game descriptions. Hans Adler 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone believes I may have made up the quotations above, you can also see what David Parlett has to say at http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/histocs/ . Hans Adler 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can it be used as the only source?

Now this is a more difficult question, so I would like to address it separately. In the case of

Hokm it is (almost) our only reliable source, but no doubt that's because as an English encyclopedia we have trouble locating and understanding sources in Farsi or Arabic, which I guess are the most likely languages of books discussing the game. Our page Iranian folklore lists Hokm as one of four games traditionally played in Iran. For more detailed information about card games played in Iran see http://www.pagat.com/national/iran.html

. There are several online servers where you can play the game:

• http://www.varagh.com/varaghftp/dev1/Varagh.html?
• http://www.hokmgame.com/
• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hokm-Baz/57621291043

This is not the kind of topic that we should drop just because we have only one reliable source talking about it in English. In this particular case the game also happens to occur with a 2-paragraph description under Whist Variants in Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games. The description is independent from McLeod's (Parlett cites an Iranian email correspondent) and omits some details, but is fully consistent with McLeod's version.

Parlett's approach of describing the game as a whist variant rather than as a separate game is reasonable. Giving it its own article also seems reasonable to me given the relative prominence which this game appears to have in Iran and the international character of this encyclopedia. Notability in the sense of

WP:GNG cannot automatically be presumed just because a game has a page in pagat.com, but in many cases it follows from McLeod's information that reliable sources in the original language are likely to exist, though hard to find. Hans Adler

08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MacLeod does seem like a good source to use. And it seems fine to use MacLeod as the sole source for Hokm, for the reasons you give. As an experiment, you might try Googling it in other languages.[32] TimidGuy (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally search in the languages I can read and also in the original language. But with Hokm it's tricky. The original name is حُکْم. I can search for that by using copy/paste, but then I can't even tell whether the sites I find have anything to do with card games, and if they do whether they are related to this game. (Not to mention reliability assessments.) After all, it's a normal Farsi word that also means trump and arbitrator. Hans Adler 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet we have someone on the project who can read Farsi fluently. I'm not sure what Wikiproject would be best to contact, but you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. I'm sure someone with this skill would find it an interesting project to help you with. Otherwise I agree, McLeod sounds like an expert source - usable despite self-publication.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Under

WP: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." McLeod seems fine, and I don't think its a concern even if he is the sole source on a particular game. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks to Hans Adler for such comprehensive documentation. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A claim is being in the article on the

The existence of microorganisms was hypothesized for many centuries before their actual discovery, please see Microbiology#Ancient. According to The Middle East: a humanistic approach, Michael W. Kamell, Andrews Pub. Co., 1973, "Al-Razi wrote the first treatise on small-pox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness". Other sources indicate Al-Razi's "On Smallpox and Measles" was the first accurate description of smallpox and measles. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is an extraordinary claim, and contradicted by hundreds of sources.

The actual quotation appears to say, "Notable in the field of medicine is one Abu Bakr Alrazi (932) who wrote the first treatise on smallpox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness."

It is uncertain what is meant by "isolate this virus". The technology of the time had no possibility of doing what we currently mean by that phrase. It certainly does not mean "the first descriptions on

WP:UNDUE. Any single text could contain an error; when all the others tell a different story, then one obscure source should just be ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you response WhatamIdoing. More extraordinary claims are made here [34] here [35] and here [36] (particularly the bit about the discovery of the immune system and "modern" surgery - in the middle ages no less). I'm not sure these sources pass the test for the magnitude of the claims.

talk

) 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the involved editors, sources and formulations of those claims, I'd be rather skeptical. Imho all claims need to be checked by someone with expert knowledge and access to those sources (and better more reputable ones). I agree with

WP:UNDUE might have to applied here as far as the content is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk

) 11:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kmhkmh, I don't think you are respecting

WP:AGF by telling other editors to be "skeptical" of me. Al-Andalusi (talk

) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While skepticism of editors may be uncalled for, skepticism of the sources and their claims is perfectly justified. The added material definitely needs to be double checked by knowledgeable experts. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"May be" uncalled for ? I don't know this Kmhkmh and he doesn't know me, we've never talked before and I don't recall anyone complaining about my use of sources. Either he's rude or racist to slander me based on the area of my work. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had a couple of editors who have found it necessary to add content to the effect that Medieval Muslim scientists made lots of major discoveries that did not become accepted until the late 19th and early 20th century. I've seen edits to this effect to the

Peyton Rous

.

Could I encourage these editors to avoid the risk of historical revisionism and respect mainstream POV here? JFW | T@lk 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more doubtful claims in the article are sourced to the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Is this a reliable source? It is not indexed on PubMed, and the Society clearly has it is one of its aims "[b]ringing to light the contributions of Arab and Muslim physician to the history of medicine and to promote public awareness of these contributions. This is to be achieved through encouraging more research and academic studies of earlier Islamic Medicine"[37]. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal of published material on Avicena's writings, including bibliographies such as this. Here is his A treatise on the small-pox and measles in English translation by William Alexander Greenhill. Page 30 of that translation is quite astonishing.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought p 29 [this edition's page numbering, not the numbers in the margin] was more interesting: "Now the Small-Pox arises when the blood putrefies and ferments, so that the superfluous vapors are thrown out of it..." p 30 blames it not only on the natural process of children getting older, but on "pestilential, putrid, and malignant constitutions of the air." I saw no indication that it was even identified as a contagious disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that is a primary source, on which we shouldn't rely anyway. The question here is whether sources such as the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, which seems to be a partisan-advocacy type source, are sufficient for the claims made in the article, or whether this is a case of

talk

) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A partisan/advocacy source is usually not reliable for topics in which it is partisan. If there were RS saying that it's an accurate publication, then it could be used. Also, it's not an extraordinary source for the claims it's making. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OP's claims that JISHIS is not reliable are unfounded. The journal has been cited by numerous peer-reviewed journals including:

Springer: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-4425-0_9326

Harvard: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2007HisSc..45...65R

Reproductive BioMedicine: http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2810%2960719-5/references

Online Journal of Health Ethics: http://test2.ojhe.org/index.php/ojhe/article/viewArticle/129

Besides, the claim cited from JISHIS is not really extraordinary. This is the bit that was cited from JISHIS . Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources:

• Saul S. Friedman, Professor of History at Youngstown State University, where he specializes in ancient and modern Middle Eastern studies:

"Most significant, the

Canon warns of the danger of contagion through contaminated water. Like ibn al-Khatib, vizir in Granada, and ibn Khatima

, who lived through the Black Death of the 14th century, Avicenna warned the spread of disease was not the result of fate, but physical contact, and pollution". (A history of the Middle East by Saul S. Friedman)

• The famous physician, ibn al-Khatib said in a work, The Plague:

"… the existence of contagion is established by experience, study, and the evidence of the senses, by trustworthy reports on transmission by garments, vessels, ear-rings; by the spread of it by persons from one house to another, by infection of a healthy sea-port by an arrival from an infected land…by the immunity of isolated individuals and …nomadic Bedouin tribes of Africa…It must be a principle that a proof taken from the Traditions has to undergo modification when in manifest contradiction with the evidence of the perception of the senses" (Ibn al-Khatib, cited in Meyerhof, 1931: 340).

Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dumping irrelevant sources here is meaningless. I don't see anything in the above about the claim of Avicenna's describing bacteria and viruses. Anyway, that issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. Moving on, the question is now whether the following equally extraordinary claim [38] can be sourced to: Bashar Saad, Hassan Azaizeh, Omar Said (October 2005). "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review", Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2 (4), p. 475-479 [476]. Oxford University Press. This would be a wonderful source for the subject of traditional Arab herbal medicine, but I do not think it is appropriate for claims about "the discovery of the immune system, introduction of microbiology, use of animal testing" and so forth.

talk

) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a response to those who claimed such claims were extraordinary at the time. The "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review" was published by Oxford University Press. I think you need to explain why you said "the references used therein are dubious" on the talk page of History of medicine when referring to this article ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is published by. A review of Arab herbal medicine may be a good source for Arab herbal medicine, but not for claiming the discovery of the immune system and microbiology by Muslim physicians in the Middle Ages. Again, it is a question of

talk

) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If Al-Andalusi's sources check out, there would seem to be good published sources on this. Are there other good sources saying otherwise? Also this might be a case where citing Avicenna directly at least in this discussion may help clarify matters. If the secondary sources are in doubt it may help to check the primary source. Lambanog (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This site is a sport archive which is used on many articles of Wikipedia (not only English Wikipedia but other languages' too), specially Asian Games related. I just want to know is whether this site is reliable for sourcing. Bill william compton^Talk 00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should double-check if the sources 212.56.25.159 has continually been adding are valid and verify the content, as they've been warned about doing this before, and have also been accused of being a spam-only IP. I don't know whether these sources are reliable or not so hopefully with this notice someone can take action if need be. -- œ^™ 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you give the sources, and preferably the assertions they are being used to support, then it will be possible to comment on their reliability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at a few. In the cases I looked at, an addition is made to the bibliography of the page. The work added is real, recent, relevant and (in general) academic. No assertion is added to the text of our page; it's just the bibliography. I can't see any commercial connections among the books and articles being added. So the anonymous editor seems to be doing just what we would want, making our pages better documented than they were before. (Items added to a bibliography need to be useful, as these appear to be, but not guaranteed reliable: none of us could do that.) A larger sample might give a different impression, but this looks OK to me ...

[A moment later:] No, I see now, the problem is that these items are added to "references" but, as an earlier warning pointed out, there is a "convention on Wikipedia ... that "references" are only those sources actually used to write the article". The anonym's mistake is probably to add these items to "references" rather than to start a "further reading" section. Even that might be over the top for us since, according to another warning, "it is not an aim of WP to provide full bibliographies on subjects". (Quotes from here). Nice try, anonym. Andrew Dalby 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, the thing is he's been warned about adding these to "References" as opposed to "Further reading" yet he's ignored or disregarded the warning and still continues doing this. I'm conflicted now as to whether this user is unintentionally being disruptive and whether to take action or if the 'references' he's adding actually verify parts of the content then we should let him carry on. I can't tell without looking up the sources, and don't know the reason for his ignoring the warning. -- œ^™ 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find it difficult to comment further because I'm not comfortable with the other guidelines being applied here. A good encyclopedia should certainly have bibliographies listing recent, relevant items as these appear to be. If they don't support the content now, they will help anyone who wants to improve the article later. It could be that our guidelines don't quite strike the right balance between referencing all possibly controversial assertions (like an academic paper) and providing fruitful lines for further work (like a good encyclopedia article).

If I'm being too pessimistic there, and there's no guideline problem, then the right solution, albeit time-consuming, would seem to be not to delete these added bibliography items but to put them under "Further reading" or "Bibliography", not "References". It's not surprising if a shy contributor finds this difficult to grasp: our guidelines may be clear, but our observable practice is inconsistent. Andrew Dalby 09:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:External Links. This is the result of the lack in content creators and the proliferation of editor enforcers that flit from article to article instead of being dedicated to actually building a few. Lambanog (talk

) 09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Center for Immigration Studies===

Dubious source labeled hate group by

• Public Policy Institute of California

I have no idea about this source other than our article . The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like reports from unknown, partisan think tanks are analogous to press releases: SPS that are occasionally picked up by the mainstream media. Off the top of my head: treat as SPS unless the information has been otherwise reported. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely but There are a variety of think tanks (even some partisan ones) that have been found to

WP:RS.. Its always been case by case with them. Thats why I am asking about these two in particular The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

) 13:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As with many sources, I would think they are reliable enough for some assertions and unreliable for others. What assertions are being sourced to them? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, CIS (The hate group mind you) is claiming that immigrant cause more crime and attacking Public Policy Institute of California because it doesnt find immigrants to be crime inducing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So are either reliable sources for immigration statistics? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Like other partisan sources, they need to be used with care and attributed in the text when used.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Will I am not sure that it even meets the bare basics of RS to make assertions! It seems odd to let a white supremacist organization to be a source on immigration! Becuase you know they are such big fans of Hispanics! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:IRS: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." I would think that anyone wanting to use extremist sources would need to show that they have been used as sources by accepted, high-quality sources such as mainstream media. TimidGuy (talk

) 10:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One problems is that the SPLC labels a lot of groups as "hate groups", and there reasons may have nothing to do with the reliability of the groups as sources. I'm very familiar with CIS and its related organizations. My concern about their reliability is not that the founder or board members have made racist remarks, but that they are highly partisan and committed to ending "mass" immigration. So their numbers are suspect. OTOH, they are often treated with respect by reporters and commentators, and are frequently cited in news articles. For that reason I don't think we can easily dismiss them as unreliable. If a case could be made that they are demonstrably unreliable, for example their facts are often incorrect, then that would disqualify them as a source. Even then, though, they may still have a significant POV which might need to be included in articles for NPOV, if only as an opinion. I think the bottom line is they should be used with care and attributed.

PPIC is another matter. It may be too obscure to have a reputation for accuracy.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Such groups are clearly

reliable for their own assertions and positions: eg "'Cyans Go Home' said 99% of crime is committed by cyan people". But the underlying figures, if correct, would have a better source anywaysuch as government statistics. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk

) 06:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a big article on the founder of CIS in today's New York Times: "The Anti-Immigration Crusader".   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussion at [39]. User:AircraftZurf is continuing to cite his own website "Zurf Military Aircraft" in numerous Wikipedia articles:[40], [41]. In the previous discussion here, I encouraged Zurf to cite the original news stories, rather than his compilation and analysis of the news stories at his website. In the website, Zurf compiles and analyzes news reports, and it looks like a useful compilation of information, but I have grave doubts that at the present time it qualifies as a citeable reliable source, by Wikipedia standards. But there is no editorial staff listed, and no byline is provided; it is anonymous. No evidence has been presented that the website is treated as a reliable source by news organizations. I found no mention of "Zurf Military Aircraft" in a Google News archive search. I do not want to proceed with any sanctions against the user, or with deleting all the references cited to the website in numerous Wikipedia articles, without a wider consensus as to whether it is permissible for a user to cite his own website as a reference in Wikipedia articles. I have informed User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source, totally unusable for other articles outside of Zurf Military Aircraft. Zurf uses a lot of copyrighted images without permission and he does not cite his sources. An effort should be made to remove all Zurf cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So Zurf should stick to citing only the original news stories, and not citing his website which compiles and analyzes them? Is it correct to simply remove text referenced only to his website, or should the text be left with a "citation needed" tag when it is noncontroversial and likely citeable to the original story in turn accessible from his website? Edison (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for a user to cite his own website: He did it, didn't he?

Probably what you mean to ask is whether it is permissible to do so. The answer is yes: See

WP:SELFCITE

(those very similar shortcuts point at different pages, by the way).

Is this the best approach? Probably not. It might well be

WP:LINKVIO

, too) and better sources are likely available. If you know that the original news story supports the statement, then I would simply substitute the original news story.

For myself, I wouldn't fact-tag any statement that isn't on the

WP:MINREF list. You will have to use your best judgment to decide when a tag is needed or helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did someone before you use the word "possible" as you imply? All I see is discussion of whether it is "permissible." Should we have to follow around behind Zurf, everytime he cites his website, and go there to find the news story which might back up his statement in Wikipedia? I don't think that is a reasonable request or a productive use of other editors' time. Edison (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is bad judgement & bad form IMO. How do readers here know what's factual & what's opinion? How do we know if any of it has a basis in fact? Nor do I think it should be incumbent on us to clean up after somebody who can't even respect copyright. (Leave off the wholesale copying of DANFS on WP, I don't expect to win on that one...) Junk it all & slap him with a warning. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In favor of Zurf, he seems to be well informed about military aircraft, and certainly spends a lot of time compiling info on his website. He can be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, if only he will refrain from citing his own website, and instead cite the news stories directly. Binksternet has spent considerable effort removing cites to the Zurf website from Wikipedia articles, since the consensus appears to be that ""Zurf Military Aircraft"" is not presently citeable in Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Zurf has the makings of a good contributor if he cites his sources rather than himself. Also, if he heeds

WP:NOTNEWS and quits adding conjecture about future possibilities. The encyclopedia is far more about what has happened than what may happen. Binksternet (talk

) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This has the feeling of self-promotion of his personal website Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it does look very self-promotional and

spammy. - Ahunt (talk

) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourced: Amnesty International Report Human Rights Watch Report

"In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists." this opinion was stated by Human Rights Watch Report.

Source:

Human Rights Watch Report

As claimed by Amnesty International; these political activities include public disobedience such as boycotts. One boycott conducted in "Iranian Azerbaijan" resulted in the detainment of 15 people. There are further claims of detainment that include the action of torture such as in the case of Mohammad Reza Evezpoor who was reportedly been tortured in his 3 days detainment. This still remains controversial so must be approached with caution.

Source:

Amnesty International

In addition to this United Nations Office of the High Commissioner For Human Rights states in its view that the 1996 Mr Chehragani, an Azeri candidate for March 1996 Parliamentary elections from Tabriz emphasised that Article 15 of the Constitution on use of local languages. “He subsequently faced police interrogation, torture, arrest and disqualification from the ballot. This led to widespread clashes in Tabriz.”

Sourced from:

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Sub-regional Seminar Minority Rights: Cultural Diversity and Development in Central Asia (Bishkek, October 2004)

Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Human right watch has been discussed earlier here : Human right watch and changing a whole article about culture and geography according to that reports is disputed .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International's report about a political activist , can't be used to show all of his ethnic group are under pressure . I think the report can be used in his own article :

Chehragani.--Alborz Fallah (talk

) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as that thread shows, there is a strong consensus position here that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are reliable sources generally. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if their description or detals of it are disputed/contested there might a need for a direct intext attribution ("according to amnesty ..."), but amnesty is usually reliable and definitely not fringe, so there's no good reason to block its citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the sources are reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion. Less sure that they are reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are notable advocacy organizations, but their advocacy is often very controversial. Their opinions are often noteworthy enough to be included in articles that relate to human rights issues... however discussion of their opinion should definitely be phrased as being opinion, and not stated as unqualified fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--makes sense. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we essentially agree here, that's why I wrote, it depends whether the content is contested/disputed (which is the case here anyway). So in the given article amnesty should get an intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have problem with these sources in terms of there is no author. Wikipedia

• [42] "Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that

the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. . Article 15 of the Iranian Constitution permits 'the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools... in addition to Persian'.". The first sentence is a wholesale generalization and here is a newsreport (with a reliable author) that contradicts the amnesty sentence: [43]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". Note, the wholesale generalization of Amnesty international. It uses "Iranian Azeris" as if they all think the same way.

• The second contradiction is that Amnesty does not understand Article 15 of the Iranian consitution. It states: "The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian. "[44]. Thus article 15 in the constitution actually allows only one language as medium of education for all government funded schools, that is Persian.
• Given that Amnesty international is not a specialist source and generalizes many times, and also it cannot verify anything in the ground, and tends to hyerbole, I would treat it as unreliable unless it has authors who are experts in the field. It uses terms not carefully and generalizes possibly the opinion of a few to represent a whole group. Most of the time though, it could just be a college student writing a report based on some organization that it gets information from. I believe unless the authors are known (both amnesty and the sources they get the information), then there is a lot of room for mistakes.
• Note there a Wiki article Criticism of Amnesty International: [45] "University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who spent several years as an Amnesty International USA Board member, claimed that aspects of organisational continuity and survival came ahead of human rights aims. He stated "Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."".
• Overall, I think if several full university professors have summarized a situation than it is much more reliable than amnesty international. I am not rejecting amnesty outright, but if sources from university Professors describe a situation in more detail, then amnesty international which has no author should not be given weight in an article. Only in articles where academic study of the subject is lacking than I believe amnesty might be a necessary option.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Having been involved in many articles and discussions involving Human Rights Watch and Amnesty as sources, I think the consensus position, in a nutshell, is that they are reliable sources but their statements should always be attributed to them. They have come up again and again, here and on many talk pages. That is, in my view, largely because Wikipedia attracts so many advocates for the states and groups that are criticized by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty for human rights abuses, violations of international law, and many other issues, but I digress. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

@Khodabandeh14:

An "author" doesn't have to be a person, but it can be an organization as well. I.e. press releases by organizations are "authorized" without necessarily naming a particular author. Also there a few well established, reliable newspaper/journal that traditionally may not name individual authors (Der Spiegel for instance used to do that iirc) as well as reliable tertiary sources (various encyclopedias). In such cases where an individual author is not given, you have to look at the reputability/reliability of the publisher instead.

There seems to be consensus that Amnesty can be cited but that it requires an intext attribution. Since you said yourself you would dismiss amnesty completely (just consider it less reliable/reputable that a few others sources), can't the conflict be resolved by simply citing amnesty with an explicit intext attribution?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What if their view is an overwhelming generalization and directly contradicts newsreports? As I said, I see no academic person writing these reports but rather college students obtaining reports from unknown organizations. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if various sources disagree the common approach to integrate both (or several) view points into the article (unless they are fringe)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here let me illustrate again. Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[46]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". It seems unlike amnesty, the guy in RFERL has done some field work. Note how amnesty generalizes the whole situation by speaking on behalf of millions of people. How does amnesty gauge the opinion of Millions of people? Amnesty has no author (who is writing the report) and lacks any specialization on the topic. If some sources contradict amnesty, we should give weight to the stronger source and not include amnesty as a weight issue. My main issue is that not only amnesty is making a gross generalization but there is no author who writes the report. It seems that an Encycloapedia should at least reference an actual author/writers (rather than vague organization) when it comes to discussing controversial matters. Until I figure out how amnesty international can gauge the opinions of millions and speak on their behalf, I find the report to simply be unencycloapedic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dismissing highly notable and widely respected sources like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Inbternational is not a realistic option available to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there is only a requirement to use reliable/reputable sources, there is no requirement mandating that individual human authors have to be identifiable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"As per the sources you brought from above, it is again news organizations without authors. All of them from "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" but no authors were mentioned. Wikipedia is not a place for piling up random news source. For example, one does not fill the article on Kurds in Turkey with thousands of reports from various new sources." As said by Mr Khodabandeh. This is a radio station which clearly contridicts a well-known human rights watch dog but still if we were to take this radiostaion as a reason as to not including other groups we would need to incorparate the very same reports made by the radio staion and these are:

Azeri-rights protesters demand Khatami apology

Detentions after Azeri rights chants disrupt Iran rally

Ethnic Azeri bloggers imprisoned in Iran

Relatives say ethnic Azeri activist held without charge in Iran

Iranian group concerned over detained Azeri activists Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, if the authors are not academics, then it is hard to verify the accuracy of their statements. For example when talking about oppression, According to Shaller and Zimmerer in the

• I have three questions:
• First is what happens when amnesty international which has no author contradicts other news sources and academic books with authors?
• Second can amnesty make a generalized statement when it contradicts other news sources that have authors(like RFL). Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[47]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". So which statement is correct?
• How can one verify the information of amnesty international when it does not get vetted through any peer review academic process? And does one used amnestry reports from say 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago and how much weight and space should they be given in an article?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You see Khodabandeh your question can be reversed to; what happens when indivicual scholars contradict group reports from well known human rights watch dogs? I would say Human Rights Watchdogs should take presidence due to the fact that their reports are subject to verification and that they are written with a group. However you forward that scholars should take presidence. This I belive where opinion comes in, and ones own interests. Its for this reason both sources should be included. You have said about news sources contridicting the human rights reports, however you denied the BBC editorial report which stated that Azeris are suppressed to a certain extent. As said we should include all sources which are reliable or recgonised to be so irrelevant of the fact that some contradict others.Thank you, regards. Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) The amnesty international source is not from 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. It is very recent. To add to this ethnic status does not change over night, it is a slow moving process.

• An author-less report from Human Rights NGOs, which are mainly based on agenda-driven activists' "he said, she said" can not be used to suppress or contradict reliable academic sources written by experts, historians and specialists in a field. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Did not understand what you said, but HRW or amnesty is not subject to any academic verification and that is an invalid claim. Many times, political pressure groups send false reports to these organizations and these writeups are done by college students with no serious aademic background. I do think on such controversial matters, serious academic studies by Professors who have done years of field works takes precedence over random websites with no verifiable academic peer-review mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Random websites, so you are calling BBC, Amnesty International, United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch random, well I have nothing to say to that... These sources are humanitarian not political, please support your claim. Please also support the claim that said these sources are written by college studets. You dismissing these well known internationaly accepted sources, it does not look good. I will not be responding after this as its getting late. Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Human rights reports are tertiary sources at best, as they're author-less and usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So they could be treated as reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion, on pages dealing with the individual subject in question, or Human Rights pages like "Human rights in ____". But to cherry-pick random author-less lines from these types of sources, presenting them as statements of facts even-though they openly contradict scholarly works, and use them as a soap-boxing/advocacy tool on various tangibly related topics, as Tugrulirmak has been doing, not only violates

WP:SOAP. Kurdo777 (talk

) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I consider myself tolerably familiar with our sourcing policies, and I do not recall ever having seen a single sentence in any of them that says anything remotely like "Sources that name the author are better than sources that don't".

I can name dozens of top-quality sources that don't name their authors and are unquestionably acceptable. (Nearly everything on nearly all government websites, for starters.) These "author-less" reports are acceptable sources for Wikipedia's use, and the

persistent inability to hear that suggests that the real problem is that certain editors don't agree with the sources' contents. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and editors who are apparently not familiar with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the genuinely baffling extent of considering them fringe probably should not be commenting about their reliability and mode of usage. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• My main point of contention was that is some of these reports contradict perceptions of actual newsreports from other sources or contradict viewpoints of Professors, what should be done. Given weight to these sources or dismiss them? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculas first my edit was reverted by Kurdo777 on the grounds that "rv - per WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP - this is neither the place for this, nor are these claims supported by acadamia, and stuff about particular incidents belong WikiNews, or a Human rights page" however we discussed here that the sources were reliable and perfectly reliable for a page which also features ethnic status of Azeris in Iran. Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally made after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution. I'll let you conclude whats happening here...Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What we do Khodabandeh is include two equaly reliable sources inside the article irrelevant of the stance they are taking. This means include the scholars and the Human Rights Watchdogs. Then let the reader decide. Simple as that.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak`s latest inflammatory comment, labeling other editors "Iranian" etc (falsely too, but that is not the point), goes to the heart of the problem with his edits. He is an ultra-nationalist POV-pusher (a quick glance of his editing history, his denial of

WP:Soap. Kurdo777 (talk

) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry if calling someone Iranian is offensive, I had no such prior knowlege; I was just trying to describe the correlation between the reverts conducted on my edits and the people who did them, I apologies. However the fact that I made a mistake does not grant you an invitation to personaly attack me. I do deny the Armnian genocide for I have evidence to back this up (if you wish to have an extended discussion please post on my talk page or better yet the Armenian genocide article) same goes with other topics. That being said however, I do not deny the other oppinions that were presented to me, I belive they should also be featured on wikipedia. I hope you did not mean to call me an ultra-nationalist and I forgive you if you didn't for you have no idea of my political beliefs and irrelevant of what they are, mine do not have a presence in wikipedia.Attacking me personaly will not help us resolve this issue so please refrain from doing so. We need contributions from each side to resolve this, not damaging comments.Please do not reply here again as I fear the true aim of posting here which is to check reliability is being lost in our discussion. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia , we are not going to push for ultra nationalistic and partisan point of views . As other editors have mentioned earlier , the reliable human right reports may be used only in Wiki articles that deal with corresponding title and not as a pressure tool in pushing for anti national sentiments . Don't know what was the reason , but user Tugrulirmak not only has especial points of views in Armenian genocide , but he wrote about my ethnic group in Iran(Azeri) as fishes ! [48] and in response of my objection he said he write it to "lighten up the mood" ! [49] . Anyway , we tend to edit in Wikipedia without prejudice and without tendency to push for Pan- ideas ... neither Pan-Turkism nor any other Pan idea

WP:SOAP.--Alborz Fallah (talk

) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the "ultranational viewpoint" here is, the promotion or the suppression of the assessment of human rights organizations?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism is a point of view that states all of the Turkic language groups in other countries are under pressure and they should unite and build a unified state to protect them from continuous harm of the other ethnic groups .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal national sentiments of editors are an irrelevant distraction. Everyone has to comply with policy and if they don't they will eventually get themselves blocked. It's about the sources and their usage at the

Iranian Azaris article. These sources are very obviously notable, reliable (with attribution) and pertinent to the issue of the status of Azaris in Iran according to reliable sources which we are obliged to reflect. To try to exclude these sources on the basis that they should go somewhere else is frankly nonsense. These matters are clearly within scope of the article since there is already a section dealing with them. It even contains the statement "claims of de-facto discrimination". If an article is to deal with such matters, as is apparently already the case, and to do so in a policy compliant way, it's simply not possible to exclude the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most prominent sources on the planet for this kind of information, and then claim to be complying with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk

12:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually "personal national sentiments " can only go so far in Wikipedia. Somebody denying the Holocaust, should not and will not be taken seriously here in Wikipedia, the same also applies to editors who deny other well-documented genocides, and treat other editors, sources and subjects based on "genetics closeness" to their own. There is something fundamentally wrong with the editor in question, and pointing it out, is in line with

WP:COATRACK, and dump whatever cherry-picked material that suits his own POV, regardless of relevance or weight. Otherwise, I see no problem with adding a couple of attributed lines from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to the already-existing section dealing with the ethnic status, as long as the weight is proportionate and appropriate. If a particular claim is contradicted by several academic secondary sources, then it should be treated as a minority viewpoint. Kurdo777 (talk

) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are not to take the sources I give seriously due to me not believing in a "genocide" then go ahead you would also be excluding the whole of Turkish community also... In addtion to this the sources are not connected to me so how can my own "bias" effect the sources I present. Lastly calling me a biast or "ulta-nationalist" is just absurd I belive other sources can be included like those scholars so how does this nuetral stance make me extream in your eyes. Stop attacking or I will have to make a complaint. If you want to attack anythign attack the sources I present and come up with valid reasons as to why they are not a good choice.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is a fundamental problem in my opinion when the user (Tugrumimak) called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." [50]. Note the said person is also not Iranian [51]. Wouldn't such a person have much more qualification to summarize about this issue than a random report from AI (which should be treated as a primary source that needs secondary analysis)?
• No one has answered my question though (I am asking some uninvolved in the article), when it comes reliability and claims, "exceptional claim require exceptional sources". When there is several scholars, professors in major universities contradicting AI or doing a fine job summarizing the situation, how does one treat something like AI which might get its report from fringe groups or contradict these sources? Doesn't
  WP:Weight go with the Professors/scholars rather than an organization which is not peer-reviewed and has been criticized by scholars [52]. I am not saying to dismiss AI, but on a topic which might have political fringe groups making claimns to AI, One should consider current scholarly viewpoints from universities and give them the most weight. Also AI is almost like a primary source (if its claim is valid and sometimes it is just a random report about something that could have been outdated by now) and secondary sources (peer-reviewed publications, professors , etc.) should make a summary. --Khodabandeh14 (talk
  ) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My own fictitious "political agenda" or "bias" does not apply on wikipedia. I, or you present sources and we discuss them. For all I care some can be an extreamist; what I care about is the reliabilty and the relevance of the sources presented to me and so should every one. Trying to invalidate certain sources by invalidating me does not realy work as I have no connection with the sources.About the professor, I said she might not be as reliable due to the fact that she is Iranian and I stand by it. We would be fools to think that ones own national sentiments do not apply when drawing scholarly conclusions, one still bears a vested interest no matter how represt it may be. I would draw the same conclusion if the author was an Azeri or a Turk. And according to Alborz I called Azeris fishes, now why would I defend someone I called fishes, no reason( although may aim was realy to lighten up the mood). Khodabandeh as I am sure you are aware wikipedia does not quote wikipedia as a source as it is deemed unreliable. Lastly, we have stagnated our discussion upon me, and Amnesty International. However one can see, quite clearly that I have presented two other sources UNHRC and HRW if we can also reach a certain stand on their reliabilty it would be good also.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Professor from UCLA who is a full professor is more reliable than authorless AI with no academic peer-review process. See
  WP:RS. I stand by my case that on a complicated matter, one should use secondary sources rather than alleged tidbits by political advocacy group, when the two come into conflict. --Khodabandeh14 (talk
  ) 02:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are """as""" reliable as each other. Both must be included. Saying AI a large well-known organisation is not reliable is just absurd.Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please cite relavent wikipedia policies where it says academic institutions are as reliable as AI! No they are not. As far as I know, you accused a Professor from UCLA who was not Iranian to be of Iranian background and claim people in academic institutions are biased due to their background. Both claims can be dismissed , see for example taner akcam and are not part of wikipedia policy. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

reliable to be mentioned in which article ? Do you have problems in mentioning them in a human rights article ? or the problem is about adding a whole chapter to the article of Iranian Azaris?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not adding a whole chapter. We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports. As said on talk page the article covers the treatment of Azeris in the Pahlavi era and now so the reports are relevent to the article.

by adding the signs of == == there will be a headline in the page . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you have read what I said correctly I talked about extending the Ethnic Status in Iran section not making a new section here is the quote "We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports". Next time please do read correctly.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am asking for a third party opinion and I will repeat. Is Professor from UCLA who is a full professor or similar academic institutions more reliable than the authorless(in terms of having a real person with a known academic background) AI with no academic peer-review process. See
  WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". I would consider AI as a primary research paper and when it comes to conflict with secondary academic sources, I believe the secondary academic sources should be given more weight. I am asking for third person opinion on weight issues rather than if AI is RS or not. --Khodabandeh14 (talk
  ) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly are we discussing the reliability of the professor, NO. Secondly did I say she is unreliable, No (if I had you made me change my mind almost a month ago). AI is a secondary source HRW is a secondary source BBC is a secondary source UNHCR is a secondary source. Again are we talking about the reliabilty of the professor, NO. We are talking about the reliabilty of the above sources. Stop trying to veer the discussion to where you want it to go to. You said it yourself "you consider" well thats just your point of view. They are reliable as many discussions have prooved them so. Again you are only saying AI i have provided 3 sources yes 3. These are if you have not yet seen: AI, HRW and UNHRC. You are asking for weight? I would say international sources are pretty hefty in their weight, but go ahead ask away and we shall see the reply. Lastly don't bring up the professor again for we are not discussing her nor me.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please watch

I have not made personal attacks to anybody I belive it is me who is under personal attack from 3 editors, however I shall take this lightly and assume they do not mean the things they said. I would like a link to your request on 3rd party opinion I will be greatfull.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again with the professor? We are not discussing weight here we are discussing reliabilty of three sources UNHRC, AI and HRW. She is Iranian as the wikipedia article on her states so, for the record I am talking about the wikipedia article before your deletion of the statement which read "Nikki R. Keddie is an Iranian professor of Eastern, Iranian, and women's history" so yes she is Iranian. Now which has more weight, indivicual scholars or large global human rights organisations? I say both, both are as reliable as each other and thus both should be included.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats because you do not understand the term and you also thought the article about fish DNA is talking about Azeris. I'll explain it for you. "Iranian Professor" in the Wikipedia article meant Professor of Iranian studies. Just like Arabic Professor could also mean Professor of Arabic. Iranian Professor could also mean Professor of Iranian studies. Turkish Professor could mean Professor of Turkish studies. It simply requires the person to understand the context although it could be confusing. Else, in fact she is not an ethnic Iranian and you can check her biography on the UCLA page. Individual full professors publishing from reliable universities have much more weight than AI as clearly noted in

Can you also please give me a link showing me where you requested 2nd opinion?Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. "Middle East Professor, Turkish Professor, Arabic Professor.." could mean a Professor teaching those subjects. The context makes it clear. I am requesting second opinion now, except everytime I am requesting it, you repeat the same thing which means that the discussion here is not over and there is no clear concensus. AI, HRW and etc. are not in the same league as Professors and scholars. Even if they are RS, they do not have the same weight as academic institutions. And no if we look at

WP:RS we can see academic institutions get priority over non-peer review websites. Per Weight: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. " and "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science". So no, they are not equal weight all and your claim that they have equal weight is not supported by Wikipedia policy, which clears prefers academic books/articles and peer-reviewed journals specific to the topic over generalized websites and newspapers. --Khodabandeh14 (talk

) 11:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peer-reviwed" do you know these organisations are world wide globaly accepted sources they trump "peer-reviewed scholars" any day even though I still think we must include both. You denial of these well established Human Rights Groups is very worring and please do not reply again here and ask for a third oppinon for we are going to go no where. Also please provide a link for if you don't I will have no idea weather you have requested 3rd opinion thus would have to request myself. I am not discussing any more, I shall await for the 3rd party opinion.Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are adding your own personal opinion (OR) and attributing it wikipedia policy. In Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia policy. Peer-review scholarship and academic institutions trump any sort of authorless website with no peer-review process and no attribution of sources. Per Weight: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. " and "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. And yes, I asked for 3rd opinion here (I already know your opinion) but I am waiting for people who know the details of the policy to repy back. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw an above reference to a convenience link, and wondered what our policy was on adding direct links to text in searchable editions at Google Books. If these are added alongside a proper citation, are they considered good practice? The links are ugly but the one-click access to source material is fantastic.

Example:

• "Feeling Unreal: Depersonalization Disorder and the loss of the self" By Daphne Simeon and Jeffrey Abugel (2006) Oxford University Press
  ISBN 978-0-19-538521-2, p. 144. Google books
  .

Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 04:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent policy seems to be

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is equivocal but militates against linking to an online third party source (not the publisher's own website) unless that is the only source of the work. However, I would say this is a widely disregarded policy, as links to Google Books seem to be common (and I have seen editors accused of hiding their sources if they found information on Google Books and only cited to the paper copy). One interesting sidelight is that particular pages in Google Books don't seem to be consistently available to different users, so what one sees may return a "not available" message to others. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 09:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting archived thread from this noticeboard in which editors are generally favorable to using links to Google Books but there is some dissent about links to particular pages ("deep links"). Someone points out that clicking on the ISBN itself brings up a Google Books link. A re-read of

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT suggests it wasn't written with Google Books in mind, but with paywall databases and those requiring someone else's account to access. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about that template. Thanks, Kmhkmh! Andrew Dalby 11:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Not sure if I just have bad luck with that particular Google book link or whether it is generally not accessible. But assuming for now it is general issue, I'd like to add one should only add Google book links if at least a limited preview available, providing a link without a preview is somewhat pointless (anfd just a hidden Google Promotion).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be an example of different results for different folks. It took me to a search page for three or four occurrences of "Suzanne" in the book, and I was able to click through to see p. 144 in full. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found books that I could look into once and can't look into now; and, likewise, books that others can and I can't. I guess the links are still handy if some people can. But I agree, it's a bad idea to add the link unless the editor concerned has tested it to see full text or preview. Andrew Dalby 14:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great responses and links. Thanks. It sounds like {citebook} with a url is ideal. Maybe no deep link, since preview is inconsistent. OTOH concern about url's being inconsistent and ISBN's link to GBooks already. So though not necessary, it can work if done right. Sounds good. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather give the user more info than less, even if not all are able to make use to it. I generally link to the main page for the book, that is the page from which you can get the preview, but sometimes will do a deep link. No one has really brought up the issue to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I always use deep links practice, because I hate being forced to hunt for the passage that supports a Wikipedia claim, and I don't want to burden others with that.

Because this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I'll make the obligatory comment that not all Google Books are reliable sources. For example, Google Books has a huge number of self-published books online, which would not be appropriate references. ~

talk

) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. However that has nothing to do with Google books itself. The reliability is always the relibility of the original (print) publisher, Google Books is merely a convenience link to an online copy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In the article

see also the talk page

see also the "Holy Land Studies" website

my proposed edit:

According to J.C. Bosma Plan Dalet and the question of Zionist intent should be seen in the context of the "contradictions of Zionism". Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation:

Ben-Gurion and the military leadership did not send their troops to destroy or "occupy" Palestinian villages without an explanation and legitimation. The troops were ordered to "move to State Dalet for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet". Plan Dalet and its stated defensive rationale were referred to and therefore automatically provided a framework that legitimated these orders. ... the politicians need not worry about the moral side of this, because these actions were justified by a defensive military plan.

Bosma investigated the military logic of Plan Dalet and points out seven aspects of it that are inconsistent with the stated defensive purpose.

• J.C. Bosma, "Plan Dalet in the context of the contradictions of Zionism", Holy Land Studies 9 (2), 2010, p. 209-227

There should really not be a dispute here, because it is obvious that a peer reviewed scholarly article should be considered a reliable source. JaapBoBo (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In the section Jaap wants to include this, we currently have the views of

Ilan Pappe, Henry Laurens, Yoav Gelber and David Tal

. J.C. Bosma has apparently only published this one article in the field of History, and his expertise is Chemistry.

So there are two questions here. Is anything published in a scholarly journal automatically considered RS, and if it is, should the opinion of someone who has no known expertise in the field be included with these well known professors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The second question is not good. I have a known expertise in the field, because it is recognised by the editors of "Holy Land Studies" during the peer-review process. Well known experts on the subject, Nur Masalha and Ilan Pappe (one of the six), are on the editorial board. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The source can probably be considered reliable, but given the fact that the author isn't a historian it may be

WP:Undue weight to mention it. Remember, there are other policies and guidelines which can limit inclusion besides RS. Blueboar (talk

) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So Blueboar, you agree with me on the question of RS?

Regarding "Undue weight", that is another discussion, but of course if my article had not been a worthy addition to what was already published, it would never have been accepted. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since I am not an expert on the topic, I can't "agree" that it is a reliable journal. All I can say is that it seems likely to be reliable. To me the undue weight issue is potentially more critical, but you are correct that that is a different issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could figure out both issues here, that would save everyone some time and effort later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this constitutes an undue weight issue rather than a reliable source issue per se, and would gently suggest to JaapBoBo that, in spite of what he says, the fact that he's the author of the article is relevant here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing absolutely and automatically gets a free pass as a reliable source. Peer-reviewed scholarly journals are generally assumed to go to the top of the pile, but there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals and there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals -- there's a difference between The Lancet and the Southern East Carolina College Review of Cultural Studies, for instance -- and there is difference between statements of fact and statements of contentious political interpretation. If there is good reason to believe that the author of an article has a dog in some fight, that slides the reliability quite a ways downward on the scale. I am confused about what Holy Land Studies is... it apparently is this, where I see that the first article listed is named Liberating Jewish History from its Zionist Stranglehold, which sounds kind of political... it looks to be partly a political journal. Is it? Middle East politics is a fairly contentious subject. I would first ask the editor using the ref: Do you assert that Holy Land Studies is essentially a disinterested scholarly research journal free of political bias? Well, is it? Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether "Holy Land Studies" is politically biased. I would say it is offers a forum to the anti-Zionist side rather than to the Zionist side. Some "Zionist sources" are certainly ideologically biased, e.g. the article Plan Dalet also refers to Zionist historians like Gelber, Morris and Tal.

A political stance tells nothing about reliability. We should not use political bias as a criterium, because in that case one could just as well remove all the views on the Zionist intent (which this part of the article is about). As I see it, historians can write reliable about facts, but can offer politically biased interpretations at the same time. This is the case with most of these sources. The article that I wrote is certainly reliable as regards to facts. As regards to interpretation: it would probably be considered politically biased by some.

In this case, what wikipedia should strive to is to give an overview of all the important interpretations (all of which may be biased). Actually this is what

WP:NPOV tells us to do: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ...". JaapBoBo (talk

) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy Land Studies is an interdisciplinary journal published by Edinburgh University Press. It is clearly a reliable publication by a reliable publisher. This means this paper may be used, but it's up to the editors to determine if it should be used, and if so, how much weight it should get. Generally speaking, an article by someone who hasn't published anything else in the field should get less weight than the views of established experts, if any at all. This should be resolved by the editors at the article talk page; I'm seeing some good arguments against using it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On the article for the band Nokturnal Mortum, we kind of got into an edit war over a certain musical genre being added to the infobox. The problem here is that this is a) an obscure band so sources are nil, b) they're from Ukraine so [English] sources in general are nil, and c) obscure metal bands in general aren't talked about in major RS's like publications, so the realm of e-zines is where one typically resorts to editorials or interviews, etc. Anyway, the dispute is whether the genre "NSBM" should be listed as a genre. Now, this band is, in my experience, always mentioned in online discussions for NSBM bands and their earlier lyrics are blatantly and obviously national-socialist in nature. Now, I found this interview with the band leader in which he clearly states that the band's musical style is "national socialistic Black Metal". I also found another interview with NSBM band, here, where its stated that "The brightest bands of nowadays NSBM / Racial Pagan Metal scene surely are: NOKTURNAL MORTUM". Now, I understand the second is a secondary source from an e-zine, but it does establish that this genre tag is commonplace, IMO. The first is a primary source, but in line with WP:RS policy, it is only used in a "straightforward and descriptive" manner. So are either of these sources alright to use? Currently one editor is blanking these sources saying primary sources aren't allowed, while another involved has opined that it should be allowed for this band given the circumstances.

Despite the 2:1 'consensus', things are still getting blanked, so just looking for another opinion here on policy? --Львівське (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are only two references in the whole article, and both to ezines? Does this article meet notability requirements? If the Firegoat ezine is being used for three of the four citations, and is apparently acceptable for that information, what is the argument against using it as the source for a statement that this band is NSBM? It's hard to comment given the dearth of sources, but if this article were to survive

WP:AFD, it seems like the band member's own statement that the band is NSBM could be mentioned in the article someplace. "In an interview, so and so characterized their music as NSBM." TimidGuy (talk

) 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's okay to state it in prose, why would the infobox be off limits? NSBM itself has an article; if it's notable itself to have a dedicated article, and its alright to mention such a source in the body, what would be the prohibiting factor from keeping it out of the infobox as a secondary genre/style? Anyway - the argument by the user is that the Firegoat interview is does not meet WP:RS, even for use as a straightforward description. He says it is "absolutely unacceptable" and doesn't "pass RS", so I ask you, for this purpose of description, does it "pass RS"?--Львівське (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a deeper sourcing issue. Are there reliable foreign language sources that can be used? I'm skeptical that any of the currently used sources are enough for them to pass notability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While there may be other sources that would work for the article itself for basic information, I've been unable to find anything relating to the above topic of NSBM without it being an interview by a band member, another band / activist mentioning them, or a plethora of forum postings. There are for sure enough sources out there for it to pass an AfD, if that's a concern.--Львівське (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here... the first issue is the reliability of primary sources for factual information about the band. I would say that such sources can be reliable in the absence of secondary sources.

The second issue is whether the band is

notable enough for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. WP:BAND is the guideline that governs this issue, and lists a number of criteria that could establish notability (the primary one being that the band has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself".) I am not at all sure that this band meets those requirements. Blueboar (talk

) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The following assertion is in the Dave Chappelle article: "He also said the rumors that he was in drug or psychiatric treatment only persuaded him to stay in South Africa." The source is: "Dave Chappelle". Inside the Actors Studio. Bravo. 2006-02-12. No. 10, season 12.

This is what

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

What does it mean to be "properly cited"? Is the cite above good enough? And what does it mean by an "archived copy"? If the episode were available on DVD, would that be sufficient?

Finally, this is not just a piece of background biographical information. If untrue, it's arguably a BLP violation. Does that change the analysis?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Actors studio is quite reputable, the citation above looks essentially ok to me, but it might be a good idea to add the time into the video where the statement occurs (similarly to giving the page ina book). If an online copy of the video or its transcript exist you might add that as a convenience link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What about satisfying the "archived copy" requirement?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's available on DVD, then the "archived copy" requirement is met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The dvd is one option, another might the archive of the broadcaster (though that might be iffy in terms of access) or some public archive keeping copies of the broadcast in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(I'm one of the editors involved) That study was conducted in 1996. That was 15 years ago. How...how is that useful, apart from being a historical record? For all we know, it could be even more pro-China today, or less. Secondly, that survey says that it is (quote) 'Pro-Beijing Chinese-language daily founded in 1948'. I can say the same about most Western media, they are 'Pro-Western'. It has, 'allegedly', PRC background (according to Arilang). That is not solid evidence. I mean, BBC has UK government background and we are not questioning that... Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All nations control their media, but mass media corps are still taken as RS at wikipedia even if they are openly propagandist such as the

VOA or Radio Free Asia. If you find another RS which disagrees with Wen Wei Po than you should attribute what each one is saying within the text.Passionless -Talk

07:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point exactly. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "allegedly PRC government background"? That could mean anything from being accused of supporting the government to having some direct relationship of control with the government. You are insinuating the latter, but I see no proof of it.

talk

) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a table:Table 14: Media Credibilty of local media organization at Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, where

WP:RS . Arilang ^talk

08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, 1996. I'd be very suprised to see one source from 15' years ago used as evidence to classify a major newspaper as unusable on Wikipedia. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The table is based on a survey of journalists, which is subjective, and not based on objective criteria such as tabulated errors in reportage of facts.

talk

) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq, there is no need for you to be surprised, in case you don't know,

Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China has been there since 1949, 60 years ago. Arilang ^talk

09:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how that relates. One is a government department and one is a private company. Government departments exist as long as the government does and is controlled by the government, its aims usually stay the same. A company, on the other hand, can change hands however often it is needed to and the aims of it can change anytime. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• • User Zlqq, please have a look at Google news, a link provide by Jimbo, and you can see that the term "Beijing backed" is being used extensively. Arilang ^talk 01:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It not an issue of a paper being "pro/anti western" or "pro/anti chinese", but whether the paper essentially heavily influenced or controlled by a totalitarian government. If that's the case such a newspaper should be avoided if possible and when used only with intext attribution. It also depends what kind of information is sourced, some largely undisputed factoid or POV about Ai Wei Wei.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Reporting on Ai Wei Wei's alleged crime confession even without an intext attribution as it was done in the original edit (linked diff) is definitely a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, user Kmhkmh. Arilang ^talk 10:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No proof has been submitted so far that Wen Wei Po is controlled by the Chinese government. Also, many people would disagree with your insinuation that the Chinese government is (today) totalitarian, or the usefulness of "totalitarian" in classifying a political system. Even if the Chinese government were "totalitarian" (which, by dispassionate examination, it seems today not to be), what is the essential difference of a paper being "influenced by" a "non-totalitarian" government versus being "influenced by" a "totalitarian" government? Both governments' interests can be just as nebulous, just as undemocratic, just as contemptuous of human rights—but the promotion of these rights is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Furthermore, what does it mean for a paper to be "heavily influenced" by a government? Many newspapers in many countries take pro-government stances (as many newspapers take anti-government stances), and even more newspapers lazily rely on the government as a source for information on what they could investigate independently. It seems that the crux of the issue is not of a newspaper being sympathetic to a government, but of a newspaper possibly being sympathetic to a government that we don't like.

talk

) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• This argument, and the evidence presented so far, does not go to source reliability. FOX, the propaganda arm of the US Military Industrial Complex, is a reliable source for wikipedia purposes. Please read the top of the page and follow all the instructions including giving the statement for which the source is disputed. You ought also to be aware that the totalitarian thesis is utterly discredited in academic circles, and, is at least 50 years behind the state of sociological theory and historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Would user Fifelfoo care to explain Table 14: Media Credibilty of local media organization at Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, where Wen Wei Po ranked 24 out of a total of 29 media, and yet accepted by Wikipedia as Reliable Source? Arilang ^talk 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What "totalitarian thesis"? Fox is quite often not a reliable source either and depending on the context cannot be used as as such.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we conclude that user Fifelfoo is into self imposed disqualification from this discussion ？ Arilang ^talk 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No we can't and there is no need for a personal overtone. But no matter how one views the difference between media in free and totalitarian societies in general and between publicly owned media in both systems in particular, it is rather obvious that the old edit without intext attribution and qualifiers was clearly a no-go. However the source might be used with intext attribution and qualifiers (like "according to the Hongkong based newspaper Wen Wei Po the Chinese government charges Ai wei wei with the following crimes...."). The corrected version currently in the text seems ok too.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help RS/N editors if any of the article's editors here read the top of the page and follow all the instructions including giving the statement for which the source is disputed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not one of the article's authors, i.e. you're adressing the wrong person. However diff link containing the info specifically requested by you was given right in the first posting anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My apology to user Fifelfoo for my rather rude comment aimed at him. Arilang ^talk 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60." This means the author, article, date, page run, newspaper, location. The diff listed in the first post does not contain a full citation of Wen Wei Po, nor does it indicate the statement Wen Wei Po is being used to support. If editors wish the help of RS/N, they could provide the information required by RS/N editors, on RS/N itself. If they choose to provide diffs, they could provide diffs which are indicated textually on RS/N as meeting the requirements of RS/N to investigate source reliability, "This diff contains a full citation, link, the statement supported: [diff]." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Wen Wei Po attack editorials

• 廿四味：艾未未是个什么东西, and it's google translation:[53]

• 廿四味：假艺术家的真面目, the google translation:[54]

• 艾未未真面目：五玩艺术家－－五毒俱全, and it's google translation:[55]

That's not an attack editorial. It's just a normal comment piece. Not every anti-Ai Weiwei article is an attack Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• 香港社会所不了解的艾未未, and it's google translation:[56]

And that is even less of an attack piece. Most of it actually quotes sources from other newspapers and comments on that.Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Editors can see the kind of language used by Wen Wei Po's editorial board to mount a bias and give-him-everything personal attack on China's famous artist. Could Wikipedia accept this kind of content? Arilang ^talk 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They are all comment pieces, and they are not randomly attacking without evidence/source/references. Most newspaper have comment/opinion sections. Refer to what I said in the section above about Guardian and stuff. Also, maybe you want to use the word 'criticise'? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• These aren't connected to a statement in the article, or a proposed statement: RS/N can't feasibly judge their reliability for a particular statement. Zlqq2144's points about op eds are useful. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just like to confirm with Fifelfoo, if I am to use intext attribution and qualifiers (like... Wen Wei Po's editorial board called Ai Weiwei as "dog feces garbage", "cheap propaganda prostitution trafficking", etc etc, and provide Wen Wei Po's editorial as source, would that be OK? Arilang ^talk 03:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If you did that, then you would be providing an original translation from the Chinese, and a misleading one at that (translating idioms literally). That is why
      talk
      ) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Within Quigley's admirable qualifications, on inspection the first source has a by-line of 梁立人. None of these are by the editorial board, they're individually signed opeds. You'd be better off seeking English language published appreciations of Wen Wei Po's editorial position on Ai Weiwei if your interest is the position of Wen Wei Po's editorial board position on Ai Weiwei. This also provides a secondary evaluation of the matter. As a purely fictional example: "The Manchester and Wyong Daily Star (Wyong, NSW) described Wen Wei Po's editorial attitude towards Ai Weiwei as one of public celebration and character building." (Brian Brianson, "Hong Kong newspaper praises controversial artist", The Manchester and Wyong Daily Star (Wyong, NSW) 32/13/2011, p. 7.). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I google 梁立人 [57], and according to Chinese Wikipedia, 梁立人 is a pro-Beijing writer, his articles often come up on Wen Wei Po, 東方日報 and The Sun (Hong Kong). Arilang ^talk 04:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his articles often come on 东方日报 and The Sun (Hong Kong), not Wen Wei Po (per the third paragrah in the introduction). And according to the long list of articles he wrote (of about 20+), he wrote 4 for Wen Wei Po. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Wen Wei Po as an RS. He writes opinion articles, not news articles, and his articles are not the reference I used in the Ai Weiwei article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, shouldn't Wen Wei Po be regarded as Tabloid#Tabloid journalism style media, more into gossips and rumors, instead of serious news reporting? Arilang ^talk 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion=/=Tabloid. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei is being kept, somewhere, no one knows where, one day when he comes out free, and he will send lawyer's letters to whoever calling him "dog feces garbage", I am sure of that. Arilang ^talk 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this:[58],

WP:RS? Arilang ^talk

07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It was based on a public survey, and the essay was the opinion of 1 person. The survey itself, is not solid evidence either. It is the opinions of 600 people, which frankly, isn't a lot. Also note that although Wen Wei Po is ranked quite low, the whole survey spans from about 5.6 to 7.3 -- less than 2, in a survey of 1 - 10. There really isn't a lot of difference. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The challenge of Hong Kong's reintegration with China

Publisher: Hong Kong University Press ISBN13: 9789622094413

Despite their low credibility and dismay circulation in Hong Kong, these mouthpieces are well-financed by advertising revenues from the PRC companies...Wen Wei Po has received more funds...Both papers print many

Xinhua-initiated commentaries under pseudonym aimed to criticize and intimate China's critics.[59]

Arilang ^talk