Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 95

There is a difference between disputed and disputed content and that's exactly why i was talking about correct content above. Of course editors can not use any website (potentially crappy), but the may websites or popular exposee considered as correct/reliable for sourcing basic largerly undisputed content (not crappy). This is a completely different scenario from an editor using arbitrary (unreliable) websites or blogs or engaging in OR using primary sources. Also if there are disputes over content the requirements for (temporary) increase and in doubt only academic peer reviewed sources can be used, but again my posting above referred the large amount of undisputed (historic) content we already have covered and which we still want to cover.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jonathanwallace: And imho you are wrong for lay editors overly rigourous sourcing requirements does mean that there is significantly more work involved and there are access issues. Most academic peer reviewed sources require access to specific university librariers and online databases (usually being paywalled). Google books is great, but often does not provide a full preview and moreover it doesn't even provide access to the sources we want to have ultimately (peer reviewed journal articles, academic monographies). Also picking up random historic treatments in book form is hardly anymore reliable than various websites. Much of the historic nonsense spread overblogs and websites (as in the example you've mentioned) can be found in Google books as well. Why should a book by (reputable/reliable) historian X be anymore reliable than his website? That would be only the case if we restricted ourselves to a limited number of scientific publishers, but for arbitrary mainstream publishing companies, the (additional) editorial control regarding factual correctness is rather lax.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace, I agree with you in general: we need stronger and more specific sourcing standards. But in regards to the specific sources in question here, I stand by my above assessment. In regards to Google Books, I think roman-emperors.net is as good or better a source much of what you'll find there, as it also has its fair share of crap sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• We already have strong sourcing standards by example: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History which could be abstracted into a check list and result in policy much like WP:MEDRS. (WP:MILHIST editors would almost certainly offer opinion).
• If any article is MILHIST is has to meet a higher standard:
  Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES. Fifelfoo (talk
  ) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• And IIRC, the History project transcludes WP:MILMOS and therefore WP:MILMOS#Sources governs all history articles at a MOS level. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Those "strong standards" are essentially the same as we have here anyhow just in a somewhat in a different wording and slightly more specific regarding for what citations are needed. www.roman-emperors.org would arguable qualify by their guideline as well. Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES starts essentially we referred to reliable sources, which ultimately brings us here again to answer the question whether a particular source can be considered reliable or not. There is no mention of a restriction academic peer reviwed source, instead it says "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians", which allows www.roman-emperors.org since it is largely published and written by reputable historians. It also allows for much (strictly speaking not all) of the stuff I'd outlined above (popular history books, popular exposees in newspapers, university websites, museum websites, websites of historians) provided their are written by a reputable historian. The only thing it may not allow if a popular history or article in a newspaper was written by (reputable) journalist consulting historians rather than a historian himself, but in connection with that it is also worthwhile to point out the quaote above says "should" and not "must".--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've consistently pushed for WP:HISTRS with much stronger standards. Would you like to collaborate? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends, I don't want stronger sourcing requirement if that means a restriction to peer reviewed publications only as a mandatory for an article start for the reason I've outlined above. If I have to choose between no article or a usuually correct first article about some historical figure based on a popular history book or a decent newspaper article, I go with latter and I'd strongly suppose any push by individuals in project to change that. I don't want wikipedia to be citizendium or scholarpedia, not because they are bad, but because so far WP intentionally has pursued a different less restrictive approach. Essentially we have competing models/methods to generate universal encyclopedic coverage and quality articles and while both approaches have their pros and cons, I don't see WP on the losing end so far and hence no reason to change our traditional approach. If the community at large decides to adopt another model, that is more like citizendium, scholarpedia or similar so be it, but introducing such changes indirectly through a backdoor of various subproject is something I'd oppose. If you want to change WP in that regard you should pursue that through the village pump and in discussion with the community at large.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No fear. I would suggest for HISTRS an escalating scale of sourcing requirements based on article quality and source availability. Stub and Start being open to any reliable source organised on any basis; C requiring article structure and presentation (even if not filled out) following magisterial sources and/or specialist tertiaries; B being as C but with the core of the article sourced to higher grade non scholarly RS; A as B but predominantly sourced to scholarly RS or exhausting the scholarly sources available in English / editor's relevant academic language; A also requiring a historiographical section if a review article / magisterial work with a historiographic introduction has been published. Primaries only used to illustrative purposes from C upwards. This preps articles under MILMOS to meet MILMOS B and MILMOS A which are transcluded into History projects in general; it also preps articles to meet FAC while cutting the problem of repeated FAC resourcing. But it allows interested editors without fuller access to greatly expand articles based on non-scholarly or freely available 19th century works. My primary concern for some time is that editors on Wikipedia have been acting as synthetic authors by patching together causative arguments and disregarding the theory, content structuring, and causative arguments available in widely circulating academic works. This suggestion would probably also require a recognition that some popularly published works are scholarly, and need to be aspirational in tone rather than disciplinary. Do you think this moves too far towards citizenpedia? I've been finding that FAC and MILHIST A reviews are catching a fair number of synthetically structured historical articles which have ignored the scholarly discourse in favour of a montage of snippets from RS; I am concerned that A level work outside of MILHIST isn't supervised by the same kind of active collegiate editorial environment encouraging high quality As as MILHIST. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A far as article ratings or reviews are concerned, I have no objections against higher ranked articles having more rigorous requirements for sourcing. My issue is/was with starting articles and the (minimal) requirements on sources for those. We probably have quite many (smart) lay authors who are carefully pumping information of popular history books, newpaper articles and external encyclopedias into new articles, that is a process i don't want to see hampered by overly restrictive regulation. This process usually doesn't create great articles but it does create acceptable articles being on par with most external general purpose encyclopedias (say britannica) and allows as us achieve a wide coverage of subjects relatively quickly. As far as the exact sourcing requirements for higher ranked articles are concerned, I don't have a particular opinion on that as I'm neither involved in ranking or review work in WP. However generally I'm a bit skeptical towards codifying too much (see

WP:Bureaucracy). In the few FAR related discussion I've seen, I've noticed an imho unfortunate tendency towards form or formal requirements over content. For instance some authors make a big fuzz over sourcing every single sentence versus paragraph based sourcing (which imho is rather marginal thing) rather than actually checking the sources and assessing their quality. Cynically speaking one might say there's a danger that we focus too much on looking good rather than being good.--Kmhkmh (talk

) 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah—there's the danger of audit culture. Ideally, I'd like to see non-MILHIST history projects developing the fostering environment that MILHIST provides. I supplied six months of detailed citation quality reviews at MILHIST-A and, lo and behold, other MILHIST editors are doing it for themselves now. The educative process works. (A similar process occurred at FAC). This may be dot-the-i's stuff, but it is at the top order level of material. I strongly share your concern about encouraging content providers who read some kind of reliable source working on Stub Start C grade articles. I suppose that a firmly worded HISTRS would only be necessary if there's an increase in disputations over sourcing and sourced statements. If you notice an increase in disputed sourcing in the future, ping my page, and I'll draft a HISTRS that avoids audit/compliance culture that caters for all quality levels and for undisputed/disputed content areas and run it through the policy procedure. Our current standards (MILHIST-A, MILHIST-B, RS/Examples#History) are educative recommendations, and seem to work with RS/N as a back-up. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't participated above and I apologise if I am repeating something already said. Roman-emperors.org is very variable. Notably, some pages are fullish and have inline citations (e.g. [5]), some are sketchy and don't (e.g. [6]. Some are speculative, more like essays (e.g. [7]. That one does have inline citations, but years ago, when someone pasted it wholesale into Wikipedia, I began to check the assertions -- and found significant errors -- before I realised it was a copyvio). I would say that each article has to be taken on its merits, on the credentials of the author, on whether it gets cited elsewhere.

I'm not sure how active the site is. The list of pending essays is empty and was last revised in 2006 (whetyher that means that there have been no new pages since 2006, or whether the list has got forgotten, I don't know). Andrew Dalby 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Inline citation in academic articles are not necessarily as sign of quality or correctness of the content per se as the function of footnotes differ somewhat (mainly due to talking to a more specialized audience and the fact that TF is allowed). There is also nothing wrong with using essays as sources as long as the WP editor does that properly. If there are articles with important mistakes, they should of course be avoided and I agree that each article and author have to be taken on theor own merits. That however should be the case always anyhow, we should never give any larger reptubale source, author or publisher a blanket ok, even most prestigious journals may occasionally errors in articles and can contain outdated information. In other words credentials or author or publisher can only serve as preliminary sanity check, ultimately a WP-editor has to judge any source by its content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been objecting and challenging a biography written about a living person, Vito Roberto Palazzolo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo), written by a man called Don Calo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonCalo). The discussion has been happening recently at Palazzolo's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Answering_wikipedia.27s_requirements_in_BLP.2C_Verifiable_Sources.2C_Association_Fallacy_and_Lead

Personal motive

I have been gathering information on Vito Roberto Palazzolo for 3 years now with a view to writing his biography. I have nothing to gain by writing anything (in a book or in Wikipedia) idealizing him or getting him off the hook of his detractors. My single aim is to discover where the fire started that created the smoke, to wit: either Palazzolo was involved in illegal money laundering activities with the Mafia in 1981 and early 1982, or he is the victim if a conspiracy. I am looking at both options and both sides.

The subject

Apropos my plan to write a book: He is an interesting subject in many ways: as a Swiss Banker he was enormously successful and ran the fiduciary arm of one of the world's most prestigious banks; as a Sicilian he arrived on the scene at the bank when some of his inherited clients were laundering money (through Swiss banks) for the the heroin smuggling ring known as the "Pizza Connection", which was famously bust by Rudi Giuliani then Mayor of NY. Palazzolo was accused of many things in many courts thereafter, including money laundering, Mafia membership, drug running and even murder, but was never conclusively sentenced for anything except "dolus eventualis" in Switzerland in 1985, a conviction pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. But the allegations - from Sicily in Palermo - never stopped coming and pursued him even as far as South Africa where he lives now. There is even High Court narrative that mentions an unhealthy and illegal working relationship between Sicily and the Department of Justice in South Africa.

Conspiracy and transparency

What I am saying is that he is an interesting subject for a biography, highlighting many areas, as you can see. His life as a free man, however, defended by the rule of law (now in SA as well as Italy and the European Court of Human Rights), hangs in the balance. It is conceivable, that, given the court evidence over nearly 30 years, Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy and only an open and transparent rendition of his case, with all cards on the table, can either clear his name or indict him.

The media, Don Calo & Wikipedia

But that is not what he is getting in the media and so, by default, Wikipedia. Don Calo, who writes the Wikipedia biography of Palazzolo, uses only media articles as his source. Primarily scurrilous newspapers like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Independent. And so when people go to Wikipedia, the first port of call for knowledge about anyone or anything in the world, they get a biased, indeed, slanderous view of a man who, from the point of view of the High Courts in Switzerland, Italy and South Africa, is innocent. That may not be so but he must be given the opportunity in court, the media and at Wikipedia, for a free and fair trial.

All I am asking is that because this is a highly complex and long running affair, Palazzolo gets better treatment from Wikipedia. By which I mean specialist and comprehensive and fair, which one man reading the tabloid press, cannot do.

See below a few of the Points I have made in regard to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and fairness in respect to a living person.

Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.

Significant Coverage - In Notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.

Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.

Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.

Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.

Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.

Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.

Weasel words abound in Don Calo's article ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated")

Palazzolo “is regarded as a notorious Mafia ‘banker.’”

Palazzolo “is considered to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia.”

“The (FBI) considered [Palazzolo] to be one of the top seven in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra.”

Miss-use of Primary sources

Trial transcripts - We are advised not to use "trial transcripts and other court documents", because they are primary sources. Hard to understand how a court judgement, which is an in depth study of the rights and wrongs of any subject, and is not directly involved in the subject, is inadmissible.

Secondary sources - are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Surely then a court case, which analyses the subject (Palazzolo), is a secondary source.

Affidavits - Surely affidavits written by lawyers (who have to be professionals with integrity, by definition) about the subject, are admissible as secondary sources? There could be no more judicious and balanced document then an affidavit of this order.

These are just a few pointers regarding my contention with Wikipedia's article on Palazzolo. I have a great deal more on this subject, which is very complicated. What else would you like me to present to you and how can we lay this ghost to rest, because a living person is very insulted by the singular, one-sided, ill-informed line that Don Calo (Wikipedia) is taking.

Fircks (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has posted related requests several times on the

WP:AN/I. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I went into the Wiki foundation page and was informed that: "Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website". So I expressed my concerns by sending an email to [email protected]. I could post a copy here but don't want to take up too much space repeating my case. In the meantime I am discussing the article with Bbb23 and Don Calo, who has today weighed into the conversation.

Fircks (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearly articulating this general issue. It's something that we'll need to deal with in the policies and guidelines at some point. I've seen many instances where the media report accusations but not the subsequent exoneration. I think it's fair to use a court judgment as a source. I can see the rationale for not using civil complaints and criminal charges, transcripts, affidavits, etc., since those typically represent a point of view of one side or the other. But the judgment should be acceptable, and, I would think, weigh heavily in regard to establishing appropriate weight to views. But one would need to be cautious about making any interpretive claims. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Court filings such as complaints and docket sheets are completely banned as sources in biographies of living persons by

WP:BLPPRIMARY, as they should be. Contrary to your statements above, affidavits also should fall under this ban. Any-one can claim anything in an affidavit, and they have no more veracity than complaints (which like affidavits are sworn in some jurisdictions). Judge's opinions are frequently argued to be banned under the same policy. I have argued elsewhere, and there is some agreement by other editors, that a judge's opinion (at least in a court of general jurisdiction) should be treated by us as a secondary source, as it represents the judge's synthesis of the witnesses and documents, much as an article in a mainstream newspaper or magazine represents such a synthesis of primary sources (except in many cases the judge's opinion will be in greater depth and more accurate). Jonathanwallace (talk

) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fircks (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I am taking up a lot of space on these pages but this is a complex case, all for the purposes of getting a fair hearing (in the media, therefore on wikipedia) for a living man who claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. What if he is? Shouldn't you see and review his story? His democratic and legal rights rest on your shoulders. Shouldn't you do him the honour (as per your rules on BLP) of an in-depth study of his case?

Please look at this one. If it's proof you want, I have it, and there is no stone I will not overturn for the sake of justice.

Fircks (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your rhetoric here will make some Wikipedians a bit nervous, concerned that you view Wikipedia as an opportunity to right a wrong, and to do original research in the process. I'm not sure that this is a case where we can

Ignore All Rules. You have support here for using the judgment, and for giving it weight. Beyond that, it's a slippery slope. TimidGuy (talk

) 11:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fircks (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. From "Understanding IAR" - "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." The better way gives both sides (prosecution and defence) of Palazzolo's story. The rules say that Judges verdicts and carefully worded arguments by lawyers are inadmissible in a wiki BLP about a contentious figure, but the tabloid press is OK. For which reason Wikipedia can say, "The newspaper said Palazzolo was convicted of drug smuggling." And Palazzolo can never say, "The Judge acquitted me of that charge (drug smuggling), and said it was crazy to have brought the charge against me in the first place." Etc, etc.

Isn't it high time not to IAR, but to ignore THAT rule?

Thank you...

Fircks (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We've given feedback on sourcing. If the issue is NPOV, then the appropriate noticeboard is

WP:NPOVN. It does seem that the article is heavy with allegation. TimidGuy (talk

) 10:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Have I been barking up the wrong tree? I've been doing the rounds, following all the rules, dealing with them each in turn, following advice and all the time all I ask is that wikipedia give Palazzolo a fair hearing. There has been a lot of discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#The_article_is_a_mess, for example. To date this has been my progress at Wikipedia:

• First I tried editing Don Calo's work (as did Palazzolo's lawyers) but he simply deleted our suggestions. I thought, hey! that's not supposed to happen at Wikipedia!
• So it became an edit war. Every time I answered Don Calo's allegation's, he deleted them and wiki editors, understandably, became vexed.
• So I agreed to leave the defamatory BLP as it was and seek help from the Foundation. I sent the Foundation an email but got no response.
• Then I got to this Reliable Sources page and we began a dialogue and I have been presenting you with the many reasons why Palazzolo needs fair treatment by Wikipedia.
• Now I head for NPOV.

OK, fingers crossed, because Don Calo's defamatory BLP remains intact and according to wikipedia's rules, that can't go on.

Thank you in any event.

Fircks (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to quote Freedom House as a reliable source in the article Northern Cyprus? After much wrangling have managed to tone down the language to the following:

"Freedom House has classified the perceived level of democratic and political freedom in Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000 in its Freedom in the World report. [8]

However, I am still of the opinion that Freedom House cannot be used as a reliable source for the following reasons:

1. It is an advocacy organization concerning human rights.
2. 80 per cent of its funding comes from the government of the United States (the United States has military bases in Turkey, and Turkey has maintained a military occupation in the northern part of Cyprus since 1974).
3. The ratings that are being issued, concerning the quality of democracy (and human rights), do not appear to take reality in to consideration (for example, there is no consideration for the owners of the vast majority of land and property, as acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the displaced persons who were displaced during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and who are not allowed to return to their homes and who have no right to vote despite legally owning most of the land and property in "Northern Cyprus").
4. Even use of the word "perceived" which explains that the rating is based on perceptions and not the actual situation legitimizes a rating which has no bearing on reality.
5. Not even the enclaved are considered. The enclaved are christian Cypriots who remained in villages after the invasion (pockets of christianity within an occupied muslim territory) and their freedom of movement is severely restricted to the point that individuals who leave these villages for hospital treatment are not allowed to return to their homes by the occupation regime. More information about the enclaved can be read at: http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2880&subject=standalone  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do think that Freedom House can be used as a source in this article. Freedom House's "Free"/"Partly Free"/"Not Free" ratings are often cited in the media, not just in the United States but internationally as well. [9] However, that is not the same thing as saying that it is the last word on the subject. If other human rights organizations rate Northern Cyprus less free than Freedom House does, then those could be mentioned in the article as well. But I don't think the fact that some believe Freedom House may have gotten this particular rating wrong means that we should reject their use as a source (not necessarily the only one) on this topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Can http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org be cited as a source concerning the human rights of Northern Cyprus? It is another human rights organisation.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

    Freedom House is relatively highly regarded; they do seem independently-minded and I can't think of a sane reason why they would distort their rating of northern Cyprus in particular. None of those three points would apply to http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org - the clue is in the name and on their front page. Presumably the reliability of Freedom House was questioned because they do not wholly agree with

    your own assessment of the situation; nonetheless, they're worth using in the article. bobrayner (talk

    ) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    • • My assessment is irrelevant. Freedom House has issued a rating that Northern Cyprus has a better quality of democracy and "freedom" than Turkey when the government of Northern Cyprus is under military occupation by Turkey (fully confirmed and disapproved of by the United Nations). Moreover, the displaced persons of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus who were the vast majority of the population of the territory that is now occupied by the Turkish military have no right to vote despite being the legitimate owners of the vast majority of the land and property (as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights). What I find difficult to accept is that there is an organisation called Freedom House (that is 80 per cent funded by the government of the United States which itself has military bases in Turkey) that ignores both the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights to arrive at an absurd assessment. Moreover, the terminology used in the rating, which is described as "free", ignores the fact that the displaced persons are not allowed to return to their homes or land (and this is enforced by the government of Turkey and the Turkish military). Freedom House discredits itself with this assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like one of our regular "admissibility" vs. "weight" disputes. I agree with Nipsonanomhmata that majority funding by the U.S. government (if correct) would put the independence of the organization into question, but it is being referenced for its own opinion, not an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, the best compromise is to cite it in the wording given above, balanced by well sourced opposing viewpoints. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I also suggest that it is noted in any citation that Freedom House is 80 per cent funded by the United States government and that this may have a bearing on the assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a general principle that statements about funding of an organization are made in some sort of way in order to discredit its statements. Meanwhile, "lobbyforcyprus" appears to be a substantially non-neutral viewer of Cyprus, as its name and content both indicate. [10] says: since its inception has campaigned against the invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing and destruction of the cultural heritage of 37 per cent of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. ... Lobby was founded by the UK-based Cypriot refugee organisations Ayios Amvrosios UK, Anglo Akanthou, Lapithos & Karavas UK and a number of concerned individuals, who believed that any settlement of the Cyprus issue should not legitimise Turkey’s illegal occupation of the northern part of the island and that all refugees must have the right to return. ... What Lobby stands for: As a cornerstone of Lobby’s campaign policy are the 3Rs: Removal of all Turkish troops Repatriation of all colonists Return of all refugees to their homes and lands without restriction or precondition.

There is no way that an organization with such a mission statement could remotely be considered a reliable source on the topic of freedom levels in northern Cyprus. Collect (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet Lobby for Cyprus does not receive majority funding from any government unlike Freedom House. Lobby for Cyprus represents the displaced persons of Cyprus and that is where they get their funding from. What you are saying is that the displaced persons of Cyprus, who are prevented from living in their own homes and on their own land by military occupation and are also prevented from voting from their own homes, cannot be considered independent but an organisation mostly funded by the government of one nation can be considered independent. So much for "freedom" and "independence". The only reason that you cannot use Lobby for Cyprus as a source is because it is a primary source. It is a primary source with the views of those that were displaced. However, Freedom House also has majority funding from a primary source that was involved in the steering of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Yet, Freedom House itself is not considered to be a primary source even though it is based in the same country that majority funds it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you making the assetion that the situation in northern Cyprus was directly funded and backed by the US government? I fear that this is a case where you seem to think

WP:TRUTH is on your side. WP uses NPOV, however. Collect (talk

) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic. This can be discussed somewhere else if you really need to. Besides, we have already agreed that it is alright to quote Freedom House, even though it is 80% funded by the government of the United States.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that your primary issue with the Freedom House citation is its assessment of Northern Cyprus as "Free" and that your opposition to its usage as a source stems from that. There is a difference between a source being used to say "Northern Cyprus is free" and "Freedom House rates Northern Cyprus as free." The former would be highly POV and outside the scope of this particular source; the latter is acceptable and common. As it stands, the source is used properly and the sentence is in keeping with assessments on other Wikipedia articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose the usage of the source. On the contrary, I welcome the use of the source. However, I also think it is important to disclose conflicts of interest (and the fact that the evaluation itself is not an adequate, accurate, or reliable evaluation). In this case, Freedom House is 80 per cent sponsored by the government of the United States which has military bases within territory controlled by the Republic of Turkey. But it appears that nobody considers it necessary to disclose the conflict of interest. Nor is anybody prepared to note or highlight the numerous human rights violations by the occupation regime that have not been considered in Freedom House's assessment. Any article that fails to disclose the conflict of interest and indeed fails to disclose the long list of human rights violations is without a doubt an article based on a biased POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that it is unlikely that Freedom House is an unreliable source and it is biased because if it was biased, it would not classify Turkey as a "Partly Free" country. And anyway, the US has bases in many countries, and Greece is also an ally of it. If you want to highlight the so-called human rights violations committed by state of the TRNC, trying to eliminate the sources used is the worst way to do it. --
  talk
  ) 08:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Freedom House has a conflict of interest in this case. Moreover, it is classifying a country that is only recognised by the Republic of Turkey and was until recently evaluating the occupied territory as part of the Republic of Turkey. Moreover, Freedom House has ignored a number of human rights violations including freedom of religion, the right of displaced persons to return to their homes, the murder of protesters, continued ethnic and cultural cleansing. All of which have been ignored in their "Free" classification. The occupied territory does not have a free democracy. It is not possible for it to have a free democracy when the vast majority of the legitimate landowners and property owners do not have the right to vote. Freedom House's classification is an outrage. And yet, I do not mind if this useless source is used, as long as the conflict of interest and the human rights violations are disclosed. Moreover, it is outrageous that any Wikipedia Editor thinks that it is acceptable to wipe the human rights slate clean with a paltry Freedom House classification of "Free". The only thing that is "Free" in this case is the "getting off scott free" whilst all the human rights violations are wiped off the slate with one useless "Free" classification.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 09:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, please look at here. It has a score for every sovereign country, and some other entities such as Puerto Rico. The human rights reports are about the current situation in the TRNC, you would not expect from them to talk about the refugees in the south or in the north. They should talk about freedom of the press etc. The country does have a democracy, the landowners before 1974 are not citizens any more, and anyway, the Republic of Cyprus does not has a free democracy if it was as you said. And yet there are no murder of protesters, there are some arrest of protesters which swear. Moreover, you would not be able to find any source that states that there is an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing in the TRNC. And as you are so biased, you are trying to eliminate all the sources which classify Northern Cyprus as "free", but this is impossible. Anyway, no need to waste time in such things. --

talk

) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Freedom of the Press report does not mention Northern Cyprus. It is erroneous to say that Freedom House is not neutral. And this is just it classifies the free TRNC as "free". --

talk

) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is 80% funded by the government of the United States. It is an enormous conflict of interest. Moreover, the classification clearly is incompetent since it ignores a number of significant (the word "significant" is not strong enough) human rights violations some of which are long-lived and ongoing. But we have already agreed it is ok to quote Freedom House. But I strongly recommend that the conflict of interest is disclosed when doing so.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The

In general, opinions of organizations about themselves, and presented as their own opinion, are usable. IMO, we allow too many organizations to be cited for opinions about other organizations - frequently with fairly clear biases being shown at times. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (except for "unduly self-serving" which to my mind is a very ambiguous exception -- all statements about oneself are by definition "self-serving" in the first place). Collect (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the content issue that is at hand here specifically relates to the "unduly self-serving" exception. Miradre is lobbying for extensive rebuttals against critics of the Pioneer Fund. The first response (by myself) to his list of primary sources was a request for secondary sources to contextualize and properly weight the content. From there the conversation devolved into a predictable circuit of

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. See the talk page for further details: [12]. aprock (talk

) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the best way to resolve this would be to seek guidance on the question of how one determines the extent to which an organization like the Pioneer Fund is allowed to defend itself against it's critics in the article. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere between "not at all" and "point by point argument, counter argument, and rebuttal". Likewise guidelines for inclusion criticism would also be useful. aprock (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problems with VDARE or American Renaissance (magazine) might be comparable to those with Pioneer Fund. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is - at what point is "I know it is a bad thing" allowed to become the standard for whether or not an organization is allowed some sort of defense. If we err, it ought to be on the side of "equal time" and not one of "they are bad so they do not get a chance to rebut charges." Collect (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a question of balance, correct use of

WP:UNDUE. The history of the Pioneer Fund by Richard Lynn is a primary source, so cannot be used, except in a few limited ways; accounts in books published by university presses, which have been reviewed in academic journals, are secondary sources. Policy is that WP articles are written using secondary sources. Mathsci (talk

) 23:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn's book was published by a non-vanity publisher. It has been reviewed by several articles in academic journals.Miradre (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite its name, University Press of America is not a university press. It does not appear to have an editorial board made up of academics. Their website gives the appearance of being for essentially self-published books. Lynn is funded by the Pioneer Fund and is now on their board, so his book is a primary source. Where are the reviews in academic journals? Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Their books have won numerous awards: [13] Most of your claims lack any supporting evidence and seems to be personal opinions. For example The Mismeasure of Man was not published by university press either. Many academic books are not published by university press but by publishers specializing in academic books. These are still not self-published books. Regarding primary source, see the section on secondary sources. A source may be both secondary and primary. Lynn writing on the time before he was involved with the Fund himself is a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A reputable academic publisher or university press consults academics about new titles: that is not an opinion, it is what happens in the real world. The book by Stephen Jay Gould is a book written for a wide readership and published by a well known publisher W. W. Norton & Company; it does not seem relevant to this discussion.

Lynn's history can only be used in a limited way in writing an account of the Pioneer Fund. In addition there do not seem to be any favourable academic reviews of the book (there is a 2004 essay by Neisser). But to return to the point, in writing articles about controversial organizations like the

WP:ARBR&I, even more care has to be exercised. Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 07:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted Neisser, chairman of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, certainly an expert commentary, did not dismiss the book or the Fund in his review. WP:ARBR&I is does not favor one particular side. We should be careful to include the views of both sides in order to achieve neutrality.Miradre (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I must again thank you, Mathsci, for taking up issues that has caused me to search for and find new evidence. Here is a new source from a book by Pergamon Press by a non-PF grantee. It mentions both Lynn's book and the Pioneer Fund favorably. [14]. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the Pioneer Fund is a controversial institution, any self-promotional material from them, their board or their grantees is counted as a primary source and can only be used in very limited circumstances. Individual notifications of the recent amendment to

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that it was you who was mentioned and criticized in

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Mathsci_.28conduct.29 by the arbitration committee for your conduct, not I.Miradre (talk

) 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, see the policy on secondary sources.

WP:SECONDARY. A source by a person writing about the time before they were involved are secondary sources in that regard. See also above regarding the new source by a non-PF grantee. Thanks for helping me find this. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves". I am only talking about using this on the page about them in accordance with the policy on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk

) 08:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre is continuing to lobby for the use of Lynn's history on Talk:Pioneer Fund.[15] He cites a book by Helmuth Nyborg as a positive review, which he claims is written by someone who has not received a grant from the Pioneer Fund. However, Lynn's history states (P 354), "In 1996 the Pioneer Fund made a grant to Helmut Nyborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark to study the effects of inbreeding in Daghestan in the Northern Caucasus of the former Soviet Union." So Nyborg is a Pioneer grantee. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Lynn's book now suddenly a reliable source since your quoting it? Miradre (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In limited circumstances: dates, names (in this case of grantees), grant sizes, etc. Here this discussion is not concerned with the use of Lynn to add content to a wikipedia article, but just about whether Nyborg has been a Pioneer grantee. And the answer is yes. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems there is a double standard where Lynn's book is allowed and a RS when supporting your arguments but not otherwise. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No double standard whatsoever. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to use primary sources. An autobiography can occasionally be used to check facts, such as dates, but can rarely be used to write a

WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk

) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographies are of course allowed in an article about the subject, with due attribution. Just look at the article on Obama. Furthermore, please review the policy on

WP:SECONDARY. A person having personal involvement with a subject may still write a secondary source for the time before his involvement.Miradre (talk

) 09:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That does not seem to be part of wikipedia editing policy. The Pioneer Fund involves a small group of researchers. For example here is a letter of personal support for Nyborg, while he was under investigation by his university, written in 2006 by the director of the fund.[16] Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy preventing autobiographies in the article about the subject as in the Obama article. Not sure what your letter is supposed to prove. Sources with a POV are not disallowed in WP if they are published in reliable sources. Are you disputing that Pergamon Press is credible publisher? Miradre (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of highly controversial subjects, such as the Pioneer Fund, an article which falls under

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Advocacy. I don't think I have anything more to say. Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY. A person having personal involvement with a subject may still write a secondary source for the time before his involvement. There seems to be a double standard, quoting Lynn's book as a reliable source when claiming that Nybord has received funding, but refusing to allow it when it presents arguments in favor of the book. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk

) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You write "does not favor either side." Does that refer to some wikipedia policy? Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a plug here for WP:Party and person. Whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" has to do with the source's contents, not with the author. Wikipedia wants to reflect the views of WP:Independent sources, not just secondary sources by people with massive conflicts of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of asking this here is to get feedback from uninvolved editors. From the fact that Mathsci was sanctioned in the arbitration case linked to by Miradre, it's obvious that he's a long-time combatant in this topic area. It's not helpful that this discussion is being dominated by clearly involved editors. As far as I can tell, only one truly uninvolved person (Collect) has commented on this request, who has said that we should err on the side of giving an organization a chance to defend itself. Miradre, do you think that's enough of an answer, or should you get more feedback from uninvolved editors?Boothello (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry it doesn't work like this. One opinion voiced by someone here doesn't releieve you of the requirement of establishing consensus at the talkpage. If Mathsci is "involved" and a "longtime combatant" and should therefore be discounted then so is Miradre, and probably you and I. This is a place to get more voices in order to build consensus, not a place that overrides consensuses existing (or not existing) elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems best to keep to the point of this noticeboard (i.e. determining what is a reliable source, a primary source, a secondary source, etc), instead of discussing editors. There has been a much more detailed discussion on the talk page of the article. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it is enough of an answer. If any other uninvolved editor would comment that would also be welcome. That Maunus and Matsci with their long-time well-knowns POVs and involvement in this area would object was of course to be expected.Miradre (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pot, I may be a kettle but I am black and I am proud, you on the other hand seem to be in denial.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The original question was "The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page?" The first answer is that "they" should not be presenting "their" view: if done at all, it should be done by editors with no conflict of interest. The second is that the extent to which the accusations and their rebuttals should be presented is not a matter for this board, but, as stated above, the article talk page. The only aspect of the original question relevant here is, the extent to which the Pioneer Fund's own publications are reliable sources. They should be reliable for their own opinions (supporting statements such as "The Pioneer Fund's position on X is Y") and for noncontroversial, nonselfinterested data about themselves (although a consensus might need to be formed about whether such statements should be qualified by "According to the Pioneer Fund, Z") and independent sources for the latter would always be preferred. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Subject to

WP:WEIGHT, I would agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• http://byliner.com/ "Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way" by Jon Krakauer
• Byliner, Inc. is a new digital publishing company and website co-founded by John Tayman, Ted Barnett, and Mark Bryant. As editor of Outside magazine in the 1990s, Bryant published the magazine articles that would become Krakauer’s first bestsellers, Into The Wild and Into Thin Air. “Jon and I have worked together for many years,” says Bryant. “But it was always in the context of magazines. Byliner allows us to get a complex, newsworthy story like this out carefully but swiftly, to a very large audience, without the delay of printing.” [..] As exemplified by Jon Krakauer’s Three Cups of Deceit, Byliner Originals publishes works of compelling nonfiction, by great writers, that can be easily read in a single sitting. Byliner.com, which will have its more formal launch in early May, combines curated archives of the best nonfiction writers’ work with personalized recommendations, social bookmarking, and aggregated discussion—thus allowing fans of great storytelling to easily find, share, and discuss new and classic work by their favorite authors. [17]

Byliner purports in their press release to be a serious publisher run by experienced editors. Their inaugural work is an article by Jon Krakauer about Greg Mortenson. Mortenson was the subject of a 60 Minutes expose broadcast yesterday, and the Krakauer article makes similar allegations. Krakauer was an early supporter of Mortenson's foundation, and a respected author of non-fiction. If Krakauer self-published the article it would not be usable for assertions about the BLP, but I would think that it would be usable for assertions about the related charitable foundation. It is not self-published, but it is published by a source with no reputation good or bad, for fact-checking and accuracy. What do people think about using this as a source for the Mortenson biography?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• The press currently does not indicate if it is reliable by its website, a primary advertising medium for the press. It lacks an "About" page. It lacks manuscript submission procedures. The text itself has no information going to the capacity of the publisher to produce reliable sources. The quote from morningstar.com (which I can't view) indicates that this may be a vanity press for an ingroup. I'd give this an "Currently Indeterminate: Treat as Unreliable to be Safe" at the moment. Ask again if Byliner.com ever releases a full website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed the link and added a bit more - it's a press release.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Given the press release's emphasis on prior connections between the publisher and their first author, I have a strong suspicion that this may be a vanity press. I'd like to see their post launch site before making a final judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is now being reported in acceptable third party sources such as Wall Street Journal online], so can be referenced there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be referenced in a highly qualified way - the WSJ is mostly just reporting on the allegations, not confirming them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a short report by al Jazeera English now : [18]--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Related to this discussion at WP:AN, I would like to get the community's input on the reliability of Wisegeek.com as a source. Previous discussions can be found here and here.

Also, as part of this discussion, should links to Wisegeek be removed from articles? Links being links in the external links section and links in the references section. Previous discussions did not get much input, so the more input the better. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In February Google implemented a revised ranking system to,according to one account, "favor more authoritative content" and to lower the ranking of "'content farm' websites criticized for shallow content primarily authored to manipulate search results". The article goes on to say, "Denis Grosz' Conjecture Corp. owns the website with the biggest percentage drop in visibility, according to Sistrix. The website, WiseGeek.com, has had a 25 percent drop in traffic, he said." so apparently Google identified Wisegeek as being one of the primary "content farms" with low quality content created just to gain traffic. Their choice of article topics appears to be taken directly from the list of leading search terms. The article I have read there tend to be breezy, popular interest pieces with no footnotes. One major concern I have is that, given the low wages paid to writers and the lack of any expertise, they could draw much of their material from Wikipedia creating unacknowledged circular citations. However I have no evidence of that.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a content farm. As a source it's "meh" at best, and inaccurate at worst. It cites no sources, so there are two problems... we cannot further verify claims in secondary sources (and if we can, I see no argument for using the tertiary source over the secondary). Secondly there is a high chance some of the content is based on WP articles (obviously, no way of knowing!). Editorial oversight is likely to be low. It fails

WP:EL, particularly as the pages rarely give anything "extra" to what we have in articles. And as a source it is right at the bottom end of reliability and usefulness. --Errant ^(chat!

) 08:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've written at

WP:AN about this, so I'll do just that: Wisegeek is a content farm that - if not visited from Wikipedia - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Wikipedia (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). I really don't see at all why we should ever use this site. --Conti|✉

08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I used wisegeek as a reference when creating this stub and can confirm that the information was acurate and reliable. Having said that, I believe that wisegeek does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. On the issue of removing the links, I think we should probably remove the links to wisegeek that are used in references, But I would say we should be careful about their removal. I would suggest adding a {{citation needed}} tag to material where the reference is removed as opposed to removing the material it references. I think wisegeek has accurate information but that it doesn't meet our reliability standard. Regarding links in the external links section, I have no opinion on that and they can be kept or removed, IMO. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As the site is basically a collection of articles which were written by non-experts in return for small payments it's not a RS. As these unreliable articles are heavily interspersed with ads its not a suitable external link either. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Hydroxonium's comment above, I took a look at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-distortion-meter.htm It's crap (I assume I saw the same content version). Whatever the route to achieveing this page, editorial policy, copyright, etc. the end results (from a sample of one) just aren't useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the AN discussion:

Freelance Writing Jobs!
We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.
wiseGEEK writers are asked to write at least five articles per week, or 20 articles a month, on average.
Apply now!

— [19]

• Definietly
  WP:ELNO
  convincingly, especially point #1 and #5.
• The article Will Beback refers to can be read here. MER-C 13:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source, because it is not written by known experts, nor does it have a third-party reputation for fact-checking and reliability, with the latter much more important. Paying non-expert authors to write articles, with income derived from ads, is not that heinous by Wikipedia reliability standards. While their model is slightly different, it's essentially the same model followed by reliable sources such as The New York Times, with the slight twist of the wisegeek ads being clickthroughs that directly benefit the author of that particular page - if I'm reading some of this discussion correctly. Newspaper articles are also not always written by experts in any field but journalism. And they have lots of ads. It's the fact-checking and reputation for reliability that are the bigger issues here. First Light (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Has a single not involved editor responded to this discussion yet? The point is to get outside opinions on the reliability of the source, not to rehash and reiterate the stances taken in the AN discussion. Silverseren^C 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm as uninvolved as is possible. This noticeboard is ideal for soliciting the views of uninvolved editors, though it usually needs more than 8 hours to attract several uninvolved views. Patience, grasshopper.... First Light (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above I don't see that the site passes the reliable source criteria in any way. I don't know that links ought to be systematically removed on sight, but they should certainly be removed once better sources are found (or if the material can't be found in a more reliable source). BTW I'm not involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not view wisegeek as a reliable source because there is no vetting of the authors and little editorial quality oversight. Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. Editorial policy isn't obvious, so there's no indication that it's any better than a single-user Usenet post. Copyright is also not clearly observed either. The purpose of the site is clearly ad revenue, not content quality. The note about paid writing (above) is hardly likely to attract good content either. How many red flags do we need here? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't look reliable to me. As an example, one of the links given in the
  WP:AN discussion led (with an extra click) to this page on "full retirement age". It says "In the United Kingdom, up until the mid 2000s, the standard full retirement age to receive a pension was 60 for women and 64 for men, ..." and I'd like to see a source for that information, which looks wrong to me; I would have expected to see 65, not 64, for men. - David Biddulph (talk
  ) 10:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks outright incorrect.[20]   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion has now reached a consensus. As I see it, there seems no controversy at all about wisegeek links which are not directly used as cites, so I'm now going to do a quick pass down my list and remove any of the remaining wisegeek links that are not used directly as a cite, or are used as a cite where another cite is also given, or where the article is a medical article. I'll then revisit the more complex cases a bit later. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Are Herodotus's history books considered primary source or they are secondary sources? Specially when it comes to ancient Greece history?--Penom (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary source like the Bible, see this discussion here. You can use references "According to Herodotus..." but they should be filtered or balanced by what modern historians believe. The Histories, given that they preceded (and led to) the actual discipline of historical research, are more of a literery work with fantasical elements than an academic work of history. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So, by this definition medieval Muslim histories (e.g.

al-Tabari) are primary sources for medieval Islam history. Or Pre-modern era Chinese histories (e.g. Gan Bao) are primary sources for ancient china history?--Penom (talk

) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they are both, they are a secondary source because you have the "historian" Herodot writing over historical events and they are a primary because current historian use him as a source. In this context it might be more helpful to distinguish between historical sources (herodot) and current (modern) scholarly literature on a subject rather than distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. Articles normally should be based on current (modern) scholarly literature of course.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is the usage. While the works were written as secondary sources, they can only be used as primary sources on Wikipedia. That is, they can be cited for what that particular work says explicitly, but not to comment on or interpret whatever topic they're discussing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the pre-modern source—of any pre-modern literary tradition—meets the standards of post-Ranke historiography then the source should be considered a secondary source. If it doesn't, then it ought to be treated as a primary source if credible or notable for its incredibility; and, if non-notable and incredible not used even for illustrative purposes.
• In the 19th century, in the West, historiography went through a major change related to Enlightenment conceptions about the nature of external reality and in particular the relationship in time between moderns and ancients. Even where Ranke's methodology has been rejected by other modern historians, they have rejected Ranke on Ranke's own terrain.
• Unfortunately there may be only a very very few pre-modern histories which meet this standard, and most of those are likely to be late 18th and 19th century Western histories. (But there was a great deal of "whiggish" crap back then, much as there's a great deal of pop-history written by half-brained journalists now). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia guideline or policy that supports this interpretation? Lambanog (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which is transcluded through all history projects; and, the nature of "scholarly" historical discourse as post-Rankean history; for the second, see any historiography book aimed at honours and postgraduate students, and practicioners. There's also the RS examples history section. These have stood fairly non controversially for a fair while. The HQRS requirement at FAC is also an indicator of what the "best" of wikipedia ought to be. Fifelfoo (talk

) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Sources like Herodotus can change their status from Secondary to Primary Sources simply with the passage of time... One (but not the only) way to determine whether this has happened is to see if the even older sources that the ancient secondary source cites (or refers to) still exist. If the even older sources that Herodotus refers to have been lost to us then, as far as we are concerned, Herodotus becomes the oldest (ie primary) source for the events described. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all pre-modern historical works should be considered primary sources, and few pre-20th century sources should be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As a quick rule of thumb, if it's more than ~100 years old, then Wikipedia properly treats it as a primary source >99% of the time. If the source is more than ~50 years old, then Wikipedia treats it as a primary source >95% of the time. If the document is centuries old, and you can't find any source since then makes the same claims, then you've got to start wondering about

WP:NOR

problems.

Also, treating an ancient document as a primary source has some benefits: by attributing the statement to the ancient document, you also

WP:Build the web

to our article about the source and automatically provide important historical context to the reader.

In general, if it's possible to treat these old documents like primary sources, I think that would be desirable. (NB that primary sources may be used on Wikipedia, even in FACs!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi, a well-known historian in middle-east(born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Meadows of Gold should be treated as a primary source, and should not be used for any interpretive claim of any kind. We'd have to rely on the assessment of modern scholars to assess how reliable the work is on any particular issue. It could be used, with caution, to indicate what Masudi says about something or other. What is the context?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess your response was rather general to all contexts. But if you care to know, it was about his comment on eloquency of Ali and eloquent

proses left from him. Al-Masudi and a few other old-timers(who specialize on Arabic literature) have commented on this subject saying how eloquent Ali was. I wanted to know if I can directly quote those old-timers or I have to find someone from the new era who quoted them. P.S. Those old timers lived centuries after Ali.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For something like this, it would be better to use a secondary source giving this information, to make sure it's really important enough to be added to the already lengthy biography of this major historical figure. You can use a the work to say something like "The 10th-century historian Al-Masudi in his Meadows of Gold said xx", but we need to give regard to how much weight something gets in the reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi, like other old historical writings, is a primary source. Much of what we know their times is based on what they and others wrote, as well as archeological research, which has then been analyzed and compared by modern historians to determine the most likely version of events. Often these writers were eloquent and they writings improve articles. TFD (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TFD and Cuchullain, should be treated as a primary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am having issues with WLU on appropriate sourcing. He/She/They deletes info and says it is not allowed without "helping" in any manner. I would like to know if this source is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzanne_Segal&diff=424898476&oldid=424881789 I called the Institute and cited them as a source after they confirmed my question. Since it is a "contactable source" is this valid, or how can I better make reference? Or is just the name sufficient since it is a "real" entitiy? Thank you. Vanlegg (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, because it is not a source at all. Just giving a phone number to ask someone who might or might not know the answer and might or might not give it to you, is not a citation. See

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk

) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hyperdoctor...so how does one make reference to the OFFICE OF ALUMNI from THE WRIGHT INSTITUTE....as a source that verifies her Ph.D. http://www.wi.edu/ Other schools ask for transcripts as verification. What is the policy here or has this never been an issue. Thanks Doc. Cheers. Vanlegg (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal communication simply is not a valid source for the purposes of an encyclopaedia. If there's a printed, or archived, newsletter or formal publication of the Institute, recording her graduation, then that could be considered. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I finally have a second source. Is the "Dissertation Database" of ProQuest with the reference number to her dissertation which includes dates/places/degree ...a good enough archive? ThanksVanlegg (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds perfect. Zero^talk 21:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero, Wonderful, thank you very much. Vanlegg (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of dissertation is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanlegg, you might want to read WP:Published if you haven't run across it already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this source, Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World, reliable for referencing? It appears from the Sigurimi article to use Wikipedia as its source. It has also been referenced elsewhere on the project as a source. It seems that large tracts of text have been incorporated into this article from other published sources eg Albania - A Country Study. RashersTierney (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why you believe EotMW uses Wikipedia as a source. Please explain in more detail. Certainly it has vastly more content than Wikipedia had in 2003 (its year of publication). Zero^talk 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose it was the verbatim repetition of text from the 1994 book in both the Encyclopaedia and the Wikipedia article that led me to question the integrity of the Encyclopaedia. RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This Library of Congress page seems to be the source for both. In fact the original Wikipedia entry from 2003 is a straight cut-and-paste. RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would your first thought be "this book is copying Wikipedia text" rather than "Wikipedia is copying this book's text"? (Or, apparently, that they are both copying a third source.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was that the Wikipedia article was a copyvio, and I raised that concern at the TP several months ago and at a copyright discussion page, to which I got no replies. EotMW was recently used as a reference at the article in question, and it appeared as though it might be circular ref. If EotMW is considered a RS here, then all is fine and dandy in that regard. RashersTierney (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is considered a tertiary source.

WP:PSTS says that a tertiary source is helpful in providing broad summaries of a topic. My feeling is that a tertiary source may be less useful if the particular information is an exceptional claim and comes from an unsigned article. In that case, one may want corroboration from a secondary source. (Not saying that's the case here. Just offering a general comment.) TimidGuy (talk

) 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the thread & looked at the article, I have these thoughts. One is that if a given encyclopedia is clearly copying a source -- such as the Library of Congress county studies series -- drop the encyclopedia & refer to the source directly. (IIRC, all of the country studies are signed articles.) Another is to agree with TimidGuy: unless one is using a signed article in a given encyclopedia, avoid explicitly using encyclopedias period. Unsigned articles are usually written by freelancers who are not experts, & whose knowledge of the topic are not significantly better than the average Wikipedia contributor, & may actually be clearly worse. A final one is that were I to look for information about the Sigurimi -- the Albanian secret police during Hoxha's rule -- one of the last sources I would consider using would be the EotMW; at best, this would be a peripheral subject in that reference work, one not subjected to the same level of editorial scrutiny that, say, an article on SAVAK would receive. Further, although the fact the majority of Albanians are Muslim, even after reading our article on the Sigurimi I fail to see a connection between that organization & Islam that would enrich my knowledge of either. (Maybe it's there, but there's nothing currently in the article which asserts that.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the first paragraph of the Kent Hovind article that reads "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a POV sentence which of course violates Wikipedia's neutrality clause for its articles. It then uses as its source a website called Talk Origins which is heavily biased towards evolution and misrepresents some of its claim. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " "The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence

Since the source cited is not an objective source and heavily biased, I would like the inclusion of this source contested as a reliable source, and the sentence tagged as a POV sentence. Thank you.Dimestore (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) "heavily biased towards evolution" = heavily biased towards the majority

WP:DUE weight. (ii) You have not demonstrated that TOA misrepresents Woodmorappe, as TOA is citing Woodmorappe, John. 1981. "The essential nonexistence of the evolutionary uniformitarian geologic column: a quantitative assessment" Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(1): 46-71 for this claim. (iii) In any case, the TOA is not being cited for the contents of Woodmorappe's claims but merely for the fact that "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." Given the scientific endorsements of this site, I think that this is a reasonable characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The site talkorigins.org appears to be a compilation of Usenet newsgroup postings and hence not a reliable source. The awards do not speak to reliability in our sense. There is no evidence of peer review or editorial policy or control. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. TalkOrigins Archive IS NOT "a compilation of Usenet newsgroup postings". Read the article if you want to know what it actually is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Prior discussion of this source can be found at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#TalkOrigins Archive Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC) )

Thanks for finding that: the summary there was TalkOrigins Archive should nowhere be considered less reliable than a self-published source, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a big deal. If the reader is too stupid to realize that a "creationist and conspiracy theorist famous for his creation science seminars that aim to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative" (as stated in the first sentence) has "views [that] are contradicted by scientific evidence and research," should we really waste our time stating the obvious?

talk

) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is obvious, and whether it needs stating, do not seem to be questions for this board. But if we do state it, especially in a BLP, it needs support from a reliable source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there's a quite complex issue at

Images are normally used to illustrate. Apparently here it is a question of the image being used to verify. If so, then the source needs to be reliable, and subject to the usual conditions. A personal blog is not a reliable source, and taking an image rather than text from that source doesn't change things. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't meet the requirements of

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I see in the article history, the "factual claim" is only that the image is of a particular place and was taken on a particular date. This is normally something that we accept, per Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature:

Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. For example, if you take a picture in your neighborhood, you do not need to produce a published, independent reliable source to prove that you took the picture in your neighborhood.

So to the extent that the dispute involves "Here's a picture of this ranch, taken on this date", I don't see why this is a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Arria's farm was expropriated on the basis of not being used, and the image (of a few cows, not massively impressive but still) allegedly taken on his farm a month before expropriation constitutes a significant claim (particularly given the way humans process information, giving excessive weight to images - "a picture is worth a thousands words"). And that claim is not reliably sourced. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If this was a question of illustrating his farm, that would be one thing. But it is being used to assert that his farm was being used. That makes it a source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess the current form is OK, with caption "La Carolina taken by Diego Arria one month before the expropriation, according to Arria.". Though it still makes a BLP claim sourced to a Commons upload/ OTRS ticket. Rd232 ^talk 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

THIS site. I couldn't see anything about whether it has a writing staff or not, plus I'm not great at judging these things. I'm looking to cite it in the article Manhunter (film), to support that the film won the Critics Award at the Cognac Festival du Film Policier. The quote in the article is:

The thriller introduced the character of cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, then played by Brian Cox, and brought Mann a Critics Award from the Cognac Festival du Film Policier and a nomination for Best Motion Picture at the 1987 Edgar Allan Poe Awards.

I'm looking to use this citation to replace the current citation of the film's IMDB page, which is understandably suspect. GRAPPLE X 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to solicit contributions for the general public, and there's no statement of editorial policy or control. So for now I would say no. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No indication of authorship or reputation regarding editorial oversight. Has quite a few popups. Does not meet

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair do. I'll see if I can find the information elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to try the following Google search: '"Festival du Film Policier" Cognac "Sixième Sens"'. Sixième Sens is the French title of Manhunter. I find some sites agreeing with you that this film won the "Prix de la critique" in 1987: maybe one or two of them will pass the reliability test! Andrew Dalby 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

in the case of longevity claims? I think it is. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at

Words to avoid suggests 'claim' should be avoided. It's not inherently pejorative, but it has that connotation and it is usually imprecise: we can find more direct formulations--who said what when, and who was it reported to or by, and was it confirmed or just taken on someone's personal recollection... The article should also set the backdrop of longevity claims in general, that because of the historical circumstances, it is inherently difficult to verify age. That doesn't mean claimers are liars, though, so finding a better word than claim makes sense. Ocaasi ^c

14:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Which source did you wish to discuss the reliability of? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point.

WP:NPOV/N is probably a more appropriate location. Hans Adler

16:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I posted this to the wrong noticeboard.

D'oh. David in DC (talk

) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Authors nationalities

How do we stand regarding this issue? For exemple, do we accept a work of a Palestinian historian to source Israeli historical events, or basicaly any work of someone who can potentialy have a conflict of interess regarding the issue debating? FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Would you challenge the work of an Israeli historian as a source for Palestinian events?

Author nationality is not a consideration, and sources do not have to be neutral to be considered reliable. Now, it may be that what they say should be phrased as being an opinion, and not accepted as unattributed fact, but that is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I supose that in any case of exceptional claims

WP:REDFLAG is used, so I supose any radical views that an author of one side does regarding the other they would have to be further suported by another neutral authors. Regarding your first question, and if radical views are expressed, well, yes, I would be extremely cautious and I´ll try to find more sources to confirm that, possibly from non-involved authors. Maybe I´m wrong, but are there any policies on this? FkpCascais (talk

) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy on this... please see: WP:Neutral point of view (which discusses the need for Wikipedia editors to maintain a neutral point of view and present both sides of a debate. Especially when we suspect that the sources may not be neutral.) Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that one, but the problem is when you have an user saying the claim is not exceptional, and refuses to even consider suspicious "his" source (which has this nationality conflict of interes problem, and is exceptional on many claims). I´ll try to post the exact source in question here later.

It is always best to give a specific article, assertion and source as set forth at the top of this page. It is very hard to answer these questions in the abstract. See the "Roman emperors" section above for some detailed discussion of historical sources, including reference to this and other policies. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• All histories published in the scholarly mode are inherently reliable by Wikipedia standards. However, every history has a distinctive POV and historiographical attitude. The way to correctly WEIGHT multiple (inherently and necessarily) POV scholarly histories is to seek "Review Articles" and historiography sections, where historians themselves weight and evaluate the credibility of published histories. The American Historical Association journal provides many single work book reviews by historians judging their value, and provides at least one Review Article of historiography in a field each issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The author in question is Jozo Tomasevich (born Jozo Tomašević in Croatia, Yugoslavia). He wrote a book about the Chetniks in "Tomasevich, Jozo, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975". The problem here is that he wrote his book while being within communist Yugoslavia (known for not having freedom of speach on political issues such as these) and adding that being an ethnic Croat does make him a personal conflict of interess to correctly analise a Serbian monarchic movement that fought both, Croatia and other Axis powers, and Tito Partisans. The note is that Tito Partisans won, and as the monarchist Chetniks were their major interimn rivals, obviously that Tito found someone like Tomasevic that would probably not have any simpathy at all towards them (possibly even a deeper negative feeling) to rewrite about the WWI events. The fact that Chetniks were Serbian movement in nature make a Croat almost authomatically to dislike them, and the fact that he wrote it within SFR Yugoslavia of Tito made it to be encouraged to nazify them totally, since both fought against eachother, having the Partisans won at the end. Tito Yugoslavia made an open policy of deniying all resistance afforts to the Chetniks, and all articles we have here on WP were basically writen to totaly nazify the movement using mostly Tomasevich as source. Even Tomasevich fails to exagerate too much, but anyway fails to present them in a fair perspective (evidence, denies them all resistance efforts as dictated by the regime at that time, and ignores them the high condecorations for resistance efforts given by France and US, also ignoring the post-mortum US Congress trial that relised Mihailovic, Chetnik leader, of all charges of treason and collaboration he was acused at a Tito organised trial just after the war). This issue is currently under mediation, and one side has basically been using Tomasevich to write all negative about the movement, with the advantage of the author having emigrated later to the US and having receved some good per-review I would dare to say that mostly and probably because of the political interess in that period of avoiding confrontation with Tito Yugoslavia, and avoiding waiking up a possible Serbian monarchic movement in that period (1970´s and 1980s). I would really apreciate any comments on this, and I thank in advance any minut of any of you spared for this. FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The book is published by Stanford, a reputable university press with a reputation for peer review, so it qualifies as a

reliable source under our rules. It is hard to win an argument here that a book from a university press is so error-ridden or biased that it should not be used at all. The better practice is to find your own equally reliable sources for a countervailing assertion or insight ("According to some historians...However, others say..."). See 1660 destruction of Safed for an article where we had to work out similar issues (some sources say the Jewish population of the town was completely wiped out by Arabs, others say they were caught in a crossfire between Druze and Ottoman fighters and left temporarily, so we report all views). Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

One participant had already proposed that aproach, but the user massively using Tomasevic has oposed that by insisting on the type of argument of "why citing him when he is right". Yesterday I speared time and read one of the books and I concluded that the other user (just as I already suspected) has been selectively citing parts of the book, ignoring the context and the rest written. The general tone of the book is a bit tendentious, but acomplishes in its pretention of trying to be fair and is far from being as biased as what the user citing him made it look like, because he missinterpreted, exagerated meanings and selectevily used only parts. Now, me and other participants have been preparing other sources as well, so your proposed solution of simplifiying by "X said this... and Y said that..." seems to be the best approach for controversial articles. It also facilitates the aplication of

WP:V. Many thanks. FkpCascais (talk

) 10:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandra Harding

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Opinions requested regarding the reliability of Sandra Harding's Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies: Indiana University Press, 1998

Pages 28-29 and 35 are used in support of the following paragraph

The civilization of ancient Greece was centered on the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa, and did not interact with most of Europe.[1] When Greek learning was later discovered and claimed by European science during the Renaissance, it was not the ancient Greek knowledge, but rather the result of centuries of refinements and advances based upon that knowledge by scientists from Islamic civilization.[2][3]

Thanks -

talk

) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This diff gives the context and Talk page discussion. (Aquib, always a good idea to tell us what page and assertion you are discussing, see the info at the top of the noticeboard). Indiana University Press is a respected, peer-reviewed academic publisher. I don't find the assertion that Renaissance scholars acquired Greek learning largely (but not exclusively) through an Arab lens to be controversial; I found it recently in

Barbara Tuchman (when I have a chance I will come up with some more refs, and post them on the article Talk page). Jonathanwallace (talk

) 13:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source is clearly a reliable one: a book by an established scholar, Sandra Harding, published by a university press is about as good as it gets. However, having looked at the chapter, and the pages given, I am concerned that the source is not being used appropriately. In the chapter, Harding is explicitly doing a survey of different strands of historical thought and perspective on "science" and its origins. Picking out one view as "correct" from this survey is not appropriate; in addition, the second sentence is a very strong one that I do not see reflected in the original. --Slp1 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time, and your helpful input. Regards -

talk

) 13:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracked.com Children's toys/characters and profane reviews

I was curious if this is a reliable source, and also if it's apporpriate to Wikipedia for the characters it mentions in articles about them. http://www.cracked.com/article_17400_the-8-shittiest-transformer-disguises.html

Mathewignash (talk

) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I was just reading Cracked for the last hour before I saw this question. My inclination is to say that it probably shouldn't be cited in articles (though it's usually pretty accurate as far as I know), since it's more focused on humor than anything else. Some of their articles actually link to outside sources that frequently do meet

talk

) 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be cited as the "reception" to a fictional character though, not for cold hard facts.

Mathewignash (talk

) 02:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's done by a paid writing staff, who quote their own sources, surely the tone is irrelevant if the information is used in context? Consider that Robert Christgau's reviews are used frequently and are considered reliable, and they also work on a very wry and humorous level. GRAPPLE X 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you're using it for. If it's for statements of fact, I would not use this source. Like all other sources it comes down to 1) what is the editorial oversight, and 2) absent that, what are the veracity markers of the author? The first is by far the most important. I assume that Cracked does not employ fact-checkers and probably no one much checks Luke McKinney's work at all before it gets published. So who is Luke McKinney? I don't know -- do you? If Luke McKinney says "Omega Supreme transforms into a giant rocket", how much more reliable is that then citing "my little brother says that Omega Supreme transforms into a giant rocket" or whatever? Somewhat, and these are trivial facts, but... I still wouldn't use it. In fact neither McKinney nor your little brother are likely to be wrong about that -- but they might be.

If it's for a statement like "Some analysts have posited such-and-such" (I don't like these kinds of statements myself and prefer we stick to just the facts as much as possible, but assuming that's the use you have in mind), the question is: does Luke McKinney qualify as "some analysts"? Yes, in my opinion, since Cracked is a fairly well-known publication and simply by virtue of being published in it McKinney is raised a bit above some random blogger. It would depend on the subject. I wouldn't cite McKinney as "some analysts" for an article on the policies of the International Monetary Fund, but Transformers? He's obviously studied the subject, and you're not going to get analysis of this subject from The Economist, so OK. Herostratus (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Salome

An editor is seeking to add this information into the article Salome:

"According to "Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor", Herod's daughter was playing in the pool with ice on the surface until it broke under and decapitated her. With Herod's wife holding holding her daughters head.

In the passage Herod to Pontius Pilate the Governor of Jerusalem, Peace:

"I am in great anxiety. I write these things to you, that when you have heard them you may be grieved for me. For as my daughter Herodias, who is dear to me, was playing upon a pool of water that had ice upon it, it broke under her and all her body went down, and her head was cut off and remained on the surface of the ice. And behold, her mother is holding her head upon her knees in her lap, and my whole house is in great sorrow."

First as an Ip with this edit [21], then when they created an account with these edits [22](which I reverted with this edit summary "material from self published site that may be real or not, no names, publisher or other info given") and [23], which they cite to ^{[1] [2]} these two sources. As the 2 websites they used dont seem to have any editorial, publisher, names etc. I question their use as a reliable sources, and the book I do not have access to, so can not check. Does anyone have access to the book and what are the opinions on the websites? I want to know before I either remove the info or rewrite it so it is comprehensible. Thoughts? and thanks in advance. Heiro 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

References

1. ISBN 0-529-03385-2
   .
2. ^ "Letters of Herod to Pilate". Retrieved 24 April 2011.

The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden would seem to be an appropriate source for a quotation from an apocryphal text, but better editions are available. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hadith states difference is bliss?

In Islamic schools and branches article's lead there is a sentence sayingThere is a hadith which states "differences of opinion in my community are a blessing". Is this line really necessary to be in introductory section?

Again the source hadith is not very authentic.

In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can find some sources:

• this
• this

But if nobody responds on this thread, or you find the above insufficient, I permit you to delete the sentence from the lead as you please.

talk

09:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is not that, there is no reference. My point is, the hadith is not Hassan; see Hadith_terminology. Even I've encountered this hadith previously, but often found it to be regarded weak.

Even I'll not oppose keeping this hadith in somewhere less significant part of the article. But, I think it shall not be in lead. That's it. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor with very little knowledge of Islam, but who has been involved with other articles on history in general, and the history of religion, I have concerns about the source given for the hadith, www.livingislam.org. The "about" link from the top page goes to a description of philosophy, but tells us nothing about the editors and publishers of the site, or its policy on peer review or fact checking. Without this information, it falls under our

rules on self published sources, which say that self-published self-proclaimed experts can only be used as Wikipedia sources if they have previously been published by independent, relaible third party sources in the same field. A discussion above on "Roman Emperors" gives more useful information on the standards to be used in historical articles, as does WP:Reliable source examples. I would therefore be in favor of removing this statement from the article unless it can be better sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am opting for temporary removal (as 2 editors: I and Jonathanwallace are in favor of removal), until some more opinions come, or this thread gets archived. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I took a brief look at the other two sources given above. One is a snippet view of a student publication (which does not automatically make it not reliable, American law reviews which are respectable sources are edited by students) which says that some think the hadith is false. Snippet views are suspect as sources because sometimes the full text is quite different than what the snippet indicates. The other book is a publication by the Islamic Supreme Council of America, about page here. Presented in excerpt view, it indeed mentions the hadith in a footnote, without further analysis or discussion of its antecedents. I therefore think use of the hadith in the lede, which was peripheral to the main issues discussed in the first place, really raises more questions than it answers, and that it was best to take it out. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken out --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem

talk

14:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How to cite the work of historian trying to piece together 130 year history?

I have been working with a Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (

BPOE

) historian, Norm Donovan. We are trying to capture the history of local Elks lodges' creation date, mergers, disbanding, etc. This fraternity spans over 130 years of american history and the official records are spotty. Therefor we feel that Wikipedia is a great archive for this information as well as a way to reach out to others who may be able to fill in the content about their local lodge. We also feel this could be a great starting point for each local Elks lodge to spur their local history page. We believe there is little controversy or opinion on this page.

I am concerned as to how to cite the source of our original collection. The wiki page in question is Elks lodges. Here are our current sources posted online.

http://www.tommyjones.org/salisburyelks/elkshistory/miscdocuments/lodgeNameNumber/030208.NUM.doc

http://elkshistory.org/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhung357 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 April 2011

Please read the information that has been posted to your talk page.

primary sources. You would be best advised to publish the histories first, e.g., in Elks Magazine, and then use that as a source for Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk

) 17:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to post a source for every entry? I am working on adding several sources for the older historic lodges. The page has also been moved to my User Page until I get further review. Tomhung357/Elks_lodges Tomhung357 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You might consider going to http://www.wikia.com/Wikia and starting your own Elkapedia. That way you could compile unpublished research, oral histories, and other things that might not pass muster on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents

Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, flickr is not a reliable source. Is the picture being used to illustrate or verify? For some reason, Wikipedia has adopted lower standards for the reliability of illustrations. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The original flikr photographer describes it as the netball team and the commons upload reflects the original information. So as a reliable source to what the photographer thought he took then I dont see a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we know who the original photographer is or whether they misdescribed a photo. Most photos are subject to verification. Somebody will recognize a political figure or a geographical feature. I think that a group of people standing together raises special concerns. I could take a random photo and claim it is the winning group of the 2007 hog calling contest and there is no way for anyone to verify my claim. How do we know whether there was a 2007 hog calling contest or a Malawi netball team? Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus(talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't, but we wouldn't know it with a Commons editor misdescribing it either. One needs to apply a measure of common sense, in many cases pictures are working fine as illustration and you can be relatively certain that the description is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it count as

WP:SPS since, you know, anyone can upload whatever they want to and claim that it is what they they think it is? Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs

) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that flickr is not a reliable source, but a self-published one, and hence reliably only to the extent that individual contributors are. However, reliable sources are not required for illustrations, so the question is moot. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that this photograph is useful for the purpose for which it is being used (to illustrate articles about Netball and Netball in Africa). As Insider mentions above, the standard is that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". The women in this photo aren't dressed in netball uniforms, nor are they playing netball or standing on or near a netball court. All that connects them to netball is the original photo caption that claims they are a netball team. Suppose, on the other hand, that we were editing the article about American football for the Wikipedia edition in some African language. If we had a photo of the Green Bay Packers standing in an auditorium, not wearing their football uniforms but wearing business suits, and some of them holding their young children, would we consider that a useful photograph to illustrate American football even if we could be sure that the players really were the Green Bay Packers? I hope not, because such a photo wouldn't "look like what it was meant to illustrate," namely, a football team. By contrast, a picture of Adam Sandler and his fictional teammates playing football in the movie The Waterboy might actually be a better choice to illustrate the article, because at least it would look like it had to do with American football, even though it didn't depict a real team playing a real game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well I think that that is cogent, Metropolitan90. We do allow more leeway for illustrations. We would allow, for instance, a editor to upload an original-work drawing of (his conception of) a netball team. But I would say that if an illustration is challenged then its incumbent on the person providing the illustration to show that it's an accurately representative picture. One way this could be done would be to provide links to unfree images on other sites. If the person defending the image can point to images on sites X, Y, and Z and say "See? These other netball teams pose in this way, it is a common way for netball teams to present themselves" or something, then fine. Absent that, remove the picture. (And it is up to the person providing or defending the picture to come up with verifying information). Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, but is there really a big difference to an IP or some new user uploading something to Commons. Considering that WP is constantly plagued by joksters (being interested in anything but serious work) I'd expect Commons to be affected by that to some degree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, given your recent and acrimonious history with the uploader of this image, I think you are probably the least suitable person possible to be raising this issue. It could be interpreted as bad-faith hounding. I also note that you failed to notify the editor in question of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Kmhkmh; your argument is

FUD and NIH rolled into one. User contributed content from any project (inc. our own) needs to be carefully considered. In the case of this netball image, the bona fides of the Flickr uploader is only a few clicks away, if you had bothered to look. And this is intentional harassment to boot. John Vandenberg ^(chat

) 02:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing the general problem which I noted "will come up many times in the future." I have no antimosity toward anyone, but rather want to get guidance on the correct answer from a consensus of disinterested editors. The uploader to commons is aware of this discussion. However, in this photo we have several different issues. 1) The authenticity of the photo, for which the standards are low and have clearly been met. 2) The copyright license, for which we trust flickr and take on face value. 3) The relevance of the photo to a particular article where the above discussion about "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" is on point. Finally, 4) the sourcing of the photo caption in a particular article, which is governed by

WP:RS. If a photo is reprinted in a reliable source with a caption, or is discussed in a reliable source, then we can clearly say that our Wikipedia caption is sourced. But if a photo of a group of people standing in street clothes is captioned "1982 Oakton High School Pep Band" can our only source be the file name or flickr title? Racepacket (talk

) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the caption asserts something then it is open to challenge.

"All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk

) 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not quite the standard for illustrations as pointed out above, only for images used as sources for facts. Illustrations can be removed as simply wrong or inappropriate or misleading or any number of reasons like that but not just because they aren't backed up by a reliable source, if they look okay and aren't shown to be wrong they're okay. A caption that says 'The Lilongwe netball team' is perfectly okay if there's no indication it may be wrong, it does not need a reliable source saying it is right. For images used for verification a reliable source is needed but they would normally need text pointing out whatever it is anyway in the source as otherwise it would normally be original research, e,g, saying Nixon had brown eyes citing an image from a reliable source would be original research.

Dmcq (talk

) 11:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a caption that is not challenged stands. But once challenged, it needs a reliable source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that in relation to 'A Malawian netball team' or 'Nixon has brown eyes'?

Dmcq (talk

) 12:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In relation to whichever of them, or any other caption, makes an assertion which is challenged. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory, Hyperdoctor, you are right. However, anyone who challenges any statement in Wikipedia -- be it a portion of article text or a caption -- without a plausible reason, either explicit or implied, will find their time at Wikipedia unpleasant & short. Common sense always overrules any policy. In the case of the photo from Flickr, no one has presented one beyond some hand-waving. I'm not convinced there is an implied rationale for challenging its reliability; what harm is there if this photo is wrong? That is, in the final analysis, why any assertion should be challenged. If someone thinks this is not the best image to illustrate the article, there is always the recourse of finding a better image & replacing this one with it. But to argue that it should be removed because of the reliable source policy serves no better purpose than to be an annoyance, & at worse is being

disruptive. -- llywrch (talk

) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Very likely -- challenging for no reason is disruption. I gave a general answer to a general question. If there is a detailed challenge, then it can be discussed in detail. I'm not aware that this image has been challenged, and if it has, I take no position on it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that [if images] "aren't shown to be wrong they're okay" is the standard, exactly. That's a pretty broad standard. It's pretty hard to prove a negative like that. If I upload a drawing and say that it's a picture of a planet in the Fomalhaut system, would you have to prove that it isn't in order to remove it it? How could you prove that? As to to picture in question: it doesn't look like a netball team. They're not playing netball, which if they were would provide reasonable veracity. On the other hand, the article says "The Malawi word for netball is Nchembre mbaye, where Nchembre means "mother". This name links the sport to women and those who are responsible for taking care of their families." So I don't know. Maybe this is a common pose for netball teams in Malawi or something. Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far a solution, if the image has been challenged -- and it has, as I am challenging it now -- and people really want to defend the image, perhaps an RfC or something is in order on the question Is it almost certainly true that this is a picture of a netball team? (If you want to use a lower standard, the question could be Is it probably true (i.e., greater than 50% probability) that this is a picture of a netball team?, which in my opinion is too low a standard and would lead us to potentially feature a lot of incorrect images.) I would say No it is not "almost certainly" a picture of a netball team, but Yes it is probably is a picture of a netball team (after all, why would the original Flikr uploader have lied about that)? Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe this policy applies to illustrations. Policy describes accepted practice in Wikipedia and it is accepted practice that reliable source is not the standard for illustrations.

Dmcq (talk

) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The following bit from

Dmcq (talk

) 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus, your challenge so far boils down to "The missionary in question could have lied in his description of the image." Which would be more FUD as part of this harassment by Racepacket. The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr. That provides a large contribution set from which to assess whether or not there is any basis for deciding that this image could be inappropriately described.

Will you also be challenging File:Ivorian woman.jpg, as it is not "almost certainly" a picture of an Ivorian woman—her nationality and ethnicity are not provable unless we contact the flickr uploader and seek verification. What about File:Soweto township.jpg, uploaded by Matt-80 who we know so little about? Do you agree that flickr contributors khym54 and babasteve are more reliable than our own Matt-80? Challenging any of these images based on only a theoretical problem means they are all theoretically unsuitable for use on English Wikipedia.

It isn't important to me whether or not this image stays or goes, as there are better things to lose sleep about. However the unsubstantiated accusations that the flickr contributor khym54, whose real identity is linked to the image, is lying need to stop, and threads like this one mean that the unresolved matter between LauraHale and Racepacket isn't going to go away and community or arbcom sanctions will be necessary.

If you are quite seriously concerned about the provenance/metadata of this specific image, and are challenging it specifically (rather than theoretical hand-waving about a well known problem with user contributed images), we'll need to take it seriously and AGF that it isn't intended to be part of the harassment. However, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a more clear assertion that you believe the image is problematic, and more detailed rationale for that assertion. Thankfully the photographer is identified by their real name, so it should be possible to obtain further verification in order to address any concerns you may have.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if "The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr" and they are all accurately described (or there's no reason to believe they're not), that's very different. I did not know this piece of information. It's useful information, and if what you say is true, then I'd be inclined to accept the photo. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not apply the full standards of reliable sources to pictures. If there was *any* indication in the picture to indicate these were netball players, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think generally we should trust photographers to not stage fake photos. So, I'll trust this photo is exactly what it appears to be. It appears to be a bunch of a women standing around, wearing clothes, that are incompatible with playing sports like netball. It might be useful in illustrating what some women in the area wear. The photo really has nothing to do with netball. Netballers are not some unique special looking people. The reader viewing the photo will not be better informed of what a netballer looks like. Perhaps there are some sports where the players have a very unique look (like Sumo wrestlers or jockies), and a photo of some players would help illustrate this. Even then, that would apply to the elites (it would be stupid if I did Sumo wrestling, and then photographed myself later in plain clothes, and said that was what Canadian Sumo wrestlers looked like). --Rob (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this is about illustrating not verifying. If, for example, the picture were used to support a statement about the racial composition on the team then it would fail under the full force of

WP:V

-- a policy we have to prevent ad hoc and personalised debates about individual contributors.

Since there appears to be no serious challenge to the picture, and this is not the place to discuss changes to image policy, and no specific sources are in question, perhaps we can close the discussion now? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption should be verifiable and sourced (which it is not), and I find the arguments advanced by Rob to be far more convincing than the responses offered by the image proponents. We need to guard against editors finding obscure pictures on flickr and then insisting on their inclusion in articles just to show off how they can find a really obscure photo. Do we need a group photo in street clothes of the Jamaican bobsled team or should we use a photo taken at the Winter Olympics? The talk page says, "The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi." If the text of the article does not describe or characterize the demographics of who plays netball in Malawi, how can we justify including a photo in the article on such a rationale? Finally, should the picture's caption have a footnote? Racepacket (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you being diverting into some campaign to change the guideline on images or do you just want to deal with this image? You are of course entitled to try and change the images guidelines if you think it does not reflect consensus. Otherwise you can simply say as an illustration it does not directly illustrate the topic but is trying to say something more and so is not a plain illustration but required verifiability of what's being said extra.

Dmcq (talk

) 23:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that a number of people have raised serious concerns here regarding the use of the image and an unreferenced caption that appears in a particular article. I agree with Rob. Based on this discussion, Rob took it upon himself to remove the image from that article. Rob ran into an editor with

WP:INVOLVED. Racepacket (talk

) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute which is not relevant to this forum, I think the question on reliability of the original photographers caption has been answered. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal animosities aside, how can you tell from the picture they are netball team? It seems a poor illustration to begin with, not being self-evident. So it

WP:RS? Tijfo098 (talk

) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so [24]. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Nobody's Perfect (Jessie J song), are those sources reliable?

Well, I've been expanding Nobody's Perfect article, but there are some claims that some sources I initially provided are unreliable, however they provide some key informations (physical release date, impact date, videoclip review), so I'd like to know if these [25][26][27][28] are reliable, thanks in advance. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

These specialized areas are a bit of a challenge. I generally look to Wiki Projects for guidance. Maybe try the Talk page of the music project.[29] AAA Music appears to have an editorial team.[[30] Stereoboard seems to be selective regarding who they hire to write reviews, which is a good sign.[31] The Music Fix has a content editor.[32]. It's not self-evident that these sites are unreliable. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:John Smith's tried to use an Evangelical Christian author's book (he has no academic credentials) as a reliable source regarding Chinese history

Boxer Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John Smith's has attempted to use a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.

the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.

Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"

Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable

Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.

"it was her own sin and generational judgements and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing and love of god"

Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.

I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.

Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!-[33]

And I have removed the edit that User:John Smith's made.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source. Xulon Press is a Christian vanity press, the book is about prayer and does not purport to be a well sourced historical work, and the author does not appear to have a historian's credentials or prior publications sufficient to pass our

ban on self published sources. This was correctly removed from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 04:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is reseolved, this can be archived now.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about changing sourcing methods may be of interest

• The discussion pointed to here involves sourcing methods rather than source reliability.

Duplicate references in articles are routinely merged by automated and semi-automated procedures (such as AWB). Some editors feel their editing efforts have been adversely impacted, when the citation method has been changed before an article reaches some stage of completion.

I have started a sub-discussion about the practice of routinely merging duplicate references here (Village Pump Proposals).

This is a part of a larger discussion on the same page, about a bot proposal, which is here (Village Pump Proposals).

There is also a side discussion,

here (Bot Owners' Noticeboard). I invite discussion at the Village Pump article (rather than here), if article editors are so inclined. Richard Myers (talk

) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Should BR-Bullpen be disqualified as a source?

The website baseball-reference.com is a highly-regarded baseball statistics website, frequently used as the primary reference on WP. However, it has a wiki called the BR Bullpen. Most of its material was copied from WP in 2006, but can and has been updated since. Since it is also a wiki, sourcing can be a problem. Therefore, isn't this a fork and shouldn't it be disqualified as a source or external link (not 100% of the time of course). There is a Template:Bullpen that is concerning (it seems to be used mainly in the baseball portal). Here are the pages that use the Bullpen website: [34]. I was going to add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but figured I should check here first. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log-off.) --64.85.220.34 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Since BR-Bullpen is a wiki that anyone can edit, it's not a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've used this a few times. But yes, if it's an open wiki it isn't a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian Broadcasting Network as source on Omar al-Ghoul

(Let me know if this should be at BLPN instead - I wasn't sure.)

In this edit, I removed these statements from

Hamas school bus attack

:

In lead:

A

Palestinian Authority

official commented that "the bus wasn't that badly damaged", adding that Israel is racist and apartheid.

In body:

Omar al-Ghoul, senior advisor to

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad

, said on Palestinian Authority television: "The bus wasn't that badly damaged. Israel uses the attack on the bus as an excuse for its latest war crime against our people. Israel is a country that was founded on aggression and colonialism and it lives on the continuation of bloodshed, war and violence. The racist Israeli apartheid aggression is currently focused on Gaza, under the pretext of a shell being fired at an Israeli bus."

This is cited to this article from the Christian Broadcasting Network. Jalapenos do exist restored the text without commenting on the source's reliability.

I searched further in Google News and couldn't find it anywhere else but in other laughably partisan sources. I argue that if al-Ghoul really did make this statement, we should be able to find a real source on it, not a source whose agenda includes discrediting Palestinians. Absent a real source for this claim, it should be removed per

WP:BLP

.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, if I see Pat Robertson, I run the other way. I would second, unverified until carried in a non-partisan mainstream news source or al Jazeera. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. CBN is notoriously partisan, and has frequently promoted some real "howlers". If the statement was made as quoted, it would certainly appear in a mainstream source.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A BRIEF, ANNOTATED INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD OF ADVENTIST STUDIES FOR HIGHER DEGREE STUDENTS

Is this source sufficient to cite the claim that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on the

talk

) 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Nelson Patrick possesses a relevant PhD from a research intensive Australian university (Newcastle, 1991: "Christianity and culture in colonial Australia [manuscript]: selected Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan and Adventist perspectives, 1891-1900"). While he has had a limited research career (two books, one his PhD, both by partisan presses of a higher quality), he is an expert in religious history. As such Arthur Patrick (2009) A brief, annotated introduction to the field of adventist studies for higher degree students (unpublished) Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale College. (available online) is reliable for the statement that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on Raymond Cottrell. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Transgender

Another editor and I disagree over whether the following text with the following source is permissible at Transgender. I hope to have the input of other editors to help forestall the obvious edit war:

"Anne Lawrence, a sexologist, physician, and self-identified autogynephilic transsexual suggested that the BSTc finding was instead caused by the hormone treatments the study participants taking."

With this essay as the RS: http://www.annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html "A critique of the brain-sex theory of transsexualism" by Dr. Anne Lawrence.

The essay appears on Dr. Lawrence' website. So, the essay is a

WP:RS

for the above statement.

At least, that's my view.

Examples of Anne Lawrence' published scholarship on the topic include:

• Lawrence, A. A. (2010). Societal individualism predicts prevalence of nonhomosexual orientation in male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 573-583.
• Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic target location errors: An underappreciated paraphilic dimension. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 194-215.
• Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Transgenderism in nonhomosexual males as a paraphilic phenomenon: Implications for case conceptualization and treatment. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 24, 188-206.

Her complete c.v. is also downloadable from her website: http://www.annelawrence.com/lawrence_cv.pdf

So, my question is the basic one: Is Lawrence' SPS a legit RS for the above claim?
— James Cantor (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Given that Lawrence is a physician, and is making a medical claim, MEDRS really ought to be the standard for sourcing this kind of claim. An SPS of opinion, even expert opinion, is not sufficient to establish medical claims for wikipedia purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Fifelfoo. She's very qualified, but medical claims are held to a standard that outweighs those qualifications. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari HQ

Is Atari HQ (also called Atari Gaming Headquarter) high-quality enough to be considered a reliable source?
It's a gaming website that has been recognized with awards by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, and several others. The staff seems to be quite small, but it consists of Les Caron (more or less unknown, but the founder of the website), Keita Iida (a published video game commentator who has been cited here at WP several times in several articles), and Marty Goldberg (another published video game commentator writing for Retro Gamer magazine, and former site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com). The website has been cited by several other video game websites that are considered reliable (e.g. kotaku citation, 1up citation, gamespy citation, etc.) and it is also cited by numerous WP articles. From my brief review of it, the information appears to be factually accurate and well-written. But there have been some questions regarding its reliability recently. I've invited the relevant parties to review the discussion I'm starting here, but I am most interested in outside (3rd party) views. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: A few more reliable sources that have cited or otherwise given notice to Atari HQ include: Wired magazine and a number of books including Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, Design and Use of Serious Games, and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See the Wiki Project

WP:VG/RS. Atari HQ isn't considered a reliable source, based on past discussions. If you feel strongly that it's RS, then maybe discuss it there. TimidGuy (talk

) 10:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At WP:VG/RS I see that there has been no past discussion on Atari HQ. Because I'm interested in using it as a source, I've started a discussion on it. It seems kind of bitterly ironic that I'm told in the very discussion concerning its usability that it is unusable because it hasn't been discussed. By all means I'm inviting discussion on it. I simultaneously

posted a note at WT:VG/RS pointing to this query. I was hoping that many editors could come together to discuss this so that some sort of consensus could be achieved. Let's not just give up before the discussion has occurred. I'm nearly certain that WikiProject Video Games follows Wikipedia's rules for determining reliability (WP:RS) so all editors should be capable of giving their opinion. -Thibbs (talk

) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for covering all the bases. There's no indication of editorial oversight that I can find, but your evidence supporting use is strong. What are the objections to using it? TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that the main rationale for excluding the source in the places it has been excluded is because it hasn't been discussed and so no examination of its reliability has been made and no consensus exists regarding its usability. The additional point has been brought up in at least one instance that Atari HQ does not have a stated editorial policy. On the other hand, I have gotten in contact with one of the members of the staff and he has explained to me that the editorial policy that is in effect is the same as is used at ClassicGaming.Com. I find this claim to be credible considering that this person was also the former site director/editor of ClassicGaming. He is staying out of this discussion for COI reasons, but he's offered to say a few words specifically about the editorial policy if it would be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I also saw one post where an editor had discovered what he believed to be an incorrect release date published by AtariHQ, but I'm having difficulties re-locating the post... -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the "incorrect date" post. A few other posts in favor of AtariHQ can be located at the following: [35] and [36] -Thibbs (talk

) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that given the evidence presented we can consider it a reliable source. Would be nice if they'd add an About page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pilot studies

first source - Would that be considered a RS for a fan made remake of Maniac Mansion or even the original?陣内_Jinnai 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of information is it being used to support? — e. ripley\^talk 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Used for gameplay info on the MM article, mostly the original and possibly some basic info for the fan remake.陣内_Jinnai 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an unpublished manuscript, and as such wouldn't typically be considered a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy

Is this a reliable source for facts related to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The website ([37]) provides no details about the people behind it, just a PO box address and a phone number, alongside an info@... e-mail address. It seems like an advocacy site, featuring "Move over, AIPAC" logos and an "Israeli Lobby Archive". A Google News search shows not a single mainstream source quoting its research (http://www.google.com/search?q=Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=diX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2f302dc92096f810), just two press releases issued by the group itself and one blog carrying a reprint of an article form the "Israeli Lobby Archive". Two for the show (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. Apart from the indicators of "advocacy source" that you mention, much of the stuff is very out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is notable about the IRMEP? It has no addresss (only a post office box), and many of its articles have no author provided, nor do they it provide any references. The contact page doesn't even list a person (only a post office box, phone number (not listed in 411.com, and an email address). I looked through the internet and the only person that seems to be involved with the IRMEP is someone named Grant F. Smith (who is the "director" of the IRMEP). This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability or reliability. There are hundreds of websites which have colourful opinions about controversial issues, but Wikipedia is not a clearing house for such views.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

There is no dearth of advocacy sites. If there is something of genuine use it will have been reported in reliable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides the Director I don't see how it could support more than one researcher. (Crossposted from Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute.) GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IRmep appears to be in the business of declassifying documents and then providing analysis. For example, they declassified the FBI file of Abraham Feinberg, a major Israel lobbyist, revealing that he was a draft-dodger, Israeli nuclear weapons funding coordinator, and smuggler.

Since most of the content that Wikipedia references to IRmep's Israel lobby archive are from government organizations, there doesn't appear to be any issue about their credibility. It appears that many Zionists do not like the fact that they publish declassified documents. But as far as the rules go, there isn't (yet) any reason to ban a great source of information for not being just another Israeli parastatal org.

RIA Novosti and the official Russian position in areas of geopolitical and historical contention

An editor has contended at

Talk:Russophobia

that RIA Novosti is a reliable source—without reservation, and suggested that should an editor feel otherwise they bring the issue here. RIA Novosti is the official media outlet of the Russian government. As such, general considerations of reliability aside, I maintain that where RIA Novosti reports on areas of contention between itself and its near-abroad neighbors, it can be held to be reliable only insofar as it reflects the official Russian position, and should regarding all topics in such ares of contention (Baltic states, Waffen SS, Nazis; frozen conflict zone: Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.,...) be appropriately attributed (i.e., official Russian source, Russian source, etc.) and not be represented to be objectively reliable. At the article, the specific example centers around a Latvian individual who was a member of the Waffen SS Latvian Legion. The position of the Russian government is that the Latvian Legion were SS war criminals convicted at Nuremberg—when, in fact, the Latvian Legion served as Allied guards during the trials. Accordingly, any declaration by RIA Novosti regarding Latvia, the Latvian Legion, and Nazism in this particular case—and regarding other geopolitical/historical areas of conflict—can only be represented as official Russian opinion.

I should mention that in the past, editors favorable to the official Russian position regarding these areas of contention have maintained that RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the British BBC. Nothing could be a further misrepresentation as the BBC is an independent news organization while RIA Novosti (also including their English language TV presence and web site, Russia Today) is most certainly not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Such an approach would be

WP:DISCRIMINATION. National media should be treated equally, and RIA Novosti

certainly is a reliable source, at least as reliable as other national or corporate media organisations.

The comparison of RIA Novosti with BBC is perfectly valid. BBC is funded by money from the British government; BBC is governed by the BBC Trust where trustees are appointed by British monarch on advice of government ministers. No wonder that BBC promotes national British agenda and points of view. In different terms, BBC is governed by those who own it and who fund it, likewise the American media and many other countries' media. "Independent" media is a myth. When it comes to non-government media, they are owned and funded by corporations and people such as Rupert Murdoch, having their own positions and interests - so, should we always mention those corporations and those people when we report some fact using the sources from the media owned and governed by them?

In the case of the issue at

Talk:Russophobia, there are two different points of view on Latvian Legion

, and it seems that RIA Novosti in this case represents not an "official" Russian point of view, but rather a dominant view among modern Russian historians who cite various war crimes connected with the legion. Latvian state and historians have a different view, unsurprisingly, saying that Latvians were forced to do what they have done etc. Such sources as BBC may take more neutral approach or lean to Latvian position, which is understandable due to the UK and Latvia common membership in EU etc.

Those different points of view might be both represented in the article, of course. But that should be done without discrimination of the sources, such as highlighting that some sources are "Russian or sympathetic" or state-owned and at the same time not saying that other sources are "Latvian or sympathetic" and state-funded. GreyHood ^Talk 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly conjured up many parallels you contend are, by your very invocation, appropriate. However, I remain gobsmacked you would contend that the official media mouthpiece of the Russian government is as reliable—in all aspects of reporting—as independent media, say CNN, and that no mention should be made of such affiliation in areas of known contention where Russia's view of regional and world affairs is objectively demonstrated to be more self-serving than serving facts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW the official Russian position is that the Latvian Legion Waffen SS are SS Nazi war criminals convicted in Nuremberg. I fail to see where "Lācis = Nazi" is not representing the "official" viewpoint. This has nothing to do with objective historical analysis by historians of any nation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My emphasis, official Russian position. Note that the Latvian Legion was formed well after the Holocaust and had no role in it, also that Waffen SS were not accepted as "SS members", and the Latvian Legion was specifically exempted from Nuremberg having also been conscripted: The criminal nature of the SS organization was totally recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated that "the SS was utilized for the purposes which were criminalized by the Chapter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of the occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war… In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf units and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS.… Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts criminalized by Article 6 of the Charter… The Tribunal finds that knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organization". Moreover the Tribunal stated that "Article 10 of the Charter stipulates that the judgment about the criminal nature of the accused organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned on any following process of independent members of the organization". And as it clearly comes from the judgment, the Latvian legion is also recognized criminal because the Tribunal included to the SS the "Waffen-SS" members and the members of any police units emphasizing that "it is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't CNN, as a top national channel, also report some official events and official statements by the U.S. Government, the same thing that RIA Novosti does? Does that make it "official media mouthpiece" and unreliable? Why big corporate media serving their specific interests (strongly connected to and forming government agenda) are more "independent" than state-owned media? Independence, indeed may be from something or someone. But one couldn't be independent from anything or anyone. And objectivity and reliability is a different thing from independence. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question is, quite frankly, bizarre. CNN is not an extension of the United States government. Novosti is the official media outlet ("official mouthpiece") of the Russian government, "mouthpiece" is not a figure of speech indicating some sharing of interests or happening to report on something the government stated. Your generality that objectivity and reliability is a different thing from independence is meaningless in the absence of scholarly evidence that, in this case, Novosti is editorially independent. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not my task to prove that RIA Novosti is editorially independent, it is your task to prove otherwise. RIA Novosti is the most cited Russian news agency abroad; it positions itself as politically independent and objective ([38]), it describes relationship with the Russian Government, State Duma, etc. as relationship with its "regular clients" to whom it provides broadcasting services [39]. It is state-owned, yes, but BBC is also state-funded. RIAN directors are appointed with state participation, but so are BBC governors. It is not an "official media outlet" in the sense that it is not necessarily that everything RIA Novosti says should correspond with the government position and opinions. It just regularly provides broadcasting services to the state institutions, the same thing that BBC and CNN do. GreyHood ^Talk 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see reporting online or via broadcast which contradicts the official line. Novosti is not just another service provider/outlet, like the BBC or CNN. To your quote below about the piper, it's not who pays—in the case of Novosti, it's who owns. There is a difference which you appear to not appreciate. I don't expect Russia Today to feature an English-language version of Kukly any time soon. What I do see featured prominently is an attempt to reign in younger viewers with shows that appear more hip, e.g., the Alyona Show, but which underneath, after listening to a number of episodes, you eventually realize are fairly sophisticated hatchet jobs on the West in general and the U.S. in particular. The USSR is dead but radiomaskirovka is not. And of course Novosti is the most widely quoted Russian news service. "That's the plan." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you know, that some of the most prominent Russian media contradicting the "official line" are owned by state companies, such as leading opposition radio

Kukly-like stuff to be featured on BBC or CNN. GreyHood ^Talk

15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, have you seen this article from RIAN? Would you say that this present information which contradicts the so-called official line? Perhaps you also know of inosmi.ru? This is a RIAN project. As is russiaprofile.org. And others. All RIAN projects, which clearly present opposing views to so-called official lines. These are links to keep in mind when you present what you have above :) --

I'm chanting as we speak

22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, yes, inoSMI is a good example of RIAN project which shows that RIAN is perfectly able to go against any real or imaginary "official lines". The project specializes on translation of various stuff about Russia which is published in other countries, including highly critical stuff. I wonder, if there are such projects in the U.K. or the U.S. or they still live behind a self-imposed iron curtain? As for the article, the situation may be compared to the Western media reporting something like this. I can't find this stuff on CNN or BBC by the way. GreyHood ^Talk 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a logical parallel, another example is that there's been an "opposition" party in Transnistria for years and the same folks are still in power for life. There is a difference between presenting viewpoints and advocating viewpoints, between what is presented for public consumption and what boundaries are not crossed. On the links, interesting reading (news story), but how does reporting that someone non-Russian denounced someone Russian contradict the party line? Or on iniosmi.ru, it's admirable that Western news is being translated but it's being viewed through tainted glasses, that's not advocacy for something other than the party line. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral and reliable media should concentrate on presenting viewpoints, not advocating them. GreyHood ^Talk 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)"Independent media" is not a complete myth, though sometimes it should be noted "independent from what." Independence and quality are not absolutes, but we do need to judge the quality and independence from time to time, e.g. on this noticeboard. RIA Novosti's quality and independence is nowhere near the quality and independence of the BBC. I've spent lots of time watching/reading both these sources and I would almost never take RIA Novosti at face value, they do have an agenda - and it is safe to assume that that agenda is very similar to the Russian Government's. Quite often I will take the BBC at face value, at least to the same extent that I'd take the NY Times at face value. Sometimes, if the topic is very close to the interests of the British Government I might look to another source - but I'll say that that is very rare. In short - on specific Russian Government related topics - RIA Novosti is not reliable or unbiased.

I can't leave without an anecdote. Biased government press is nothing new in Russia. Referring to Izvestia (rough translation "News") and Pravda (translation "Truth"), there IS an old saying that Russians still repeat: "There is no news in News and no truth in Truth." Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal evaluation of objectivity, personal preferences, anecdotes, etc. are all very good. But there could be different (and opposite) personal opinions and different personal preferences. And those are facts what I've written about how BBC is governed. Here I can't leave without an old English saying who pays the piper calls the tune. (Your anecdote actually is Soviet-era, very old-fashioned. I strongly doubt it is repeated in modern Russia because those two newspaper titles are not among the top media for a long time. But I wonder, why the cited English saying is not as popular as it should be) GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact - I have heard several Russians tell that anecdote within the last decade, and they were referring to state run media in Russia. There is simply a deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia. Russians do not have a lot of experience with reliable media of any sort. I suspect that anybody who would seriously say that RIA Novosti is as reliable as the BBC doesn't have a lot of experience with reliable media. Smallbones (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones, do you know the difference between a fact and hearsay??(Igny (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Fact - that dissident anecdote is very old-fashioned and is characteristic mostly to people of certain age and certain political views, not to Russians in the whole. Yes, there is deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia, but not only Russian media (as well as not only state media), and this is not a reason to discriminate between Russian and non-Russian media. Russians do have a lot of experience with unreliable media of various sorts. Including the media like BBC and CNN - their coverage of

2008 South Ossetia war was a major blow to their reputation in Russia, not to mention many other instances. Saying that BBC is more reliable than RIA Novosti is simply a discrimination, based on myths that still persist in the West but not in Russia. GreyHood ^Talk

12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti is a 100% reliable source and widely used as such in the academic world and the world press. Like most media organisations, in addition to plain news they publish all kinds of opinions - those which are highly critical of the state and those which are not. The specific piece which caused Vecrumba to launch this thread is [40] - and there is nothing wrong with it. The author is Aleksander Vasilyev, Member of the Board and Executive Director of the Baltic Forum [41], a credible expert. Simply because an editor doesn't like one opinion piece is no grounds for calling the publisher an unreliable source. Vecrumba has provided no evidence to support his claim. If no evidence to support the claim is provided, editors are forced to only judge the claim by Vecrumba's own credibility. Nanobear (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (refactored) Nanobear (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alas, personal attacks. This has nothing to so with "I don't like it," yours here referencing block logs is just another vicious attempt on your part to personalize a simple question on my part. To yourself and TFD, if you wish me to expand this discussion with demonstrated examples of bias where Novosti proselytizes the official Russian line in violation of reputably verified facts and events where it suits the Russian government, I can certainly do that. To TFD below, "without reservation" is not rhetorical or unhelpful, it is crystal clear in its intent. This is no different from the debate over the GSE (Great Soviet Encyclopedia), which, while generally quite reliable, is less so when it comes to topic areas where history serves politics. @both: Please address my question, not deride it or counter with personal attacks. I should mention, so far, everyone defending Novosti here appears to have a partisan interest in doing so. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nanobear: Thank you for the refactoring, but it's not much of an improvement. And I haven't complained about the piece you mention, although in your case the individual would be a member of a group that is officially associated with the Russian government. Odd that you'd get it wrong considering it was you who complained about my edit @ Russophobia in the first place. My issues were with the use of the following as reliable objective reporting:

• a clearly partisan article assaulting Latvian neo-fascists;
• "Former Nazi Latvian MP" making Lācis out to be, first and foremost, a willing volunteer to further the Nazi cause (when in fact Waffen SS were conscripted and none ever swore allegiance to the Nazis except the first 300 who were forced to do so under pain of death)—Voice of Russia being another official Russian government media outlet (NOT meant to comment on the section below).

That brings up the issue of Novosti, as it is also owned by the same parent, the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, property of the Russian government, also raising the issue of Russian state-owned media in general where official Russian pronouncements and portrayals run counter to established facts where the Russian government has taken an antagonistic position regarding its near-abroad. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• And so, please explain to me why attributing "Lācis is a Nazi" should not minimally appropriately include "per Russian state media." Lācis is not a "Nazi" and never was a "Nazi." At best, the source expresses an opinion—policy is to attribute opinions, to do so is in no way a case of
  WP:DISCRIMINATION as has been alleged. At worst, the source is simply not reliable regarding the subject and topic area. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
  16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• The real issue at
  Russophobia is that it inappropriately conflates true Russophobia and allegations of Russophobia. I proposed quite some time ago that both topics would be better served as separate articles but no one was interested. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
  18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to "expand this discussion", but to narrow it. We do not determine whether sources are reliable by conducting original research. Your question is rhetorical because the only possible answer is no. The Glenn Beck show on Fox is not reliable, Doonsbury cartoons are not reliable etc. Yet Fox News and papers that carry Doonsbury are reliable. TFD (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When posting to this board one should provide a link to the specific edit that the source is used to support. The question whether a source is reliable "without reservation" is rhetorical and unhelpful. TFD (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Specifics from
    Russophobia article provided above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
    18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion to bring this here was more in jest, seeing as attempts to exclude Russian sources from WP has been the modus operandi of numerous editors for sometime now, most often in their attempts to present

WP:RS

as much as any Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, European, American media outlet.

I do wonder if we would be having this discussion if http://www.chas-daily.com was being used as a source -- it is the largest Russian-language media source in Latvia, and often takes a harsh line on official Baltic histiography.

As is the case with all media outlets, as noted below, is opinion must be separated from fact, and attributed accordingly. --

I'm chanting as we speak

22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ria is about on the same level as Press TV or People's Daily in that (unlike say Fox) they don't just make crap up, but they are very selective and slanted in their coverage of more or less real events. The biggest problem with using such sources is that we can fall prey to undue weighting. Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, is the Western press (not only Fox, but BBC and CNN too) non-selective and non-slanted? The way they reported the 2008 South Ossetia war, the way they report current events in Lybia and Syria proves otherwise. GreyHood ^Talk 09:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the mantra of "official Baltic [name any anti-Soviet nationals] historiography" = bad (maligns the Great Patriotic War, etc.) and "official Russian historiography" = correct (recognizes the sacrifices of those lost in the GPW, ignores the initial Soviet invasions of the Baltics and other sovereign Eastern European nations) attempts to make this a Russophobic spat when, in fact, all reliable scholarship on events, even by Russian scholars, disagrees with the official Russian "version." That is the heart of the issue here: the denunciation by official Russia of near-abroad "versions" of history labeling them nationalist and libelous to the memory of the GPW. In particular, anyone who fought against the GPW "anti-fascist heroes" is a fascist.

Also, I have no objection to using Russian or even Soviet sources, I have used the Concise Latvian SSR Encyclopedia and other Soviet era sources. I only object to the opinion of the (departed Soviet or) Russian government sourced as factual and objective without being attributed to an official source. That Lācis is a Nazi is at best an opinion (aside from BLP issues) and should be attributed. Period. There is no

WP:DISCRIMINATION in doing that. The concept and function of Russian state media is a Soviet anachronism and I find that anyone would paint it as equivalent to western media outlets such as CNN quite remarkable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in Latvian affairs or Soviet historiography and have made no statements here related to those issues; I agree that in case when there are two significant and different points of view they should both be represented, but treated without discrimination. If sources should be attributed, than sources from both sides should be attributed in similar manner. The way Russian media function is a different question, and this way is very different from Soviet. Those who argue otherwise seem to stuck back in time, missing the last 20 years. GreyHood ^Talk 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First, opinion must be attributed. To do so is not "discrimination." Clearly you and I have different views over progress (and regression) in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union. The same individual that was negotiating Soviet recognition of Baltic occupation when the USSR disintegrated now denies occupation per the old party line (Lavrov). I don't know if it's available on RT's web site, but Peter Lavelle's interspersed commentary trashing Edward Lucas in his interview of Lucas after Lucas published his book on the new Cold War is quite enlightening. Lavelle would ask a question, Lucas would respond. But instead of countering Lucas in the interview, Lavelle stopped the playback and trashed Lucas after the fact without (obviously!) placing himself in a position where Lucas could counter back to expose Lavelle's gross misrepresentations and outright lies. I regret that all I see in today's Russia is backsliding, as in the restoration of Felix Dzerzhinsky's bust to its place of honor in the central courtyard of the Moscow police. I do hope your far more sanguine assessment of Russian progress proves right and mine wrong. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, we've pretty much had a rehash along party (no pun intended) lines, that is, an airing out of the status quo on both sides of the issue by interested parties. Some outside observations would be helpful. Perhaps if all participating here to date promised not to bite... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Related inquiry

How are the credentials of

talk

) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

VOR is state owned, and is on par with

I'm chanting as we speak

22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery of Russian government-affiliated news sources because of some of what RT puts out, which occasionally creeps into the realm of

talk

) 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest for everyone to read this wonderful essay. As about Voice of America and other national media, let's check media freedom index in every country. A widely spread

Hodja Nasreddin (talk

) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we could go with a simple rule of thumb here. News publications from countries that are not in top 50 in the

Press Freedom Index

require attribution ("According to Mongolian national TV channel MNB,..."). Publications from countries which are not in top 100 are considered generally unreliable and not acceptable as BLP sources - and should be evaluated case by case basis for other articles.

Perhaps this should be one of Wikipedia base rules?

--Sander Säde 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the manifesto of a particular group. So I can assume that Latvia is in the top 50? If that is the case, if a Latvian paper was to print Vladimir Putin raped babies and ate them for breakfast afterwards, that this could be presented as fact? But if a Russian paper printed the same thing about a Latvian figurehead, and had undeniable photographic evidence of such, that it would need to be attributed? Uh-huh, if I were to see such a "rule of thumb" being even so much as being pushed by editors, there would be another visit to somewhere that one does not want to go. Oh, and to see how reliable the so-called "free press" is, take a look at

I'm chanting as we speak

06:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That could be just because you

talk

) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Russavia, don't you know that all Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Economist, WSJ and CNN are anti-Russian sources? That is how an extremely racist Wikipedian (now thankfully permbanned) described them.

Reporters Without Borders is a non-governmental NGO from France, highly respected in their opinions. If you think they are a "particular group" with "manifesto", do find us a better way to gauge a general reliability of a news source of a certain country - Freedom of the Press (report) by Freedom House is another, for example. I am sure someone will describe it as "Russophobic" and "CIA".

Presenting stupid scenarios is really not helpful at all - do try to be at least a bit constructive in the future.

--Sander Säde 07:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think the idea of using the
  talk
  ) 07:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom and reliability are two different things that should not be mixed. If one is free to publish any kind of stuff, that does not guarantee neutral and objective reporting. As for the

Press Freedom Index, I fail to see how their method of compiling the rating is objective. Unfortunately, all such ratings that try to measure non-material things, such as "freedom", "corruption" etc. are just instruments of discrimination and political manipulation. GreyHood ^Talk

09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom and reliability are different things, indeed - every country has "yellow" newspapers, weekly news releases of political parties and so forth. No one considers such publications reliable (or at least I hope so). However, the difference is also whether journalist can report government actions without fearing for his/her life afterward - or just won't write anything, knowing that he cannot publish it anyway. That is what makes journalism in one country more "free" than in another.

Or to put it differently, freedom means you can publish anything you want without being afraid of retributions. Reliability comes from exercising that freedom within constraints of standard journalism rules. You cannot have one without the other.

The change in WP:RS would not be a blanket statement to remove every single source coming from a country with non-free press. Sources would be evaluated case-by-case basis, exactly same as before. What would change is that in case of highly controversial statements - like described above - they could be challenged for accuracy and would then require a secondary source from a country where press is not government mouthpiece.

--Sander Säde 09:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a recommendation that belongs in the discussion page of

reliable sources, as it would represent a change in policy. TFD (talk

) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for a bit of throwing ideas back and forth before going to WP:RS, so we would have a clear-cut and solid suggestion for a policy. --Sander Säde 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would invite participants of the discussion above this one to not participate in this discussion so we don't repeat the same discussion (as anticipated and originally requested by the editor posing their question). And let's dispense with Putin eating babies, such rhetoric only polarizes the discussion and immediately drives off any outside editors. No one is going to enter a discussion where ludicrous contentions are being made which reduce the discourse to yet another nationalist on nationalist mud wrestling match. I will keep my participation to the section above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-published book, etc. at Raymond Cottrell

Does this self-published book that lists a previous version of the page, or this page which does not even mention the word "progressive" sufficient sourcing to say, "Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a "

talk

) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No and no :) The first link appears to be a dead site, so sadly that fails verification. The second source is already problematic for being a SPS (though it might work as an opinion if the author is significant) - however the specific text under dispute (i.e. progressive) is, as you point out, cited directly to the Wikipedia article. So it is circular and unusable. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad, an archived version of the page is here. Basically some writing the man made, which never mentioned the word progressive. Thanks for the confirmation of my position on the book.

talk

) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked the first link and it strongly connects Cottrell as a

Progressive Adventist. The second source is not what I am going off anyways. The argument for him being progressive is based off more than the Wikipedia article. It has context there as well. For example "Cottrell was what is known as a progressive Adventist. He did not actively push his progressive ideas until after his retirement. He was the founder and editor of Adventist Today, a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine which was first published in 1993. According to Ron Corson in an article published in Adventist Today, called “Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined,” he points out that Progressive Adventists commonly believe" and then lists several key points which Cottrell also believed. The sources from this book seem to include a lot of good material that is verifiable. Fountainviewkid (talk

) 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is all material almost quoted verbatim from a previous version of the wiki page:

Cottrell could be labeled a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.[14] While mostly dormant during his academic years, Cottrell's progressive/reinterpretative views began to increasingly manifest themselves after retirement.

Cottrell was a founder of Adventist Today,[6] a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine first published in 1993. He and others at Loma Linda had conceived of the idea for a new magazine in the Autumn of the previous year.[12] As well as contributing articles, he was editor and had the title of editor emeritus for the remainder of his life.[6]

The non-notable, self-published author can quote whatever he wants from wikipedia, it does not provide a

talk

) 18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No there is a strong difference. Yes there are PORTIONS from Wikipedia, but not all of it is from there. For example the list of what Progressive Adventists believe has been taken from several sources such as verifiable magazine articles and books. This is more than a wikipedia quote. Basically the only reason I use him is to make the connection between Cottrell and

Progressive Adventist then giving a description of Cottrell's beliefs and showing how they match. Fountainviewkid (talk

) 18:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It still is a self-published source and hence ineligible for wikipedia. If he used a reliable source to back up his claim that Cottrell is progressive, then use that to prove it if it actually makes the claim. As far as I can see, none has been provided.

talk

) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I used this source only b/c it makes the connections more clearly than the others. He used several reliable sources "Ron Corson" for example and the magazine articles. The difference is those articles didn't make the connections as strongly since they come from that persuasion, but don't necessarily like that identification. Those connections, btw, are more than just wiki. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a

talk

) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would require me to post 2 articles to make that connection strongly. This source is the most direct one, hence I argue it is the best to use. It also quotes from other reliable and valid source.Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been already made clear, that source is unacceptable as it is self-published. Can we see these reliable sources on this forum?

talk

) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First, there has been no conclusion as to the validity of the first source. It is still "under debate". As for the sources within the questioned source I could show them but it requires someone or something to tie them together. The source in question did the best job at it hence I used that reference. If I had to I could use two separate references which combined say the same thing, just not as explicitly. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can tie them together without violating

talk

) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I could tie them together, it's just WAY more difficult. This source ties them together in the nicest possible manner. Also the tie wouldn't be understood by someone outside of the "faith community" therefore, this tie in provides an explanation that is more under-stable overall. Just curious; Do you really see Cottrell as a mainstream Adventist? I would argue that his history and relationship with the church suggest otherwise. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what I view Cottrell as, what matters is what reliable sources have labeled him. I am yet to see a reliable source label him as "progressive," are you going to provide this or are we wasting our time here?

talk

) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source that clearly labels him as "progressive" based on his ideology. Why need I provide more? Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still claiming that a

talk

) 20:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it "might work as an opinion" and as a way to provide the reliable sources. Considering the source uses a lot of other reliable sources I argue this is more than simply the typical

WP:SPS. Fountainviewkid (talk

) 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would work as an opinion if the author is somehow notable enough to lend due weight to his comments. Maybe you should write an article on

talk

) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue he uses enough notable sources to give credence to his work. This "respected theologian" has been viewed as a

Progressive Adventist for a while. If worse came to worse though I could simply edit it to mention his disagreement with mainstream SDA church teachings. Arguably that would be the same thing, but easier to cite since the theologian himself admits this point (unless the sanctuary doctrine is no longer "mainstream". Fountainviewkid (talk

) 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If he's really viewed as a "progressive" adventist, then it should be easy to find a

talk

) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to say "mainstream"? Sure. Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. The source just needs to "imply" mainstream doctrine or be "accurate and reasonable" as you said. Mainstream can be demonstrates by looking at the church's doctrines several of which Cottrelll has publicly attacked. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source just needs to "imply" mainstream doctrine or be "accurate and reasonable" as you said. Mainstream can be demonstrates by looking at the church's doctrines several of which Cottrelll has publicly attacked. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, this is an issue of

talk

) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can have sources that say a doctrine is mainstream and that Cottrell is not mainstream because of his views on certain issues. Or I can say that he has challenged key mainstream doctrines and list them. Doctrines which are clearly cited as mainstream. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be

talk

) 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That would not be

WP:SYNTHESIS. Fountainviewkid (talk

) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be.

talk

) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No because the material could all come from the same source just combined in a different manner. Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see the source.

talk

) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We would still need to establish the validity of the other source.Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC

See discussion above, the question is, is this self-published book on the web a reliable source for the purpose of verifying ""Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a "

talk

) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that the sources within the source should be noted since they provide the strongest material. The source above merely provides a clearer connection. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would question the use of this self-published source. If he was clearly a progressive adventist, then it should be possible to find a source that says so. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All right I found a stronger source, one that uses the term "progressive". [42].Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you found it? [43] Apparently, they don't teach much honesty at FVA.

talk

) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That was rather un[WP:CIVIL]] of you. Thanks for the compliments.Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a statement of fact, you claimed to have found something that another user found. That is patently dishonest.

talk

) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did find a stronger source. The one from the La Sierra website. Last I checked you hadn't posted anything from them. As for the other one, yes you did find it. Thanks.Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that Advertist Today would be an acceptable source for this assertion. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

sandiegostreetcars.org

In a recent edit, content was added referenced to the website in question that appears to be an advocacy organization. Furthermore in this specific edit, it does not link to specific content that

supports

the newly added material.

More over, in looking at this article, I have found other edits by the

reliable source questions any material attributed to it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping with

Chula Vista article to this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This user has been putting virtually identical text into the articles for many San Diego neighborhood articles. I don't really have a problem with using their website as a source for the history information, but I have been removing a sentence which is unrelated to the neighborhood articles, namely the one that says "Only three of these streetcars exist today -- surviving only by virtue of being transformed into homes -- and remain ideal candidates for restoration as a historic streetcar line on any of their previous routes." This seems to be related to the website's advocacy and does not belong here. I have put a note on the user's talk page, directing them to this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My question is whether the organization's website is a

Chula Vista, and his username, are all secondary to the question of the website's reliability. If the website is found not to be an RS, then all the edits that use it as a reference can be tagged appropriately, and a new reference requested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinions are required and solicited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical Marker Database

WP:IRS, the source is published, and has editorial oversight. Furthermore, as the material that it is documenting is usually that of historical markers placed by history organizations, or government entities, the information provided on the marker themselves can usually be referenced elsewhere. I ask as I am seeking to use information from the following page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "You may occasionally find a database entry that violates these guidelines. These got in before the guidelines were tightened, or were snuck in when no one was looking. There should be very few of them and no, they will probably not be purged if you bring them to our attention. At the same time, they cannot be used to argue for the inclusion of your non-complying marker." from the page you linked makes me feel very strongly that this is not meaningful editorial oversight. In addition, The First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments Association (1984) The First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments U.S. Army Marker (unpublished, indexed at hmdb) 36° 41.563′ N, 121° 39.053′ W may itself be unreliable due to SPS. Where were you intending to use the source, and what were you intending to support with it? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It has a statement regarding the number of individual and unit awards issued to the regiments members, that would be useful at either

Military History of Asian Americans or Filipino Americans article. As the Regiments did not get nearly the coverage by community and educational organizations as say the 442nd, it is difficult to find information on the unit. Furthermore, having done a project on the units for a history course (Professor Tuyay teaching), I had contacted the Center of Military History and their resources on the unit are limited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 04:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Something doesn't feel right about the Marker / Inscription itself, which claims, "Considered by many U.S. Army historians as one of the most colorful, publicized, versatile and decorated regimental combat-size units in the Pacific Theater of operations of World War II." 1/2 Filipino Inf Reg Ass (1984) op.cit. This doesn't gel with your research into the unit. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the marker was erected by an organization woes members may have mostly died, it is hard to tell where the statement comes from. Furthermore, it is reasonable that the organization may embellish the units actions; however, given the lack of records, it is the only reference so far that I have found that gives a county to the number awards/medals/decorations for the unit as a whole. It would be reasonable that even the lowest private who did nothing would receive two awards (Pacific Theater campaign medal, and Philippine liberation medal), and given the unit size the number stated is not unreasonable, however presently this is speculation on my part and thus would be

WP:OR. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 04:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm more concerned with the phrase "Considered by many US Army historians as of of the most…publicized." This indicates that 1/2 FIRA believed that they had been highly publicised and considered by historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly they aren't highly publicized. Otherwise, I wouldn't be looking at this marker as a reference, and could draw upon other references to support the marker's statement. However, presently, I don't have anything to refute the statement regarding the number of awards/medals/etc. either. It is clearly documented by other reliable sources that they unit existed, and where the unit fought, but beyond one decorating ceremony of an off shoot unit (5217th Reconnaissance Battalion (United States)), there is little else regarding what decorations the unit or its members received.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't feel this is an RS, but I've called for third opinions below to fully explore the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinions are required and solicited. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• It looks OK to me. I think this database can be used for sourcing, exactly as we are using
  Hodja Nasreddin (talk
  ) 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)