General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:RSN WP:RS/N WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

Contents 1 Hermann Rauschning 2 open ended question on sources that could best be labelled as misleading or "hoax" 3 Web Archives 4 TV by the Numbers 5 Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source? 6 www.chartstats.com 7 Scholar writing about his own faith group 8 Arutz Sheva 9 AllExperts.com Encyclopedia 10 Questions about self-serving sources, minority view sources, and third parties 11 Verifiability of external link to http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/ at Mass killings under Communist regimes 12 Judaism: not just a religion 13 xxx-business-review.com as source 14 Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened 15 [citation needed] czar 16 Reopening the question of source Career360 on the page on IIPM 17 Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War 18 acclaimedmusic.net 19 Court documents? 20 User-submitted reviews 21 Sun Myung Moon's papers for controversial political claims 22 anecdotage.com 23 Historical Marker Database 24 About two studies re-stated by The New York Times and Las Vegas Sun 25 Where ref is not being used to reflect truth of statement, but only that ref made the statement 26 Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? 27 Politico; Also for Book reviews: New Engish Review and Pajamas Media 28 "Diversity news page" on Latin American Britons 29 Map by individual 29.1 Reasons the map is not a reliable source in the author's own words 29.1.1 How exactly is this map being used? 30 Fairfax County Public Schools - No Conact Rule Controversy. 31 Funeral leaflet published on a personal website 32 Not self-published less reliable than self-published? 33 Self-described guide to "alternative opinion" 34 Harold W. Clark on George McCready Price 35 Gisborne Herald and The Local 36 Blockland - world map of servers

[edit] Hermann Rauschning

On the talk page of world war II (Nr. 16 "Poland wants war with Germany..") Paul Siebert proposed to me to start a discussion whether Rauschnings books are reliable sources that can be cited in this major article. In particular it is the question whether his book "Die entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens", Berlin 1930 could be cited. The passage about this book in the rauschning article has been deleted, but I will try to create it again, so, that You can get a notion of its contents. user:Jäger 01:45 19 October 2009 (CET)

Please paste the proposed content here if there is currently a dispute on the article involving reverts and changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could You please tell me, how this can be done? The "save paste" function is not active after editing of the section.user:Jäger 22,13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Page -> History -> find the diff, copy the diff link, paste the diff link. OR History, find a version you "like", copy the text in question and the full citation in question, paste here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to give a short overview over the discussion. The question is whether the book "Die Entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens" by Hermann Rauschning

can be looked at as a reliable source for Wikipedia. In this book Rauschning presents reports and newspaper-articles collected by him since january 1919 about atrocities against the german population in the territories which had become under polish control as a consequence of the treaty of Versailles. He sais that until 1930 more than 800.000 germans had been expelled from their homes by the polish govenment and certain militias. In the course of the discussion on the talk page of world war II (Nr 16 "Poland wants war ..") several other sources were presented which consent with Rauschnings thesis that there was a systematic ethnic cleansing policy of the polish govenment in that time. Some discutants said that Rauschnings book contained nothing but Nazi-propaganda because he was a Nazi when he published it. But they disregard that he became a member of this party in 1926 when Hitler was far away from having absolute control over it and when large parts of the SA were dominated by pure socialists like Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser who were exiled later - as Rauschning himself -because of their opposition against Hitler and his inhuman policy. user:Jäger 01:45, 21 October 2009 (CET)

"Rauschning presents reports and newspaper-articles collected by him since january 1919 about atrocities" => PRIMARY => Not OR. You can quote Rauschning's commentaries on the sources, but you need to make that clear, and only if he's commented, "Rauschning on "Article X, Daily Newspaper, 1919" p XX". And given that he's politically contentious, I'm sure people would expect a Verbatim quote and translation on Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for this note! It is absolutely no problem to make verbatim quotations e.g. the the geman original and the english translation. The problem is that everything what is written in the Rauschning article or elsewhere about this book is deleted immediately. Newspaper-articles are very rarely quoted in this volume. Rauschning used principally the depositions of eye witnesses. He began to collect these reports after he had been made a "Reichkommissar für die besetzten Gebiete" (Imperial commissioner for the occupied territories) by the democratic geman government of that time. This work has absoutely nothing to do with the Nazi-party. user:Jäger 00:00, 22 October 2009 (CET)

Uh no. IN ADDITION to the fact that this is a primary source, Rauschning was a "reactionary who became a Nazi leader" hence, as a Nazi (yeah, he later broke with Hitler - this makes absolutely no difference) that makes him a totally UNRELIABLE SOURCE. Yes, he can be quoted to illustrate WHAT HIS opinion was (though seriously - is there a need for that?) but what Jager is trying to do is to present Rauschning's views as a verifiable fact. Unless the inclusion of text from Rauschning's "book" is VERY CAREFULLY WORDED so as not to mislead the reader, I will keep deleting immediately these attempts to sneak Nazi sources into Wikipedia, and if Jager persists, I will report him. I can't believe the question of whether this is a RS is even being considered seriously.radek (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is what user:Jäger has been attempting to use the book for in the World War II article (eg, [1]) and is still pressing for. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile I could find out that Rauschning did not join the nazi-party before 1932 (Brockhaus Enzyklopädie Vol. 22 page 578 of the recent print-edition 2006), "Die entdeutschung.." which appeared in 1930 therefore can not be nazi-propaganda. radek´s only argument against it is completely refuted by this fact. The statement, given in the Hermann Rauschning-article, that he has supported the nazis since the twenties is completely unsourced and has to be removed! What is written in this book is the plain truth and is confirmed by innumerous depositions of victims and eye-witnesses existing in the Bundesarchiv and in the Herder-Institut. The book is indeed a RS! user:Jäger 00:15, 30 October 2009 (CET)

Nonsense. Rauschning was politically motivated, a reactionary, and at least one of his books is now considered to be pure fabrication. He is not a RS. His book also is a 80 years old - it has to be treated as a primary source, and a suspicious one at that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is only a RS for what Rauschnings (and perhaps the Nazi party) claimed had happened with the German minority in Poland, not for what actually did happen. It should not be used as a RS for that, as it clearly was in the dif presented by Nick-D. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] open ended question on sources that could best be labelled as misleading or "hoax"

Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.

[edit] Web Archives

Is http://www.archive.org/web/web.php a reliable source (specfiicaly pages like. [[2]] and [[3]] (which also contradicts other more up to date sources)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Using web archives appears to be recommended here: Wikipedia:Dead_external_links#Web_archive_services --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Web Archive is a reliable source for the contents of website pages at a given point in time. Which "other more up to date sources" does the Internet Archive "contradict"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP website contradcits almost all of the contact information [[4]]. This [[5]] does rather contradcict one of the sources (The Advisory Council section).Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive shows what the BNP website said at the time. The BNP has undoubtedly updated its website since then. The Internet Archive is a reliable source for the contents of the BNP website at the time of archiving. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But is it an RS for what the situation is at this time (which is what it is being used for). Indead can any archive be an RS for anything other then historical (not current) matters?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an RS for any current claim, it's only an RS for what the website said at a specific point in time. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that what the website said at a specific point in time is not necessarily unnoteworthy just because it is in the past. "In 1994, the stated position of the BNP was x.." may well be useful to the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd add that one should try to avoid citing primary sources like this, as one inevitably runs into WP:NOR issues. It's best to cite secondary sources that discuss the BNP. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So if X says the BNP kick kittens and the BNP's consitution says They do not Kick Kitten then we would use the source that says they kick kittens? Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the BNP were indeed "kicking kittens", they would not likely be a reliable source as to whether or not they did so. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You would say "source A says X, while source B's website, as of month/year said not-X". Citing primary sources can be tricky, but if you choose your words carefully you can do it without intorducing original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So (regarding the structure of the BNP) we would say that "according to web archive .org the BNP's Advisory Council meets three times a year, whilst according to the BNP's current constitution (on its website) is meets 4 times a year"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that all this is about? Using an "X said A, Y said B" format for something like that would create a false, or at least greatly exaggerated, dichotomy. Better to word this as "meets three(cite) or four(cite) times a year". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but that passage creates a false idea that the differance is not due to diffrent sources being in contradiction, which is the case (and the issue). The current (and indead archived) consitution does not include any statments about the number of meetings a year being open to change. There is no false dichotomy here, they contradcict each other. Nor is there a greatly exagerated one so again I will ask the question, Is the web Archives page an RS for current (not historical) information (given that clearly its information can be out of date)? By the way another question why does a page writen by (and formaly posted on the BNP website) BNP suddenly become RS just becasue its stored ina differnt location?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not a material contradiction. Whether an organization meets three or four times a year is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. We would do well to simply say "they meet several times a year" and cite the current page. As far as being RS, the homepage of the BNP is a valid primary source for other than extrardinary facts about the BNP, in articles about the BNP. And Archive.org is a trusted archiver. The archived page is still a primary source, but it can still be used on Wikipedia subject to the same caveats. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive.org is a reliable source for the content of the archived webpage on the date is was archived, not for any substantive claims. Reliability as a substantive source depends on the creator of the archived page. Archive.org itself is not a substantive source, and should not be treated as one; it's an alternative means of accessing web content that is no longer hosted at its original URL, either because the site/URL has been removed or because the page in question has been altered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So (In this isnstance) it is no more reliable then the BNP's own website? Now given this should the source used not be the most up to date one (where there are contradictions)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even see a contradiction, one source describes past practice, the other current practice; the article would describe current practice only, unless there's some particular reason why past practice, or the change involved in the current practice, was particularly significant. "Under the [most recent revision/date adopted] constitution of the BNP, its Advisory Council meets at least four times each year [cite]." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The contradiction is that as it stands the article uses the older version as the source, and that is contradcited by the current version of the constitution. Moreovert has been susgested that both versions shold still be present (that would create contrradiction). I agree that it should only describe curretn practice, that is my point.Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is no more reliable than BNP's own website, and no less so. However, as said before, primary sources should be avoided in any event, except for non-contentious material. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that because it moves from one website to another it stopes being a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. It's still a primary source, even when archived on the Internet Archive. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally avoided because "they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." This is not a concern when we're simply repeating straightforward factual statements in an article. When reporting census information about a US community, Wikipedia regularly cites US Census Bureau publications [6]. When identifying the members of a corporate board, Wikipedia cites the corporate website [7]. I'm not even sure, strictly speaking, that these are primary sources, though: the primary source for census figures would be the collected data, not the report of it; the primary source for the corporate board would be the relevant corporate resolutions. If we read the definition of primary sources that strictly, then the BNP constitution as published on the website would be a secondary source, with the primary source being the party resolution (or whatever) that established the relevant text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that the OR concerns go away when "we're simply repeating straightforward factual statements in an article"? Also, please note there are significant differences between the US Census Bureau publications and the BNP website. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much what I think; I'm trying to describe what seems to be the consensus/practice for handling such material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP's constitution is hardley a controversal area. All I wanted to know was if the BNP's curretn constitution should be used insteaed of an out of date constitution for its structure. I belive that this has largley been resolved. The issue of web archives beiing used for non-historical informarion is an ancillery (but pertinant) point. This has not been resolved. As to being a primary source, this needs definition as (using the definition that appears to be being used here) any source that comes from the praty making the claim is a promary source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They're both primary sources, but there doesn't need to be any O.R. introduced if we write carefully. It seems immaterial whether an organization meets three or four times a year. We should simply say they meet "three or four" times a year or better yet, "several" times a year. If we start amplifying immaterial details to create a false dichotomy, then we may be straying into original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was the only contradiction I would agree, it is not. For example the current Wikipage (from the archive source) says “the organisers of the party’s most effective regions”. The current constitution says (on the same subject)“ the organisers of the party’s regions”. This is a rather more significant difference, and is more evidence that the web archive page holds information that is out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Squidfryerchef's suggestions are off target. The organization's actual practices can't be reliably sourced from either version of the constitution, which is prescriptive rather than descriptive (note the way I suggested phrasing the content). And I don't understand why an outdated archived page should be used as a source when a current version is accessible. Would anyone cite an archived page from www.whitehouse.gov to support a statement like "Both George W. Bush [cite archive page] and Barack Obama [cite current page] are reported to be President of the United States"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are right as far as that goes, but in reality neither the archive nor the current website should be used. There are an abundance of reliable secondary sources that write about the BNP, all relevant information should be gleaned from them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So ina s ituation were only the BNP mention something (or is the only place thier response is reported) then that should not be in the article? How about when the BNP constitution says X, but other sources say the constitution says Y?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using a primary source, such as an organization's mission statement, in an article about the organization, and it's often useful in filling out uncontroversial details that secondary sources might not comment on. Even if it's an organization you disagree with.

Hullabaloo's comment about the number being prescriptive vs. descriptive is valid. Just because the consitution says they meet three times or four times doesn't mean that some meetings might not be cancelled, or that extra meetings might be held. That's part of the reason why I suggested the wording "meets several times a year". Another way to handle it would be the clause "according to their consitution".

The analogy about both Bush(cite) and Obama(cite) both reported to be POTUS doesn't fit, not unless the President could be changed willy-nilly. Reporting that there's three or four meetings shows that the number had changed in the past and might well change in the future, and meetings may be cancelled or added at will.

However from looking at other materials online, the number of meetings reported by other sources is very divergent. One BBC web page says the council meets monthly,[8] though this is a very brief mention in a 2001 page about a Panorama program. A website called "Lancaster Unity" from 2007, said that the advisory council hadn't met for nearly a year, and the page was even titled "BNP's Advisory Council to be shut down".[9]

So this number could be 3 or 4, or 12, or even 1. It seems to me that the reports of the meeting schedule, whether they're all RS or not, vary too widely to even attempt describing in our article. We should probably mention that there exists such-and-such a council and leave it at that.

Another thing we may want to look at is that some of the comments on the other Lancaster Unity articles imply the meeting minutes are published on the BNP website(!) ( and I'm assuming the presence of minutes is how LU is estimating meeting frequency ). If true, that's a lot more descriptive to readers. Something like "the council prints its meeting minutes on the BNP website", with a cite that's simply a primary-source link to an listing of these minutes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my point, If an RS says that the BNP do X and this is contradicted by their constitution which should we use? Actualy the Bush Obama example is not that inapt. The President is open to change, just not willy nilly (do you have a soource that says that the number of advisory council meetings changes willy nilly?). The question was can out if date websites be used for up to date information?Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We have sources that peg the number of meetings at 12 one year, then 4, then three, then one which says almost an entire year went by without a meeting. That sounds to me like the meeting schedule is pretty irregular. But if you're looking for sources that point out a contradiction between what their constitution says and how many meetings they actually hold, that's pretty much a moving target as both numbers change from year to year. i.e. you can't use an secondary source that says they had monthly meetings in 2001 to contradict a primary source that said they were supposed to have three meetings a year in 2007. This all sounds pretty trivial to me, why do you care how many meetings they have in a year? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Becasue (as I have already pointed out) its not the only areas where the web acrhive page and the curretn edition of the BNP constitution differs. By the way one of your sources is 2 years old, one is 8 years old. That looks to me like very out of date infiormation, that reflects a political prties changing cirucmstances over an 8 year period. This is about how reliable arfe sources that prinit (or are used to repeat) out of date information contradicted by other (more up to date) sources, and what is more reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why any of this is encyclopedic or why we should point out a contradiction. I don't know what the original debate was about but if this is a number that changes every year, it may not be worthwhile to decribe every change in an encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Squidfrychef's point above is important; if secondary sources haven't draw attention to this, then why is Wikipedia bothering to discuss it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but I was not aware that there had to be a controversy for a source to not be RS for what it is being sourced for, merely that it had to be demonstrably inaccurate. Also (and I have to say this again) the issue of the numbers of meetings the Advisory committee has each year is not the only difference between the web Archive source and the current BNP constitution. Moreover as there is no controversy over this issue would not the BNP’s own current constitution be the best source for information about its structure and organisation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall re-iterate what this was originally about is a source that demonstrably has out of date information on it RS for current events? Now it appears that this has been answered and that answer is no it is not RS for current information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The internet web archive gives information at a point in time. It does not given current information. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So thats a yes then it is not RS for up to date information?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a "yes or no" issue. It's a reliable source for the contents of the website at a specific point in time, and should be avoided as a source in favor of reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, eithere its RS for current information or its not. What you seem to be saying is that its RS for historical information (I accept that) but that its neither/is/nor/may/ be Rs for up to date and current information (despite the fact it clealry contradicts more up top date information from the very people it archives pages for). This is not aboout weere I can find this information, is about is this RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TV by the Numbers

I'm coming here to ask whether or not the site TV by the Numbers is a reputable source that we can use on Wikipedia. Some editors want to use them for ratings on The Vampire Diaries (TV series) and List of The Vampire Diaries episodes as seen here. Like I said in the discussion about this on the article's talk page, I think we should use Entertainment Weekly as a source since we already know it's reputable, but if TV by the Numbers is found to be a good source, I'll let it go. Rocksey (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[10][11] Previous discussions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are those unresolved? What was the decision? Rocksey (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog published by two individuals, Bill Gorman and Robert Seidman. It does not qualify as a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but other editors kept saying it was fine to use it. So should I take the sources out now and replace them with more reputable ones, or should I just wait until there's more discussion on this here? Rocksey (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was deemed unreliable, but if you've got better sources, use them instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to, but it keeps getting reverted. Rocksey (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is deemed unreliable. See my comments above. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it's unreliable too because it's self published by Gorman and Seidman who admit on the site that they're newbies still trying to get it together: [Gorman and Seidman acknowledge that they’re still total newbies (even after being at it for two years now), but with your help, they hope to learn.] Rocksey (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is cited (very) frequently by other RSs, so it is not cut and dry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else I can take this question where it will have a better chance of getting resolved? Rocksey (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source?

It should be noted that the proposer, (and closer) of this 'enquiry', (User talk:99.135.170.179) has been the subject of a sock-puppet investigation, with a result that he has been rangeblocked for three months; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The basis on which this discussion took place (WP:AGF) is therefore seriously undermined and the decision should be revisited. RashersTierney (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If the current editors at the talkpage of the article in question are in agreement on how to proceed, there's really no need to bring it up again at RSN. --Elonka 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane have been 'tagged' as an unreliable source in the archived discussion. The issue goes far beyond the Irish Bulletin article. From the posts of the IP, it appears that his intention from the beginning had more to do with 'achieving' that Not Reliable Source tag than genuinely seeking NPOV advice on sources. RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Elonka's summary is correct for all articles due to SELF and VANITY on the part of the publisher. Any specialist author publishing in a SELF or VANITY mode causes such a work to be tainted by their avoidance of academic peer review. Works published by the Aubane Historical Society are not RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The key point is really whether or not AHS is being used to source information that is "contentious". If no one is challenging the information, then the sourcing is probably not an issue. WP:V only kicks in for "information that is challenged or likely to be challenged." --Elonka 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I didn't comment on the first discussion, but agree with the original conclusion that the Aubane Historical Society should not be a considered a reliable source as a general rule. We seek sources with a reputation of accuracy and with fact checking. There are just too many external critiques of exactly these characteristics of their publications. Here are more; the source/publisher of the "review" is listed, followed by what they had to say about AHS publications.

• Elizabeth Bowen: the enforced return, Neil Corcoran Oxford University Press.[12] p. 184 "Very badly edited and its transcriptions are not always reliable". p. 185-6 There is some faint praise "The AHS's polemic is ignorant in some respects... but it is not altogether unintelligent and it is not unscrupulous"
• Elizabeth Bowen: the shadow across the page, Maud Ellmann Edinburgh University Press p. 35 [13] "Ill-edited edition"; "This edition, which contains a vitriolic attack on Bowen's disloyalty to Ireland, is full of errata".
• The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland Oxford University Press. "A mystifyingly crude version was produced in 1993 by the editor of the shadowy Aubane Historical Society's eccentric North Cork Anthology"
• That neutral island: a cultural history of Ireland during the Second World War Clair Wills, Belknap Press p. 431 [14] "with numerous typographical errors and an extremely partial attack on Bowen".

--Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aubane Historical Society's publications do not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed that none of the posting editors above has made any mention of the particular concern that I raised: that the initiating editor was clearly (in light of subsequent investigation) pursuing a hidden agenda. The point raised by Elonka, that issues of sources being reliable only arises if it is "contentious" is naive in the extreme. We now have an officially endorsed version of Irish history on Wikipedia. Any point ref'd to an Aubane publication can now be deemed non-RS, without further discussion, with the default being that it must be corroborated 'by a peer reviewed publication' or removed. The points raised by Slp1 above relate to a single book - generalised to reflect on everything printed by Aubane (before and since the Bowen critique) and repeated almost verbatim. What we have here amounts to censorship. RashersTierney (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the initiating editor was irrelevant to the analysis made by WP:RS/N editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP and the POV sources he contributed, informed the entire discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That the initiating editor had a agenda is/was irrelevant. It was obvious to all and sundry right from the start, as is/was the agenda of those seeking to defend Aubane, by reopening the discussion amongst other things. And of course, claiming censorship is a red-flag of this sort of thing! People come here to get the opinion of uninvolved editors about whether a publisher can be seen as a reliable source. Those of us who respond look at a bunch of policy-based factors, and comment. We're used to filtering out the agendas and focussing on the question at hand. I think it is clear that there are just too many questions about the editorial oversight given by the AHS, and that a consensus has developed. Consensus can change, and AHS's ideas, if notable and significant, can always be included and cited to them using attribution. But for citing information/facts... no, find some other better citations from non-polemic sources that have more of a reputation for fact-checking. Oh, and the reviews are discussing two books, not one.--Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be crystal clear, I am not seeking to defend Aubane as a reliable source in all cases. Many of their publications are polemical, even idiosyncratic, but not all. What I am requesting is that not everything published by them is rubber-stamped as unreliable without any further examination. That is my understanding of how things stand at present RashersTierney (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that reliability inheres in the Publisher, not in the Author. The publisher's problem is not POV; but that the Publisher is not conducted on a commercial for profit or academic basis. The publisher publishes for polemical reasons, and is additionally known to be of poor quality. The publisher publishes its members works (SELF & VANITY). It lacks the editorial supervision of authors that commercial presses and academic presses have. Thus all works published are tainted. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo's analysis, though as we've discussed, an exception can and would be made if the author of the work was considered an "established expert" per WP:SPS. In general, I would strongly recommend focusing your research energies on material from other, more reliable, more esteemed publishers --Slp1 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Rest assured, I am not in the habit of tolerating, much less promoting poor historical sources. I fully agree with your view that established experts have a right to have their reputations stand on their own merit. Thanks for replies. RashersTierney (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting silly. Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan for example are the authors of a book published by Aubane. Aubane is not and never has been cited. Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.

He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?

Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.

As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).

Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.

So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We will get nowhere discussing this source in the abstract. We already had a needlessly drawn-out discussion about a particular case. The consensus of those who regularly contribute to this board is that Aubane is not a good source for historical articles. We should try and find better sources. But policy makes it clear that there can be exceptions. For example, when authors' scholarly credentials are independently established their Aubane-published sources could be considered. But it depends on various factors (how well established is the scholar's reputation, are they writing in their own area of expertise, are the claims made controversial, etc.) and these need to be discussed in context. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Were is this consensus? I'll ask a simple question and all I ask is for a simple answer. If the author is considered to be a WP:RS it makes no difference who the publisher is? Yes or No will do. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do cite publishers... or at least the publisher is part of the citation. More importantly, the publisher is one of the things we look at when determining reliability. Both WR:RS#Self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB have cautions about using self-published sources.

That said, you are correct in saying that the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this. If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar set by those policy statements, then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press... If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books.

Applying WP:V and WP:RS to the issue... when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published. Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Blueboar thanks for that! Could you explain one thing for me though? Take Fr Brian P Murphy osb for example, if he has one of his books say John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995) and one published by Aubane like A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1 are you saying only the one published by Aubane is considered self-published? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll risk answering here in lieu of Blueboar. Yes, Murphy's book published by Irish Academic Press is a reliable source, by virtue of its publisher. And yes, his book published by Aubane would fall into the category self-published because Aubane is does not appear to exert adequate editorial control for our purposes. So, as with any self-published material, a Murphy book published by Aubane would need to be evaluated on its merits, including, for example only, whether is it written in an area of Murphy's published expertise, whether is being used to source extraordinary claims, or to cite facts about living persons. --Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Murphy's 'Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda' is cited in Kenneally's The Paper Wall (ISBN 9781905172580) 'Sources and Bibliography p234. RashersTierney (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good. But as I said, one would need to look at what was being proposed nonetheless. After all, as noted above, being cited in scholarly works is not always a sign that the work is respected.! And I think it is clear that facts about a living person, for example, or other controversial material should not be sourced to a Murphy book published by Aubane, even if the book has been cited by others for other things.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The question of refs to living persons doesn't arise in this case. The subject is history dating from the 1919-22 period. Unfortunately, from a verification perspective, none can now add to our knowledge, or clarify controversial points. RashersTierney (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just modified my post above slightly, in the meantime, because controversial material does need to be carefully sourced here on WP. So a question with two parts. What exactly are you trying to source from which Aubane book? --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire question arose from a disingenuous query here by an IP, since identified as disruptive and blocked from further editing. The IP's intent was to have Murphy's book listed as 'non-reliable' and so not to be ref'd at Irish Bulletin. The same ed. is responsible for the current unusual restrictions at that article. RashersTierney (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But a quick look suggests that Aubane material is being discussed at least one other article. And a BLP angle of some sort is being discussed there. As I'm sure you understand, it's not reasonable to ask editors here to opine without the specifics of the issue/question being discussed. --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for link. I was not aware of that discussion, but have been away and otherwise distracted for the last few days. At the Irish Bulletin article, there is no outstanding controversial issue, apart from a 'fact tag' left by the IP (whether or not there was a short hiatus in political office). Murphy had been the ref'd source. It was challenged mala fides by the IP. RashersTierney (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 how do we know Irish Academic Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane have published and restored some origional source material from both the National Archives at Kew in England and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, Ireland. They include for example The Administration of Ireland 1920 by Major C. J. C. Street (Athol, 2001), Ireland by Lionel Curtis (Athol, 2002) and The Men I Killed by F. P. Crozier (Athol, 200) in addition to Sean Moylan in His Own Words by Sean Moylan (Aubane, 2004) which was the first of the Witness Statements from the years 1916-1921 to ever to published. So again the question remains how can these be considered self published? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They're PRIMARY material published by a VANITY press which is criticised by historians for poor veracity. Wikipedia is not a historian equipped for complex hermeneutical analysis of compromised texts. Asked and answered. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should provide some supporting evidence for your comments. Which "historians" have criticized Aubane as a publisher? Your conclusions have already been rejected here and in the previous discussion in relation to the Authors. Now I asked a reasonable question and would like a reasonable answer. Are the books re-published by Aubane which were located in the National Archives at Kew and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks considered a WP:RS? For example, would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would require WP:OR to verify that the books are in fact identical to the originals. Why should re-published books be needed on Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered, please read the archives. thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo you were asked and you answered. Having read the archives your conclusions did not really get any support, and there are still some questions still outstanding. Questions like why would we need WP:OR to verify that the books published by Aubane are identical to the originals. Anyone interested in Irish History would know why the books I cited above would be needed. For example, Frank Percy Crozier really should have an article, while Cecil Street, Lionel Curtis and Sean Moylan do have articles they need to be expanded. Now apart from the reproductions were else could editors source them? Now would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? Valid questions. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] www.chartstats.com

We're having an issue on some featured lists reviews in relation to Chartstats.com. It is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The actual author is unknown and apparently intentionally anonymous. It was, however, the site I chose to recommend in WP:GOODCHARTS as the source for UK chart positions, which is now causing problems as those editors that chose to follow my advice as they try to get featured status for discographies.

The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week.

All of the unofficial archives have some issues. acharts.us is also anonymously published, and zobbel.de has some problems with merging multiple charts together (i.e., an album position of 25 may be on the main chart, the compilation chart, the soundtrack chart, etc, and you can't tell by looking which one it is).

Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other unofficial archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com.

There are printed copies of the individual charts. With some additional research, it would be possible to determine an issue of Music Week that published the physical copy, find someone with the physical copy, and from that find the page number, article titles, etc. required for a physical citation. That process would need to be repeated for each song, as no summaries are available in print form. Ironically, the best way to find that would be to start with the data from chartstats.com to determine the week of the peak occurring. Technically, that information would still not truly source a "peak", because the physical list can't predict what will happen the following week, while chartstats has the luxury of being continuously updated.

One other thing to consider is that while none of the online chart sources for the UK is ideal, they can be cross-checked. Acharts, everyhit, chartstats, and zobbel all independently claim to archive the Official Charts Company. Within the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks, that can be directly verified. Outside of that, the data can be crosschecked between the different archives. I've done random spot-checking in the past, and always came back satisfied.

Given this status, and that no one has yet found a reason to doubt chartstat.com's accuracy (as distinguished from the conventional Wikipedia definition of "reliability"), is it reasonable to treat chartstats.com as a reliable source for reporting chart positions in the UK? Or are we going to force discography authors to reference only paper sources despite the existence of multiple databases?—Kww(talk) 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of its utility, it's still a WP:SPS, and an anonymous one at that. It's not acceptable as a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS includes the statement "some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found". Wouldn't the ability to cross-check the material with three other archives and a substantial subset against the original source count as "substantial independent evidence"?—Kww(talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Have any of the other reliable sources specifically stated that "chartstats.com" is reliable? That's what would count as "substantial independent evidence". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why that is the only "substantial independent evidence" that is acceptable. The original source (The Official Charts Company) is known to be reliable, and that reliability is attested to via numerous sources: the BBC faithfully reports their charts (and bases radio programs upon it), and two publications, Music Week and Charts Plus, reproduce it each and every week. The question now is whether chartstats.com is an accurate reproduction of that reliable source, and that can be verified. Why is the notability of an archive a substantial obstacle to deeming it reliable when no one can demonstrate a single instance where it has made an error? When its output can be verified compared to between three and four other Xerox machines, depending on the date and chart position? —Kww(talk) 03:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the "substantial independent evidence for their reliability"? Which reliable source will "verify" that chartstats.com is reliable, keeping in mind that Wikipedia editors are not considered to be reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that comparing a number from one database to a number in another would fall under "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived" from WP:OR. Surely a test for equality is a routine calculation. You are treating this as if chartstats.com is the original source of the chart, which it is not: all that is necessary per WP:Citing sources is to demonstrate that we can be "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original." I don't see why the ability to do a multiway comparison of a large subset of the data doesn't provide that "reasonable certainty".

I've cheated a bit and moved this topic back down to the bottom in the hope of attracting another opinion or two.—Kww(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Which you've done. "self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability." Do you have that - that would be the easiest way to check the box here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

chartstats.com itself gets 190,000 Google hits, but that count is contaminated by Wikipedia mirrors. There's a good smattering of what I think of as "second-tier" references: answers.com, popjustice.com, we7.com, etc. Not New York Times or Washington Post material, but above "Fred the neighborhood ranter's blog". The original source of the information, The Official Charts Company, is impeccable: not many organisations have a regularly updated page on the BBC tracking their output, and two separate magazines, Music Week and Charts Plus, republishing their output on a weekly basis. That impeccability is why I keep focusing on verification of chartstats as a convenience link, not as an original source. If chartstats were the original source of the information, I would be arguing vociferously that it failed WP:RS because of the inability to demonstrate that people were relying on it. In this case, what I'm arguing is that it is an accurate archival of information that people rely on, and that our ability to cross-check against multiple archives validates it.

One issue that I realize isn't obvious is the varying scopes of the different archives. The official one, theofficialcharts.com, stores the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks. Everyhit.co.uk stores 40 positions forever, and is clearly reliable (I can point at BBC articles that reference it). Chartstats stores the top 100 positions forever, and Zobbel stores the top 200 positions forever. Music Week publishes the top 100, but has no archive, and Charts Plus publishes the top 200, but has no archive. Thus, if the position falls in the top 40, we can validate it against a clearly reliable source. If it happened less than 100 weeks ago, we can validate it against the original source. If it falls between positions 41-100, we can cross check against Zobbel, and, on demand, against the two physical publications.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these types of sources should be allowed, but it's kind of a bigger deal than just one RSN thread. It would apply to the TY by the numbers question above, and lots of other questions that appear here. TV by the numbers had to take down a bunch of Nielsen archives after receiving a cease and desist copyright vio notice from Nielsen, so I wonder if there are any copyright considerations with this site as well? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on British copyright law, so I'll let the Official Charts Company decide whether the archives are infringing. I don't think this needs to be much bigger than one RSN thread, myself: I viewed this as a convenience link, still do, and was quite surprised an editor objected at FAR because of its use.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether unaffiliated websites which archive sales data from reliable sources are reliable. I don't think an official (as far as wiki goes) ruling has ever taken place, although a lot of similar sites have been deemed unreliable or borderline. I think most of those rulings have been knee jerk reactions.

I think the site in question, and ones like it, should be considered reliable. Leaving copy vio issues aside, it's pretty trivial to copy lists and host them on a website accurately. With a careful look (which you've done), I think it's pretty easy to determine that the data in question is correct. So, I would say it's reliable.

Say a website was a mirror of the public domain US census. We'd say use the official page, but we wouldn't be saying that because the data is incorrect in any way, just that we should use the highest quality sources when available. In this case, this is the only source, so I say go for it.

The other option is to say that no source exists, which I don't think benefits our readers or editors, and is a too strict interpretation of RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:RS. That's how we judge whether or not it is a reliable source, rather than on utility or formatting or anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my penny worth to the discussion. In my experience, Chartstats.com is extremely reliable. I've cross-referenced it with the Guinness British Hit Singles & Albums book many times and never, ever found it to be in error, both in it's chart positions and it's "weeks spent on the chart" information. The site was also endorsed by Record Collector magazine as a good, reliable source for UK chart information a year or two ago (that's how I initially found out about the site).

For what it's worth, in my view, the official WP:RS criteria isn't always a good fit for music related articles. For example, Allmusic is accepted because it's a professionally run website and while it's certainly a great resource, it's not always factually accurate. Yet, a self-published fan site, no matter how meticulously researched and well written it is, isn't acceptable for Wikipedia. This seems like nonsense to me because someone like Alan Fraser who runs the extremely well researched Bob Dylan fansite Searching For a Gem without doubt has a greater and more detailed knowledge of Dylan than anyone writing for the Allmusic website does. I’m not knocking the writers of Allmusic, they have a wide ranging knowledge of music generally, but a guy like Fraser is a specialist on one artist, so why should the information on his site be rejected? Don't get me wrong, I’m not saying that all or even most fansites should be considered reliable - a lot of them are crap - but any band/artist of any note almost certainly has one or more high quality fansites that are far more reliable than a "general music site" like Allmusic. The WP:RS guidelines seem to work well for most subjects or areas of knowledge, but they’re a bad fit for music in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That endorsement by Record Collector would make it reliable by any definition. Can you provide me with specific reference so that I can make this argument go away?

And, to Jayjg, I think you are seriously mistaken in refusing to apply the standards necessary for a convenience link to a convenience link. The Official Charts Company is a reliable source by anyone's definition, and chartstats is simply an archive of that reliable information. Clearly if chartstats were the original source, the data would be unusable, but it is not the source whose reliability needs to be judged. As a convenience link, the standard is simply that we can be "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original." What would it take to get you to that level of certainty?—Kww(talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I knew that you were gonna ask me that. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific issue and I don't have time to go through my Record Collector back issues to find a specific reference but I know that they did recommend it because, as I say, that's how I first heard about the site. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes us "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original"? In your response, please make sure the answer does not boil down to "because a Wikipedia editor said so". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Because any editor that chooses to can validate the information. The verification does not require taking any individual editor's word for it. The essence of WP:V is that verifiability relies on having provided sufficient information that any Wikipedia editor with the inclination and resources can verify the information. In this case, you have the official records at www.theofficialchartscompany.com (which I presume you are not challenging), and you have the contents of the archive in question. You have the links to other archives making similar claims. You can, should you so choose, dig up individual hard copies of the printed lists. Validate to your heart's content. There's no need to take any other editor's word for it.—Kww(talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review the previous comment. The essence of WP:V is that a source has editorial oversight, or is widely recognized by reliable sources as a reliable source, not that a Wikipedia editor can independently "validate"/assert that its contents are accurate. No amount of wishing or arguing will change that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review the concept of a "convenience link" from WP:Citing sources#Convenience links, and stop misapplying WP:V in support of positions to which it does not apply. Nothing in its standard of "reasonable certainty" requires third-party validation.—Kww(talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if the WP:Citing sources style guideline trumped the WP:V policy (and it doesn't), Chartstats.com does not appear to qualify as a "convenience link" as outlined by WP:Citing sources#Convenience links. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scholar writing about his own faith group

Editors are arguing that a chapter in this book is not a reliable source, because its author, Ron Geaves, a Professor of Comparative Religion at Liverpool University, is writing about his own faith group (he is a long-time follower of Prem Rawat). He has published peer-reviewed papers on his own as well as other faith groups in reputable journals.

• Book details: Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (eds.) (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. 4. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 63–84. ISBN 0-275-98712-4. 
• Book reviews on publisher's website: [15]
• Scholar's CV: [16]
• Relevant book chapter in google books: [17]
• Recent discussions: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Followers Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues#Geaves_paragraph

Are the arguments against using the source reasonable and compatible with WP:RS/WP:NPOV? --JN466 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that, for facts as opposed to opinions, the source looks very good. Whether he is an adherent or not, he was the one chosen by the editors, who are apparently respected academics, to write the section of this book. The publisher, while not one with which I was previously familiar, also appears reliable. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Jayen hasn't notified the other concerned editors about this thread, which I think is always a good idea. Second, I don't see where any editors are arguing that this is a totally unreliable source. They are questioning it, but I think Jayen is misrepresenting the discussion. Third, and this is an important point, Ron Geaves is not simply a long-time follower of Prem Rawat. Geaves was, according to some accounts, one of the first Western followers of Rawat, then known as Guru Maharaj Ji. Since then he has helped promote Rawat, including speaking on his behalf. Geaves' involvement with Rawat is analogous to one of the apostles in the Christian faith. Fourth, a concern to some editors is that Geaves does not generally disclose his involvement with Rawat in his writings, implying that he is an objective observer. Fifth, some of Geaves' assertions about Rawat either contradict or provide a very different view than other scholars on the topic. Sixth, he is proposed as a source for use on topics where we have no independent sources to provide other views. In conclusion, I don't recommend excluding Geaves categorically, but when he is used his affiliation with the subject hould be identified, and his assertions should be attributed to him.   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, you were notified of this thread 8 minutes before you commented here: [18]; so have the other editors. I've linked the relevant discussions we have had for editors to read, above. These discussions speak for themselves. I will not comment on your opinions on apostledom, save to say that any author has the right to play an active role in his chosen faith community, and that the methods which we use to establish reliability are not based on authors' religious allegiance. Where Geaves contradicts others, WP:NPOV says we should give his view and that of others, in proportion to their published prominence among the most reputable sources. Here is Geaves' disclosure in the book concerned: [19]; I find it unlikely that the editors would not have known about his background. Geaves has published in this field for some years, and was originally encouraged to do so by academic colleagues. --JN466 17:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Forum Shopping Alert JN is supposedly a member of the Prem Rawat Wikiproject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat. That project agreed a process for assessing the 'usability' of sources across the articles that the Project encompasses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues#Source_assessment_framework. That such a process was agreed was particularly significant because the project itself was a development of a mediation that followed an arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem_Rawat#Request_details and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2 . JN expressed disatisfaction with the assessment process but made no attempt at proposing an alternative approach -other than to require other editors to agree with him. Despite there being an agreed process to assess the sources concerned with Geaves JN unilateraly introduced new usage of a Geaves source into a Project article, fomenting a confused and largely purpossless discussion on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Followers. Having failed to get his way JN now seeks to bring his battle here, without even notifying the RAWAT Project moderators. JN has now posted what he describes as a "Courtesy note" on Project Members' pages -with a request for us not to participate here ! JN's actions reflect much that was repudiated by the Rawat2 Arbcom - RS/N participants need to be aware that this discussion will come within the scope of the arbcom decisions. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll second some of what Nik is saying. Prem Rawat sourcing discussions come with a pedigree. Please don't make broad up/down decisions based only on what is presented here. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), like two or three other users who will probably drop in here any minute ;), is a single-purpose account who was admonished in the arbcom case he mentions, was topic-banned for a month earlier this year, and has indeed proposed a very idiosyncratic source assessment process that is without parallel within Wikipedia. This simply needs outside eyes; the discussion links are above. --JN466 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And why shouldn't your fellow editors be allowed to comment Jayen, when you've felt free to usurp the project process without consensus from the rest of us? This is so unhelpful to the collaborative process on these very contentious articles about Prem Rawat. No one has refused to examine Dr. Geaves as a reliable source, in fact, it's on the list of Project sources to review. There's absolutely no urgency to add the particular edit Jayen is fighting for and it's upset the apple cart of the Prem Rawat Project. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason not to use him so long as there's in-text attribution, along the lines of "Ron Geaves of Liverpool University, himself a follower of Prem Rawat, writes that ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Whenever we have cited Geaves in an article, we have attributed the information to him by name and have stated that he is one of Rawat's earliest followers. That information is present in the article now, right at the end of the preceding section: Prem_Rawat#Charisma_and_leadership. --JN466 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Readers here should be aware that Prof. Geaves, as well as being a follower of Prem Rawat for 40 years, is the only scholar to have written about him for the last 20 years (the reason being that Rawat is no longer, in spite of much attempts by his followers, 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense). If Geaves was unconditionally accepted as a reliable source it would put him in the position of having a monopoly on writing about Rawat's current activities. --John Brauns (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked that assertion in google books, and found it was far from true. Here are a number of books published over the past 5, 10 years which comment on recent activities of Rawat/Elan Vital:

• Religion in the contemporary world: a sociological introduction, 2007
• A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements, 2001
• A pocket guide to sects and new religions, 2005
• Alternative religions: a sociological introduction, 2003
• Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions, 2006
• Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, 2004
• Religions of the World, 2002
• Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 2006
• Global Civil Society Yearbook, 2005

There may be more. This search was quite useful; some of these are new to me. I'll add these sources to the project page. JN466 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

JN, this appears to be a list of compendiums of new religious movements, none of which appears to include any original research. I'll be happy to be proved wrong as I would welcome non-Geaves research, post-1990, into Rawat, but the brief glance at these books suggests I'll be disappointed. --John Brauns (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

John, they clearly comment on events after 1990. The very first book linked above cites Barker 1995. The second one cites Barrett 1996, right at the end of the section. The third covers "present practice" up to 2005. And I am tired of your moving the goalposts all the time, John. Above you claimed no scholar had "written about him for the last 20 years" and he was "no longer notable". Being proved wrong on that one, you think up another objection. We have been discussing Geaves for two months now in this manner. Nik said Geaves was wrong in saying DLM was disbanded and Elan Vital was created. I showed that Geaves was fully in line with half a dozen other top scholars and encyclopedias. I was told that all the other scholars were wrong too, that Nik knew better, and that Geaves was still unreliable. Geaves says, Rawat's national events in the States attract 5000 to 6000 people, and you, Sylviecyn and Nik claim in unison that Geaves is lying; even though on your own site you yourself say that events in the West are consistently attracting audiences of 5000, even 8000 on special occasions in the 90s. And so forth. I realise that nothing I or anyone can say will ever make you accept that Geaves is a reliable source in WP terms. Would you like to bring a new objection now? Does it have to be original research after 2005? JN466 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC):

JN, as I said, I am happy to be proved wrong about these sources. Looking at the third, Dr. Nigel Scotland's book, published in 2005, I see that he states "Currently, Maharaji's teachings include: Maharaji is a Divine Incarnation". I am happy that this should be included in the article on Rawat. There may be other gems in these sources so I thank you for posting them! However, I stand by my concerns about Geaves, and it would be nice if you address them specifically on the prem Rawat project page. --John Brauns (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

John, I have little desire to discuss Geaves for another two months with three ex-followers of Rawat's who are only here on Wikipedia to edit articles about their ex-guru. Let's just note that feedback here on this noticeboard leans towards the view that Geaves' chapter in Gallagher/Ashcraft is a RS in the Wikipedia sense and fine to use with attribution. --JN466 06:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

JN, please remember to assume good faith here. You cannot on the one hand say that Geaves' 40 year allegiance to Rawat doesn't matter, and then claim that other editors' former allegiance DOES matter. If you would actually acknowledge and address the concerns other editors have (some of whom are not former followers), then there's no need for the discussion to continue for months. --John Brauns (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[20] Answered on John's talk page. --JN466 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as nobody-in-particular, passing by by chance, may I observe that there'd seem here to be a confusion between a "reliable" and a "neutral" source. It is evident that scholarly controversy might and frequently does arise where experts have opposing views. In that case neutrality demands that neither view be excluded. Particularly, it would not be acceptable to assert "this expert is unreliable because he takes a partial view and so must be excluded". Here, Geaves may be held to be non-neutral on particular points but his credentials establish him as a reliable source in the field unless and until peer review decides otherwise. Since he cannot be excluded, therefore, and his affiliation is declared, then if there are views on certain matters that oppose his, the views in question should be identified and may be established as notable by another source with a comparable degree of reliability. This is one of those cases where the other option, exlusion of both views, would wipe out wiki-valid data. Finally, again, let us not confuse the neutrality expected of editors with the reliability and notablility expected of sources cited. Thanks for your attention. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, thanks for your input to this debate, and what you write is absolutely correct for topics where other, neutral, reliable sources to counter the non-neutral source exist. Unfortunately, for the subject of Prem Rawat, in recent years, although there is a wealth of information on the internet, there are no other sources that qualify as reliable, which is why most editors of Rawat articles are arguing that Geaves be used with caution. --John Brauns (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arutz Sheva

Can the Arutz Sheva site: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ be considered as WP:RS? (To quote from the article: "Arutz Sheva is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement", ie. Israeli settlers on the West Bank). Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my quick answer after seeing the first news story on their ticker after clicking your link. No. An article with the title "Man Who Massacred Soldiers Surfed Islamic Websites"? No. All sorts of WP:POV WP:NPA WP:BLP WP:COI and who knows how many other things are running through the minds of the writers there. There are even instructions on the site about how you can submit your own writings[21], meaning it's quite possible that a lot of "stories" published there are original works of fiction. Ooh, and in the Arutz Sheva article it mentions this "publication" under the "Zionist media" category. Entirely unacceptable, sorry, and hardly better than a dolled-up blog. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a media source that explicitly identifies itself with a particular political tendency I'd guess not. Certainly it shouldn't be used for anything that's at all controversial. (Wasn't aware of the user submitted bit, very interesting;) Misarxist (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't even begin to think how to respond to your comment "who knows how many other things are running through the minds of the writers there".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I take half of it back. It's a bit complicated and would require gaming the system, but same end result. It's a tad fuzzy; If you are currently publishing any Arutz Sheva content with or without an express written agreement, please email us promptly at (email removed). I also get the impression it'd be possible to abuse ... (not at all typing the rest). I did also read on my last time through that they're "not responsible" for content at external websites they might link in articles or elsewhere. That's just all the more reason to affirm zero credibility and a miss on RS and shady activity on the submitted articles. Privacy policy apparently doesn't feel like even attempting to hide sales to 3rd party... All advertisers are carefully screened for suitability before we send any of their advertisements to our readership ... ...but we would not disclose anything that could be used to identify those individuals. Yay, that's comforting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The complaints you raise are completely bogus. Its policies on third party links and advertisers are the same as all media outlets. And regarding it's status as an RS, you might as well reject Al Jazeera and essentially all other Arab and Iranian media as RS since they can be construed as mouthpieces of the state. Stop this witch hunt.ShamWow (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't read what you now point to as at all (let alone half) supporting your statement. They're clearly referring only to reprints of articles in their paper. Not the submission of articles to them. If that wasn't clear to you from what you quoted (it was to me), its certainly manifestly clear in context.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where the media comes from or what their "default" affiliation to anything is, but a bias at least means it should be looked into a bit more deeply-- even more so if it offers no alternate views of a subject (this being the COI concern). Well, at least media outlets that are listed on Wikipedia as being based upon a particular philosophy certainly could use it. It's just discouraging when one visits a media site and the first article (I saw) is factually incorrect and offers no evidence of how they came to that conclusion? Unacceptable. I do believe that no source is automatically given a free pass on reliability, though I'm thinking I'm not going to be believed on that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dathiesen called into question the Arutz Sheva headline that said "Man Who Massacred Soldiers Surfed Islamic Websites." The first paragraph of that article states: The New York Times has revealed that the man who massacred 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood Base in Texas surfed Islamic websites and even exchanged emails with participants in the websites. [22] As it turns out, the New York Times did report: "The officials said a continuing search of Major Hasan’s computer indicates that he had logged on to Web sites that celebrated radical Islamic ideologies and that he had exchanged e-mail messages with like-minded people, some possibly overseas." [23] I suppose you could accuse Arutz Sheva of bias for calling Nidal Malik Hasan "the man who massacred 13 soldiers" rather than the man accused of doing so, or criticize them for just identifying the web sites Hasan visited as being "Islamic" rather than "radical Islamic", but it's not like they were just making up the story out of whole cloth. They cited the New York Times, and the basic information they mentioned had indeed appeared in the NYT before the Arutz Sheva article was published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a news source just like any other. There is no reason to treat it as less reliable than the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, or the LA Times for that matter. What difference is there? "Fact-checkers"? Please. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes. WP:V. Fact-checking literally meaning "to verify". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite some bias, they actually have a good track record for not publishing rubbish - there's nothing wrong with the story on the first page -- it tells a fact, that the Knesset refused a controversial speech. I would avoid using this source for opinions, but best I've seen -- and I have seen it here and there -- it is reliable for occurrences inside Israel. I would also tend to seek other sources when referring to the Arab world. I would, off-course, try to find corroboration where the material is contentious/controversial/exceptional claim. What is the content in question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Value-free news reporting is a myth, often cultivated by those who represent the dominant view in order to delegitimize rival aspects. A7 is honest enough to account for their position. Any one wanting to question their status as a source should provide evidence of a lack of meticulousness, deception or the like (on a larger scale than can be shown for many leading news agencies). --Jonund (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased does not mean unreliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it warrants further review. In my original statement, the general concern is "if they're going to print and sensationalize something factually incorrect without any explanation as to how they reached that conclusion, who knows how much else is factually incorrect/invented?" ...And yes they SHOULD be caring about their external links and yes they SHOULD be fact-checking. That's what separates new media from blogging and generic hogwash opinion talkshows. In cases where media is pointed out as wrong, they admit their error and publish that they were incorrect. I won't say the site is never reliable and that each article would be worth looking at, so what article are we talking about from the original commenting request? Just saying, something not fact-checked that's public forum so long as you ask them first if you can write, and has no respect for its members by selling their personal info is not an encyclopedic-level reliable source. A middle school essay? Ok. Wikipedia? Not so much. Is there as specific article that brought this up in the first place, though? If it's on a non-controversial topic and walks through its statements (like with an interview or something), it's a lot more likely that at least would count as a verifiable source. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its worth noting that media retractions are rare and far in between on Isreali-Arab matters. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with a news source that seeks comments from its readers and, on occasion, publishes them. I believe its called "letters to the editor". More on point, I have no idea on where you've reached the assertion that they do not fact check themselves or that they don't have some history of credible reporting behind them. I do agree with you that we'd prefer sources that have some editorial process over self-published content but A7 clearly do have an editorial process and I have not seen this site host opinion pieces from fringe groups and masquerading them as news. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you name one major web site that does take responsibility for the content of external links? "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites." [24] "ABC News is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites." [25] "NYTimes.com contains links to other related World Wide Web Internet sites, resources, and sponsors of NYTimes.com. Since NYTimes.com is not responsible for the availability of these outside resources, or their contents, you should direct any concerns regarding any external link to the site administrator or Webmaster of such site." [26] Disclaiming responsibility for the content of external sites is standard procedure because the external site can change its content at any time without the knowledge of the linking site. Also, I don't see anything on this page inviting readers to submit articles to Arutz Sheva. Rather, that page states the policies under which the site allows its readers to repost excerpts from Arutz Sheva material on their own sites. I understand that Arutz Sheva may have problems with bias, but that is a reason to carefully scrutinize the use of Arutz Sheva as a source rather than to eliminate it entirely. After all, many other reliable sources have been accused of bias as well. Let's not misrepresent the site's policies when we judge its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility? Well okay, I'll admit you've got me on that being part of my rationale, but there are two ways to look at it. In the literal sense and why every site has a disclaimer is that no one takes responsibility for outside link. What I had in mind was more "we didn't see where it came from" as more of a hole into reliability. My version may or may not fit here, but I admit my choice of words was pretty bad. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> ok, firstly, my question about Arutz Sheva being WP:RS stems from seeing this edit to Yavne. And to call Arutz Sheva "a news source just like any other" ...well, then we alo have to call, say, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ "a news source just like any other" then, don´t we? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I live in Israel and hence somewhat familiar with this newspaper, it have right wing declared agenda but when it comes to technical details, it's a reliable source like any other Israeli newspaper (it's weekly newspaper). It's right wing one and so, but we do cite politicaly bisaed sources. Infact it's funny to think that there are almost media sources that are unviased. BBC is clearly lfet wing media source however no one ever doubt its reports (even after they keep refusing to publish the conclusions of an internal revision committee that revised Israel's claims for biased reports against it), El Jazira was pointed as having Islamic agenda many times, Fox news is clearl Republican and anti Obama and so on. What I'm saying is that we have to have to distinguish between what is tasteless and what isn't. Form my experience they never just came up with details. Usually I read Haaretz, it have a declared left wing agenda and yet very reliable. But yet, political commentaries are by their nature biased, even when come directly from "The New York Times" or "Washington Post".--Gilisa (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And your conclusion ....is? As I said: if this newsource (associated with the Israeli settlers movement) is accepted as WP:RS, then, in all fairness, you have to accept http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ (associated with Hamas) also. From my outside-view-point: its both...or none. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. You've shared nothing about that newspaper but its website. Nor is it at issue. As I expect you know, WP:Otherstuffexists is the short answer for why we don't have to look at that website in any event in determining whether this paper is RS, saving us from asking you to detail in what ways that website is simiilar or dissimilar.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely totally incorrect. I found http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ on the web-site of The largest Palestinian solidarity organizations in Norway..it links to the web-site, while stating that the web-site is "Hamas-friendly"...now, AFAIK, there are (at least!) as many supporters of Hamas as there are supporters of Israeli settlers. Why should one "voice" be accepted as R.S. while the other not?? (My own POV: we can do without either. But to just accept one -and not the other- is to accept bias, IMO.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ provide adequate sources and it's not its commentary then we can theorticaly use it as a source. However, unlike this website, Arutz 7 is not one topic source, it's not only reporting on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the comparsion you made is clearly not a proportional one. Arutz 7 focus is actually against the Israeli left wing, and as I worte-that's ok because almost all media sources have certain color. What we should do, and it dpn't seem too much to ask, is to know to differentiate right from wrong. The Guardian have stong anti Israeli agenda, its reports were accused not once to verged with Anti Semiti when it comes to Israeli subjects, and yet no one (including me) suggested to disqualified it as a source. Not long time ago the "Daily Telegraph" reported that the Iranian president is Jewish (it was a blatant canard) -and even it's basically a tabloid, no one suggested to color it as unreliable. So, in principle, I don't believe that source could be disqualified a-priori based only on its generall agenda (unless it's all propaganda non factual source as the Der Stürmer/Pravda).--Gilisa (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As far as the provided diff, the editor used a wiki WTA ("terrorists"), but the information itself - i.e. that Yavne was the most northern city hit by a terrorist attack, is certainly reliable.
p.s. I agree that the comparison is invalid. The pro-Palestinian source even uses the ridiculous derogatory IOF terminology instead of IDF. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If Arutz Sheva (including its arm "Israel National News") is a reliable source then every organization that calls itself a news source should be regarded as a reliable source, because this is about as two-bit and unreliable as it gets. Most of its articles are reruns of what appeared elsewhere with its own extremist spin added. Plenty of times I've seen things there that are simply wrong according to respectable news outlets. If information is true and significant, it will appear somewhere reputable. If information doesn't appear anywhere else, it is highly suspect. So we don't need it. There are posters here who always argue that Jewish sources are reliable and always argue that Arab sources are unreliable; we can do better than that. Zero^talk 11:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Zero, that's a large generalization you made. No doubt that Arutz 7 have its own agenda, but to be honest, Haaretz also have it (many of its senior writers on political affairs, such as Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, are proclaimed extreme left wing, even pro Palestinians), Fox News have it, El Jazira have it, BBC have it. After all, it's a professional right wing news source -some of its reports are biased on the political aspect, but it never came with made up information. As I said before, many times media sources that are evaluated as reliable for granted turned to be badly mistaken and vice versa. It should be evaluated per report using our discretion. --Gilisa (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, applying discretion to individual reports is original research. We are supposed to report what the source said, provided it is a "reliable" source. You are quite right that even big organizations like the BBC have biases and make mistakes, but what is the use of the rules if we just allow any organization at all to be accepted? The right place to draw the line is not objectively clear, but in my opinion Arutz Sheva is well below it. A7 is the mouthpiece of a sector of the settler movement in Israel and what they claim should only be admissible as a claim made by that movement. Zero^talk 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil it, but A7 also had many times comprehensive interviews with high rank American and European officials, with high ranking commanders in the IDF and etc. You can't exclude it as a source, just ignoring the commenatry would be much appropriate. They don't have reputation of introducing false information, so they are very well above the standards-the same way FOX news is (which is actually the best comparison you have as they both have right wing agenda with some similarities).--Gilisa (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment This whole discussion is absurd and an attempt to discredit. Israel National News/ Arutz 7 is an accredited member of the Israeli media with high standards of journalism that certainly do not fall below that of the mass-market tabloids Yediot and Maariv (that are credible?). It's not a question of us calling something a news source as Zero0000 cries, but a lot to do with reporters having approved journalist status and free access to politicians on all sides of the spectrum, access to official government press conferences, and also presenting differing views in its opinion pages. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS - todays Front Page has a poll "What's the best solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict? 1. Two states for two peoples 2. Transfer of Palestinians to another Arab country 3. Maintain status quo 4. Give Palestinians Jordanian citizenship". At least one of those choices (perhaps 3 of them) would cause International outrage and another option (a state for all its people) has been excluded. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is kind of interesting to read that groups which have goals which qualify as war crimes/ethnic cleansing (AFAIK) is being portrayed as "a group like any other". More specifically; I will strongly object to the comparison with FOX; although I´m no fan of FOX, it must be said that they to *not* state that they are spokespeople for a group which is based on an activity which is internationally considered as illegal. Namely settling on occupied territory. In any case; if Arutz 7 is accepted as RS, for balance; it is obvious that Hamas-associated newssources also must be accepted, IMO. (Personally; I could do without both). Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)  

I've spent some time looking through it, and I believe its RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AllExperts.com Encyclopedia

I searched through the list of posts to the noticeboard but not find more than a passing mention of this source. Other articles appear to use this source without issue. This site claims to have articles written by experts. I was wondering if the article for Heather Harmon can be analyzed in particular. The link for AllExperts can be found here.

While AllExperts' entry is similar to the old version of the Heather Harmon article, it does have information that seems to have been obtained through independent research. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's a well-known wikipedia mirror, and therefore completely unacceptable as a reference. Just check out virtually any article of significant size, like Bruce Springsteen. Some of the scrapes aren't current, so there is some variation from current wikitext, but the sourcing is obvious. In this case, it's sure to have been sourced from the deleted Wikipedia article on the website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an article on AllExperts about Springsteen. All I found was this list of questions and answers. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[27] Not exactly hard to find. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now that it's directly from a different article that is no longer on Wikipedia. I withdraw my request. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AllExperts claims it is written by "experts", but I don't see signatures of these experts, however I see lots of mirrors of old and new wikipedia articles. I think it pages from this website are inadmissible sources for wikipedia, unless they are signed by real recognized experts in the corresponding fields. - Altenmann >t 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Look again. The experts list their qualifications. The questions are answered by experts, not anonymous experts. You can identify who wrote what. In contrast, some people in Wikipedia are violently opposed to experts and want to revert the edits of experts! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about self-serving sources, minority view sources, and third parties

I would appreciate some feedback on the following. Is there agreement that these statements are within the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines?

• One of the restrictions on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that the material cited should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place.

• Another restriction on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that they should not involve claims about third parties. If in an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A.

• In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his scientific beliefs, apart from issues such as libel there is no condition that must be satisfied before the content of the beliefs can be fully set forth. It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs on the grounds that they are a minority view or that they have not been published in a respected journal or that they are not regarded as legitimate by experts in the field or that the person lacks requisite expertise in that area. In many cases the only reason that the person is having an article written about him in the first place is that his views have aroused a great deal of opposition. To say that in such an article his beliefs may not be clearly set forth until the opposition is removed or until it is demonstrated that he is not a “crank” would defy logic. After the beliefs are set forth there should be an evaluation as to whether they are regarded as generally accepted.

Thanks --Swood100 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these hypothetical questions or are you thinking about a particular article when you raise them? --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, this concerns the Michael Behe article. I am new to Wikipedia. I happened on the Behe article and I was amazed at how one-sided it was. I proposed that Behe's statements should be presented in rebuttal of the accusations made against him and also as an accurate statement of his beliefs. I was shot down for the reasons that are mentioned in these statements. I thought that a point of view outside the context of the article would be helpful. --Swood100 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Behe article, so far as I can see, it is stated what his beliefs are. However, to lend any credence to them, when they are so widely rejected, would be to give undue weight to them. If you see specific problems, I'd encourage you to discuss them at Talk:Michael Behe, but what I see there are fringe sources being used exactly as they should be—to verify what the belief is, while using third party sources to determine acceptance or rejection of such beliefs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm sorry that I mentioned that this comes from the Behe article. The questions I ask are general ones, with applicability to any article. Are my statements accurate statements of Wikipedia policy? --Swood100 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure someone will address your question, but I would like to warn you about a common mistake of newcomers (since you are saying you are one). While it is OK to say that "Jonh Wunderman invented inflatable shoes", it is not OK in wikipedia to write any logical constructions based on claims of Wunderman, such as "Jane Critic's claim that inflatable shoes do not exist is incorrect, since Wunderman invented them", unless you can find a reference to a third source which makes basically the same conclusion. Unreferenced conclusions of this type, however trivial they may seem, are called "synthesis" and disallowed in wikipeidia, see "no original research" policy. - Altenmann >t 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• You write: "It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs" - this is a slippery slope, colleague. Some cranks have written VOLUMES with their beliefs. Surely we cannot put them into wikipedia in full, for whatever propose. There must be a clear reason to go beyond summary. I must understand one reason you want to expand a perticular piece of a belief: you think that a critic misinterpreted it while rebutting. But what you can do with this? You can only find another publication which convincinly proves that this critic misinterpreted something. Here comes your second issue, "Scientist B is not considered a “third party” Again, it is a yes and no. Wikipedia is not a place to store endless chains of bickering back and forth: they may drag for years and involve hundreds of ping-pongs. If an issue is closed, there must be a summary of the final judgement, rather than detailed exchange. If the issue is still live (as of today), then this must be quickly terminated something like "Sci B says Sci A is a krank, whereas sci A denies this". - Altenmann >t 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• My final remark, please state clearly which exactly statements of wikipedia policies you are summarized/interpreted in your three paragraphs. Please keep in mind that whatever your understanding is, the final say is the actual policy. If you believe you have found a loophole, you have to discuss it in the corresponding policy page. If several policies are involved in the issue, you start a discussion on one talk page and post invitations to join discussion in talk pages of all other involved policies, to ensure broad involvement. For example, right now I am posting an invitation in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. - Altenmann >t 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that a person's own statements cannot be cited as a reliable source for the proposition that his theories have scientific validity. However, they can be cited as a reliable source as to what those theories are. This seems to be a no-brainer, but there appear to be those who would deny it. I believe that the relevant guideline is WP:SELFPUB, where it says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ."

When I said “It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement . . .” I excluded cases of libel, etc. and I would also exclude cases where the content of the beliefs is too voluminous. Also, the question is not the point at which we have to stop the back and forth exchanges. The question is whether Scientist A is precluded from any rebuttal at all.

I think that you make a good point that I should really take these questions to the talk pages dealing with these specific issues. I will do that. Thanks for the feedback. --Swood100 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that using Michael Behe and science in the same sentence is problematical as:

1. Behe's work has been publicly disavowed by his own university department.
2. There's a whole constellation of scientific organisations lining up to reject intelligent design, which his work attempts to buttress.
3. His claimed examples of irreducible complexity have been rebutted by experts in the fields he attempted to draw these examples from.
4. All sorts of holes (e.g. exaptation) have been blown in his central concept by experts in evolutionary biology.

To say that Behe is WP:FRINGE is an understatement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for using a statement from scientist B that scientist A's ideas are wrong, the term "third party" is useless. In fact, it is always useless and if it were in my power I would expunge it from the guideline. What the defective guideline is trying to say is that if and only if scientist B's statement was published in a reputable publication, and scientist is not part of some extremist or fringe movement, then the statement may be used. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I already know Hrafn's views on this subject, which are that in an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his scientific beliefs the content of those beliefs in the person's own words cannot be defined and set forth unless it is clear that the person is not a "crank." I can't believe that this is a view that is held generally, but that's what I am trying to find out.--Swood100 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article should describe both Behe's views and the general "lack of acceptance" (to put it politely) of these ideas in the relevant academic field of evolutionary biology. Wikipedia cannot give undue weight to these views, which means they don't even merit a mention in the article on evolution, can be summarised briefly in the article on intelligent design, and described in some detail in the article on Michael Behe. However, at no point should these views be presented as if they had any acceptance among experts, or equal validity with real science that has appeared in the scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An article is not capable of giving undue weight to its own topic. That is, an article on evolution may dismiss creationism very quickly but an article on creationism, while mentioning notable lack of acceptance by others, can't minimimze its coverage of the topic based on being fringe in some other catagory or class. So they claim to be scientific but scientists largely reject them, that still does not make the creationist a "fringe" within the field of creationism. There are articles on both sides of the abortion debate and there are plenty of people who believe in Creation. Merit, as defined by whatever "relevant" group, is not a question for wikipedia but it may be helpful to probe for sake of making a complete article. Note also that there can be a concern about field-shopping or picking a group from which to determine prominence. In this case, since they claim to be scientific, various "scientific" communities maybe relevant for consideration but the existence of these "cliques" ( I'm making a point with word choice ) doesn't make creationism a fringe belief within itself. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability of external link to http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/ at Mass killings under Communist regimes

Hi,

At Mass killings under Communist regimes some editors wish to include The Global Museum on Communism as an external link, and debate through discussion of the policy at WP:ELNO has focused on the issue of verifiability of the source.

Is The Global Museum on Communism a Museum of the expected quality of Museums?

Does The Global Museum on Communism meet the verifiability standards expected of Museums?

Ease links:

Mission statement

Body holding curatorial responsibility

Museum contact information

yours with thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the site is an internet-based "virtual museum", and makes no claim to be a museum in the traditional bricks-and-mortar sense. I believe that the correct standard would be that of a website, rather than of a museum. The website is a product of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The most recent discussion on the talk page about this website can be found [here]. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not reliable Since the site is new, there have been no external reviews of its reliability. Also the articles appearing on the site do not seem to have been reviewed or supported by references. The fact that the chairman, Lee Edwards is the in-house historian of the Heritage Foundation makes it unlikely it has a neutral point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be simply based on a IDON'TLIKEIT by Four Deuces. As long as Edwards is a historian, he is considered reliable though probably in the interest of caution the source should be attributed.radek (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

May involved editors of Mass killings under Communist regimes of all kinds please allow uninvolved editors from WP:RS/N to do their job without spilling Talk: or AfD discussions over to here. Myself, and AmateurEditor, have outlined sufficient information for WP:RS/N editors to make use of, and myself and AmateurEditor disagree on the point, so the two positions in conflict have already neutrally established the debate in the hope of uninvolved editors discussing the point. This is not a voting contest. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note, the Global Museum on Communism is mentioned in context of regular bricks-and-mortar museums in this book. --Martintg (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please just note that the foundation was established by a special act of Congress. "Established by Authorization of Congressional Resolution H.R. 3000 & Presidential Approval, Public Law 103-199" Smallbones (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the act. The Congress encouraged the Council of Captive nations to form a foundation. The Act permitted the Council of Captive nations or such a foundation to collect money for to establish a monument, and permitted use of land for the monument. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS. It uses idiosyncratic definitions to support its cold war propaganda POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not a reliable source, and don't know what you mean by idiosyncratic definitions, but since this is about an "External links" website, the issue has been whether it meats the criteria at WP:ELNO or WP:ELMAYBE. WP:ELMAYBE specifies consideration for "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Here are examples of the knowledgeable sources contributing to the website: [28][29][30][31][32] AmateurEditor (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see now that there is a Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. We should probably take this dispute over there instead. AmateurEditor (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the directors who have WP articles: Lee Edwards (chairman), Paula Dobriansky, Jay K. Katzen, Grover Norquist, Donald L. Ritter, and Aldona Wos. Notice that all these people are part of the American radical right. The chairman was the first person to establish an American branch of the World Anti-Communist League, which itself was extremely controversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS - I visited the "News page of that web-site and would applaud what they're trying to do. But I'd go to their source for every fact they claim and not treat them as a reliable source. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism: not just a religion

For over six months, the Judaism article has said:

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos)[2] is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

This was true

• a month ago[33]
• two months ago[34]
• three months ago[35]
• four [36]
• five months ago [37]
• more than six months ago[38].

This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided

On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her postion

On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:

• "The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam."

I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.

I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:

• Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam in that it refers both to a nationality and a religion. To understand Judaism one must understand why these two elements are inextricable. But in this regard Judaism is quite unlike Christianity or Islam
• I have now provided three sources. One is from a historian who says that Judaism during the Hellenic period referred to many things besides religion. Another is from a theologian who says that the observant Jew ("Halackic man," one who observes Jewish law) shoud not be characterized as the "religious man." The third is from a theologian who argues that Judaism is not a religion but a "civilization."

Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR[39]. Uer:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources.[40]

• I have since provided two more sources from the web

There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now "Judaism is a religion"? That reminds me of "Northern Ireland is a country", a structurally very similar problem that's hopefully about to be solved soon:

• Some editors insist on applying a label in the first sentence.
• Editors who are closer to the topic reject the label as basically correct, but not sufficiently nuanced.
• Non-argument: "But all articles about X must be consistent!"
• Sourcing problems: It's much easier to find sources for the blunt application of label X (e.g. lists of Xs which include the topic among many others that fit better) than sources that explain what is special about this particular topic.
• Accusations of bad faith from both sides.

I imagine that this kind of situation must have occurred before in other articles. Any pointers? Hans Adler 12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of using Judaic sources themselves (rabbis, judaic theologians etc.) as RS in this case. I would see what is the academic consensus between uninvolved academics on the subject. Also, the fact that a religion traditions and cultural aspects encompass more than the religion itself has been argued for nearly every major religion, and it doesn't sound to me as a compelling argument to not call it what it is. It's a bit of a WP:SPADE argument, in my opinion.

Also, one of the sources provided actually endorses calling Judaism a religion. The Cohen source says: "...in this first ocurence of the term, Ioudaismos has not yet be reduced to designation of a religion, that seems to support that now it is, indeed, the designation of a religion. --Cyclopia^talk 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is how I present the Cohen position: that there was a time when Judaism was not considered a religion. The point remains that in its history it has been other things. If the article defines Judaism as a religion, then it has to exclude a huge chunk of Jewish history. In fact, the article itself claims a continuous tradition since Moses. If the article is going to include the period of time when, according to Coehn, Judaism was not a religion, doesn't the lead need language that is inclusive of both eras? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is supposed to be mostly correct in most significant contexts. And Judaism throughout history seems to be very significant as a context. See also WP:RECENTISM. Hans Adler 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good concern, but I am not fully sure. I think the lead should give a concise wording referring to the most common usage of the subject now, and then historical details can be debated at length into the article. A compromise could be stating that "Judaism is a religion..." and later "Historically, the term also encompassed pre-religious traditions...", for example. --Cyclopia^talk 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You open up a can of worms on this, as with many other definitions, when you start to add, qualify, and trouble the simplest definition, which you can get in any dictionary.

'The profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews' Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd.ed. vol.8, p.291 sub.1

The problem with the original definition arises with the inclusion of Talmudic/Rabbinical qualifications. The Karaites, in the academic literature, for example, are interpreted as professors of Judaism, but they excluded the Rabbinical tradition. There are all sorts of sectarian exceptions historically that complicate things if one tries to enforce an inclusive definition. For that reason, something like 'the profession or practice of the Jewish religion' should suffice, with the main text then clarifying the varieties and complexities.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The OED is not a reliable source for anything more than common usage of a word. And with modern secular or atheist Jews practicing Judaism, the claim is far from clear cut. Collect (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, and the OED is authoritative for the way words are used in English (b)it does not deal with 'common usage', it deals with all historical usage of a term, its conceptual ramifications, the genealogy of usage, as established by the best scholarship. (c) the problem set us is to avoid creating problems. The long-standing definition is misleading because it makes the definition of Judaism dependent on rabbinical judaism. Historical usage speaks of pre-exilic Judaism, Hellenic Judaism, Palestinian Judaism, etc.etc.etc. If you want sources, and a very clear statement of what is understood by 'Judaism' look at Jacob Neusner's Judaism when Christianity began: a survey of belief and practice, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. The intro. shows the dangers of using that kind of misleading generalization. I.e. ‘We understand little or world history and culture if we assume a uniform Christianity or Islam or Judaism – and we miss the causes of much conflict within Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, respectively. If we study religion in the this-worldy frameworks of actual societies/,we are not well served to focus on generalizations of doctrine that characterize a given religion, viewed whole and autonomous.’pp.4-5. On page 1 he begins by asking 'what is Judaism?' and replies, as does the OED, with the simplest definition: Judaism is a religion. The OED definition slightly enlarges, and in doing so, allows for atheists implicitly, by referring to practices. My mentor embraced Judaism in his 70s, which for him, as an atheist, meant a set of practices, honouring which allowed him to identify himself within the traditions of his forefathers. He would have nothing to do with the world of rabbinical Judaism, which was as alien to him as Christianity. There are atheistic Christians, even a Christian theology of atheism, etc. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to "specialist usage" of course. Dictionaries are tertiary sources per WP for anything more than spelling and pronunciation. "Judaism", per scholarly works, clearly encompasses social, ethical, legal and religious practices and traditions. Quite a complex field, and just saying it is a "religion" is entirely too simplistic - but dictionaries generally supply simplistic definitions of complex topics. In any field of science, the dictionary is rarely accurate. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that the article on religious tradition which I personally think is most likely to be said to be parallel to Judaism, Hinduism, refers to it in the lead only in the religious context as well. Of course, over time any religion will accumulate aspects which do not appear to others to be inherently religious. I also agree with Nishidani here that the old form of the lede placed excess emphasis on one particular period of Judaism, the rabbinic one. The evidence that Judaism was always centered around rabbis is, at least to the best of my limited knowledge, weak. And, of course, the fact that atheists choose to take on practices which could be described as religious is more or less irrelevant. They could very easily take on such practices for purely cultural reasons, to identify themselves more closely with a particular social group. The fact that virtually every social tradition of more than a hundred years age in the west can be called "religious", and the fact that atheism itself, as a comparatively new way of thinking has no particular "traditions", makes it true that in many/most of these cases these individuals would be taking on "religious" practicies, although that may not be even remotely one of the reasons why the individual is adopting such practices. Basically, as said above, the OED calls it a religion, and similar social/philosophical groups are called in wikipedia "religions", so I think it would probably require sourcing of extraordinary quality to make a different statement in the Judaism article. I don't see sourcing of that type yet produced. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with using the term "Nationality"... Yes, there are sources that use the term, but most of the sources that talk about the "Jewish Nation" are from the 1800s... In other words, it is an archaic usage. That said, I do know that there are those who, today, talk about Judeism in terms of "ethnicity"... if this can be properly sourced, perhaps this would be a better term? Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking the page, I see that Slrubenstein has not read thoroughly at least one of the sources he cites, namely the work of Shaye Cohen, who certainly does not, in so far as I am familiar with his books, identify the historical world of Judaism in terms of ethnicity. The whole fallacy in the long argumentation there is to read 'Judaism' in terms of the rabbinical reading of Judaism, and Cohen in his work on the Maccabees identifies this as a serious bias which is not acceptable to historians, who have in their approach to Judaism, to take into account several centuries, from the post-exilic period down to the period following 70 CE., where rabbis did not define the complex varieties of Judaism that flourished in the Second Temple Period. No blame meant, for SlRibenstein, since this is an extremely common error.

To be brief:

‘The practices, ideas, and institutions that were elaborated during the second temple period (i.e. pre-Talmudic/pre-rabbinical period Judaism, Nishidani)formed and still form the basis of the religion known as “Judaism”.’ Shaye J.D.Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster John Knox Press, 1987 p.21.

Yes, but he is not saying all Second Temple institutions. In fact, isn't he arguing that most Second Temple institutions, practices and ideas play no role in what we today call Judaism? Also, can you tell me which of these institutions, practices, and ideas were not codified in the Mishnah and elaborated in the Gemorah? I just want to be clear i understand what you are claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, historically the 2nd Temple period, according not only to Cohen, marked a tendency to change the blood principle of 'nationality' of the old tribal Israelite religion into a principle of 'religion', and introduced the principle of conversion to this end.

You cannot logically or historically define 'Judaism' as a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), as later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts, without implying that pre-Talmudic Jewish religion was not, 'stricto sensu, Judaism.

I am not sure what you mean to say here. Are you saying that the Judaism article should not include discussion of the pre-Talmudic period? Or are you saying that Judaism should not be defined as Talmudic? I have not argued either point, but I am curious if you wish to argue either of these. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, to reintroduce the rabbinical definition of ethnos makes the historical exceptions in the history of Judaism, where conversion was actively pursued, problematical.

What do you mean by "the rabbinical definition of ethnos?" I never used the phrase, so I am not sure what you mean by it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The other problem in the thread is the argument about 'practices and beliefs' as if this were peculiar to Judaism. All religions, in the classics of the sociology, are defined as systems combining belief and practices. Therefore, in defining Judaism as a religion, it is obvious, at least to those who remember Durkheim, that we are referring both to beliefs and practices.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani is correct about Cohen's argument - but i did not think I misrepresented him. I used him specifically to point out that there was a period (emphasis on was) when Judaism meant other things than religion. However, Cohen is not aguing that Judaism ceased to be a nation, nor is he saying that there was a change in some primordial blood-line basis for Judaism. His larger argument is that during the maccabean period Jewish identity was tied to territory so people who lived within the kingdom of Judea became Jews (like someone living in the US can become "naturalized" by learning the language and American history and customs). Blood becomes more important after the end of the kingdom, because Jews no longer have sovereignty over their territory and after 135 there are very few Jews left in Judea. But Nishidani is right that during this time becoming a Jew becomes a matter of religious practice rather than political affiliation. But it is wrong to sugest that Cohen believes Judaism to be a religion, period. That misses his point. His point is that during the second Temple period "Jewishness" meant different things in different contexts, it was a religion, it was a people (ethnos or ethnic group, in Barth's sense), a nation (in Gellner's sense). His larger argument, following Barth's approach to ethnicity and Gellner's approach to nation, is that the Greek word Ioudaismos refers to a social construction - it thus means whatever people want it to mean, as long as enough people agree, but for precisely this reason people can disagree over its meaning. He also points out that this is true today. he writes (page 8) that Jewishness today does mean "religion" to some - but means "peoplehood" to others and "nationhood" to others. Cohen is adamant that he is not arguing which of these views is the truth. His whole point is the uncertainty and indeterminacy. His larger argument is against essentialism and reductionism. And this is precisely why I cite him. My argument has never been that judaism is "not"" a religion, my argument has ben that Judaism means different things to different groups of Jews, and that the leading scholars today -like Cohen - recognize that this is true today and point out that this was true in the past as well. That is why we need some other wording that "religion," or a east we cannot use just the word "religion."

By the way, this may well be true for other nations/peoples/religions. Cohen certainly believes this is so for other groups. I leave it up to people editing the article on Hinduism or Christianity to see what the significant views from verifiable sources are for Hinduism or Christianity (or whomever else) and edit the article accordingly. I think it is obvious that the solution to these matters is the sam for all articles: to follow the significant views in reliable sources. Since i am just looking at the Judaism article, I am just reading books like Cohen's which is based on his research on Judaism.

I do not understand Nishidani's point about Durkheim, and suspect there is some miscommunication or misunderstanding. Nishidani, do I understand you correctly to be saying "SR is claiming that the jewish religion is different from other religions bcause it is based on beliefs and practices ... but SR is mistaken because all religions are based on beliefs and practices?" I agree with you that all religions are based on beliefs and practices and I cannot imagine why you think I do not believe this - can you show me the sentence or sentences whee I suggested otherwise? But if I intepret Nishidani correctly, I di not agree that "SR is claiming that the jewish religion is different from other religions bcause it is based on beliefs and practices." All I am claiming, like Cohen, is that Judaism means different things, including religion, ethnicity, and nationhood. Of course we could just say this in the introduction, but I was looking for a concise phrase that signifies all three of these things and whatever else other significant views have said (e.g. legal system, civilization). "Beliefs and practices" seems to do the job. "Beliefs and practices" can apply to religion, but it can also apply to nationhood, ethnicity, civilization and legal system. Can't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is regarding the Judaism article (and therefore more about the beliefs of the Jewish people and not Jews themselves) it serves to remember- you can be Jewish (a Jew) and not practice the Jewish religion, whether another religion or atheism. That is not true of any other religious group (if you convert from Catholicism to Judaism you are not a Catholic anymore, other way around you are still a Jew but also a Catholic). The problem is that Judaism is the only religion (still around) that takes its name as that of an ethnic group. You cant separate what is Jews do because it is the culture of the Jewish nation and ethnic group from what Jews do because it is their religion; the Jewish religion dates from a period where each nation/ethnic group had its own religion and religion was integrally tied to a national identity, there were no "transnational religions". It has long been proven genetically that Jews are separate ethnically and racially from "white Indo-Europeans" (as an aside- "Palestinians" and Jews are indistinguishable genetically whereas the English and Irish can be distinguished easily genetically).Camelbinky (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Camelbinky: Only on the genetical aspect, it became evident that unlike many people thought-Ashkenazi Jews, which by far constitute the largest Jewish group, are Middle Eastrens by the lion share of their genetical profile (with only very low genetic contribution from (probably) Eastren Europe non Jewish populations). However, they, as well as Sephardic Jews and most Mizrahi Jewish sub groups, are well distinguished from the Palestinian culster on many aspects: They don't share the same maternal heritage, not all Palestinian groups even share the same paternal heritage with Jews and it seem that the Palestinian genetic cluster was also markedly affected from other, diversed genetical lines.--Gilisa (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if there are problems in the DNA analysis since the historical record increasingly favors the Khazar theory, that the Ashkenazis are nearly all converts. Don't know what it will take for articles to be written to the academioc consensus, however. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] xxx-business-review.com as source

Balaji.ralla (talk · contribs) has been diligently adding news content to business articles, citing websites managed by Progressive Media Group, e.g.

• medicaldevices-business-review.com cited in China Medical Technologies (diff) and Medical device (diff).
• pharmaceutical-business-review.com in University of Cambridge (diff), GlaxoSmithKline (diff), Cook Group (diff) and Morton Salt (diff)
• banking-business-review.com in Retail banking (diff), Barclays (diff), Fifth Third Bank (diff), Stanford Financial Group (diff) and Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group (diff).
• drinks-business-review.com in Diageo (diff) and Foster's Group (diff).

I'm concerned that these xxx-business-review.com sites simply reprint press releases, so they are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

For example, in the citation added to GlaxoSmithKline (diff) the pharmaceutical-business-review.com story (here) is a cut-down version of the GSK press release (here), and is the same as tens of other websites - see FDA Approves GSK's H1N1 Vaccine).

Likewise, in the citation added to Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group (diff) the Banking Business Review story (here) is a cut-down version of the JLT press release (here).

Fixing all these examples means either removing a load of content or leaving it unreferenced (or supported only by a company press release). What should I/we do? - Pointillist (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to notify the contributor and explain him that he has to look for original sources. Balaji.ralla doesn't look like spammer. Moreover, these sources were used even before he became active, and most probably he just went with the flow - Altenmann >t 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I notified the contributor at the same time I posted my note here, and invited xem to join this discussion, of course. But (given the relatively large number of instances) what is the next step: delete the content or leave the content but delete the citation? - Pointillist (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a warning on the Portal:Pharmacy and Pharmacology/Web resources page to say that the Company resources aren't necessarily reliable. - Pointillist (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• XXX-Newswire: You see these a lot, prnewswire, businessnewsire etc, and yes you want to go right to the company website if possible as these groups only dissemsinate information from companies. For public companies trying to release material information in the US, there should also be a related SEC filing that may be a better source than the company website ( these are archived with more or less stable links right now, company website may be dynamic and filled with hype too ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. It is a waste of effort if editors are carefully trying to find and cite references when the sources are already known to be unacceptable to the community. Ideally, editors would have a way of checking whether sources are acceptable. Do you know whether anyone has proposed a way to do this? - Pointillist (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure these are unacceptable, that is AFAIK they faithfully replicate press releases, but there are better links and places to find the same information. A press release that is linked from the SEC is still a press release and contains the same text as the newswire sources. However, it tends to be more useful and doesn't promote a ( perhaps useful) commercial relay service. This is not a big distinction, I don't think anyone is suggesting that newswire coverage is indepdent but if that is the case I should reiterate that usually they just copy whatever they get from companies and don't edit or pass judgment. So, if these is confusion, a press relase has not gained independence from a company by "coming from" an xxx-newswire service. To answer your quesiton, I'm not sure if wiki has a DB of domains or not. May be helpful I suppose but a single domain is not monolithic- nytimes accepts blogs or user feedback that don't have the full faith and credit of a journalist etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have explained that these sites do rewrite the press releases slightly and they don't link back to the original releases, so they clearly can't be regarded as trusted archives. I have three concerns:

• It takes effort to find the original press releases and converting the articles to use them, e.g. re-casting statements so they read "the company announced", changing the reference to point to the company's PR archive and wrapping it in {{cite web}} etc. Companies don't have a duty to maintain online archives of press releases anyway.
• Company press releases are primary sources. When you link back to company press releases you can end up with a company article that is supported only by primary sources (e.g. JLT). They don't necessarily tell a balanced story (why should they?). GSK announced FDA support for its H1N1 virus on 10th November. The FDA announced support today 16th. The company's release included a load of details that the FDA didn't mention, and (naturally) excluded the fact that four competitors' H1N1 vaccines had been FDA approved two months earlier.
• This sort of material can be a big deal commercially, e.g. GSK eyes £2bn flu vaccine sales Financial Times Oct 6th 2009 and Tamiflu boosts Roche sales figures (sales of $1.9bn in the first nine months were more than four times ahead of the same period last year) Financial Times Oct 15th 2009.

Editors should be told about problem areas like this, and ideally there should be a wiki-base of sources where contributors can look for comments about specific sites before using them as references. - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK : Well, minor grammatical changes etc wouldn't normally matter. And, sure a press release is still limited by its nature as to what it can substantiate, again the newswires don't consistitute indpendent notice (" as featured on prnewswire, this drug is super duper"). Actually, I love making fun of biotech press releases. More mature companies can be just as much fun but usually the real fun of biotech is in the science. I remember one in partcular about an asthma drug test that was all "positive" except for one sentence near end of non-boilerplate about "there was no change in pulmonary function" suggesting that drug had no chance of working( and indeed they abandonned to work even with all the positive adjectives ). Normally editors know about these things, but it is OR or COI that causes problems to arise but it would be nice to have a DB maybe for argumentation and quick/complete refutaion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Love that example, thanks! This isn't the right place to discuss it, but of course a sources database would have other major advantages for less experienced editors. E.g. if built as a portal (with iframes for browsing references), it would be a great starting place for finding references and could do most of the work of packaging them into the appropriate citation templates. There are a lot of possibilities... - Pointillist (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

News releases are primary, self-published sources, no more reliable than blogs. Show me a press release which meets the criteria for reliability and I will be glad to accept it as the exception that proves the rule.--otherlleft 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They are often authored by notable institutions and are reliable sources about the speaker. A notable blog or blog by a noted blogger may be citable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened

At Anwar al-Awlaki, to reflect the fact that a book was just published with the following information before the Fort Hood shooting, I inserted the following:

In their 2009 book that preceded the Fort Hood shooting, Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry reported that a senior Homeland Security official had warned that Awlaki "is actively targeting 'U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.'"^[1]

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina wrote the forward for the book.

The book has also spurred a request by four members of the House of Representatives for an investigation.

An editor is asserting that WND Books is not an RS. I posted the book at the RS policy talk page, and got positive feedback for including it. I'm now bringing it here as well.

The editor claims the language is defamatory. But there is nothing "negative" in that sentence that is not already stated in the article, supported by citations to other RSs:

• “the US Treasury Department identified Zindani as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist"
• "he is on the UN 1267 Committee's list of individuals associated with the Taliban or al-Qaeda”,:
• "a former FBI agent identifies Awlaki as a known "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator"
• "his sermons were extremely anti-Israel and pro-jihad"
• “The FBI learned he may have been contacted by a possible "procurement agent" for Osama bin Laden"
• “He is often noted for targeting young US-based Muslims with his lectures"
• “Evan Kohlmann calls Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination." He calls Awlaki's lecture "Constants on the Path of Jihad", which was based on a similar document written by the founder of Al Qaeda, the "virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists."
• "Awlaki's "44 Ways to Support Jihad" is described by the NEFA Foundation as a pro-Al-Qaeda document that incites English-speaking Muslims."[btw--I didn't put that in, and don't know if that is an RS]
• "Author Jarret Brachman said that Nidal Malik Hasan's contacts with Awlaki should have raised "huge red flags". According to Brachman, Awlaki is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.”

There is obviously no BLP violation if the info is true (as reflected in sourcing to RSs...which we have). The best defense against libel is the truth of the matter asserted. The reason it is relevant to state it is that he made the statement before the Fort Hood incident (the other parallel statements were generally after).

I don't see anything on this noticeboard about this book publisher. There is inconclusive non-consensus fact-specific discussion on this noticeboard about the use of articles from the magazine that owns this book publisher. That includes the view by Hipocrite, who has also weighed in her, that the magazine is not an RS.

Would appreciate peoples' thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the book about CAIR from the guy who pretended to be a muslim? This book? Protonk (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• WND is neither particularly notable, nor does it have a good reputation as a publisher of reliable books. If you publish enough generic dooms-saying, some of this can eventually be post-fitted to particular events. This is a standard technique of fake clairvoyants. I see no good reason to include it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Footnotes are not practical on talk pages. Please edit your post above to provide the full citation in text. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Done (see above). Also, fyi, background on the publisher can be found here--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of WND as a source of opinions is certainly allowable. It is absolutely RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions. This is not a matter of fortune-telling. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization. Which is still allowable with attribution, though there are some caveats involved if it's a BLP. I would not call them an "extremist" source however, because they do not advocate for political extremism. They simply have strong viewpoints on a variety of issues.

However, I Googled that quote and was led back to two articles in the London Daily Telegraph, one a few days old,[41] and one from last December.[42]

They both cite a Charles Allen, an undersecretary at DHS during the Bush administration, as giving that statement that October. The WND book is on Google Books, and while I can't get the page cited, there is a snippet cite in the endnotes to a Charles E. Allen speaking at a conference called GEOINT. Another web search leads back to the DHS.gov webpage, where the speech is presented, quote and all.[43]

So, as this speech appears to be the ultimate source for that quote, I'd suggest using DHS.gov instead of the WND book. However, if the WND book provides any additional analysis, we can revisit the issue of citing it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

" Like WorldNetDaily, WND Books is "fiercely independent," telling the stories that other publishers won't." I would argue that any WND book needs to be shown to be a reliable source, not assumed to be one, given the reputation of WND. I certainly would not want to use the book in question as a source of facts (which is how it was being used) and I would like evidence that the authors are reliable sources to use it for analysis.

Well, for the "radical online lectures" quote above, we now have a reliable source in Dhs.gov for the speech, the speaker's name, and what context it was presented in, so we can use that instead of WND. But the wording should say that DHS was who warned about this person, and it probably shouldn't be so closely coupled to the material on Ft. Hood, unless the more recent Telegraph article is used to make that connection. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Squid -- Perfect. Well, quite obviously the book was in fact a reliable source in this instance. I've reworked the paragraph given your very helpful addition (thanks for being the unusual editor who seeks to improve matters rather than solely pontificate) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be more an advertisement for the book/the authors, than adding a noteworthy fact - most of them are coming out currently in WP:RS. So in this case whole sentence seems unnecessary, especially given questions about these editors. WND as a publisher may be OK in other circumstances. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason it is notable IMHO is because it was being flagged by the author before the events of Feb. 6. Everything coming out now is ex post facto.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's your WP:OR saying it's notable. Not a WP:RS saying - gee, these guys warned about this before it happened. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [citation needed] czar

This is the page in question ..... [44]

In the United States, the informal political term "czar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to certain executive branch officials. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar",[citation needed] but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title.

The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), during which twelve positions were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Subsequently, until the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009), the term was little used except in reference to the "drug czar."[citation needed]There's a real question of verifiability here.

The oldest citation that I can find on the subject.

"The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt" [FDR Czar] [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You don't have to say there "never have been" - just say it has been a nickname, then you don't have to prove the point. Check books.google if you want more refs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's original research. You can't do google searches, and then draw conclusions about historic uses of terms based on them. Use a proper etymology source that discusses the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening the question of source Career360 on the page on IIPM

Hi editors, A few weeks back I had raised the validity question on a source called Career360 that has been used blatantly throughout the article on IIPM by a single purpose account editor. The problem is that the source has given points of view that are neither widely held, and in many cases, go totally against the widely held information in top newspapers. Therefore, I wish to raise a question on the validity of the source of Career360 being used in IIPM. Please note, I have raised this question earlier and backed off on the argument series at that time as I did not find wide responses but only from one handful of people (although some past views were helpful). Here, I am reproducing a discussion on validity of the source. I take as an example just one paragraph in the whole article to show how blatantly the source of Career360 is being used by a single purpose account editor. Please go through and comment here. Thanks.

The ACADEMICS section Students who complete the IIPM certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium, which describes itself as an independent, privately held organization.[14][15]. According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible.[16]

The line conjectures that NVAO, an agency, says IMI is not recognised. However, the reference that is given (namely, reference number 16, of Career360) is one that has been put up by me earlier to be a source that can not be verifiable -- 1. Because, it has been set up this year by the owner of a big media group (Outlook) which has in the past has had huge past conflicts of interest with IIPM (IIPM accused Outlook of giving wrong lower rankings; Outlook, in turn, accused IIPM of fudging data and took it out of rankings). 2. More importantly, the source in their report claims they've received an email from NVAO. But neither is the email identifiable (the source has given XXXX wherever they mention names or their sources), and this source is not widely verifiable. That is, NVAO should have said this to various sources for this reference to be allowed out here. This is perchance the only (or max two or three) of the web sites that purport to claim an NVAO point of view. 3. The source mentions Flanders as Belgium. Flanders is only the French speaking part of Belgium; in other terms, the Norther part of Belgium with parts of the capital city. The English speaking and bi-lingual part of Belgium is deliberately excluded. And the Flander region in specific details refers to the community of Flemings only. Therefore clearly a wrong line. 4. The editor in question has written that NVAO purportedly says IMI's degrees are not credible. A clear conjecture even if you were to depend upon the line inside the unreferenced article, which simply says that IMI cannot offer recognised degrees.

I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section

According to IIPM, only 70 percent of its students opt for the placement process, and it claims that almost all of these 70 percent students get jobs through it.[14] However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman, which is IIPM's own sister organization[19]. As per the website, more than 600 companies have visited IIPM campuses across the country, and some students have gotten foreign offers too. However, several companies such as Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, which are mentioned in IIPM advertisements, told the magazine Careers360 that they have never participated in IIPM's campus recruitment process. [16]

The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements). Clearly, the soruce of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc). I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.

It has also been reported that IIPM now has seven international placement offices.[17][20][21] However, according to an investigation by Careers360, jobs that IIPM students get abroad in places like the gulf countries come with severe restrictions and moderate pay.[16]

My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that. Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that). b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that). c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are interested in commenting on this question may want to review the prior discussion on this source started by this user in August. Note that Wifione has also requested that no comments be made here by editors currently involved in the article (i.e., the people who disagreed in the last submission to this space that was decided against Wifione's position). I'm not going to directly comment on the source, but I do want to provide some context for others. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think requesting current editors to not comment would not be right out here. So I take back my request, which I think was a little over the line... I think it's perfectly ok for editors to comment. And at this juncture, after seeing some logical reasoning of WeisheitSuchen on my talk board, I think I should apologise for calling unnamed editors spas. But would look forward to everybody's comments. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I would also like editors commenting out here to note that while a few weeks back, I had raised the question of whether Career360 is a valid source, this time, I'm also necessarily showing how it is now being used as almost a singular source of reporting across the article for negative points of view. Therefore, my question is on how can a single source --- whose claims are not widely held (not a fringe theory, but almost) ---- be used so many times throughout the article, wherein there are other sources much more credible and for too many more years in publication which report other points of view? Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If other reliable sources have different point-of-views than the Career360 article(s), simply quote them both with attribution and let the reader decide what to believe. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Career 360 is a minority view held by only a handful of sources. Minority views should not be included in the articles on Wikipedia. It is not enough to include opposing views. It is required that minority views are deleted or relegated to a spacing that is worth minority views. For information, the Career 360 source is used 7 times out of the total 40 odd sources used within the article. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment, but I've taken some more time to familiarize myself with the history now. If it's a "handful of sources" then it's likely not a "fringe theory" as you have claimed. The POV of Careers 360 is basically that IIPM's advertising hasn't been entirely truthful. There's an entire article on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy which explains the accusations, the response, and the media coverage. It's notable enough for an article; at a minimum that makes it a significant minority, perhaps even the majority view. Abecedare is entirely correct: the way to achieve NPOV is to add alternative viewpoints. Achieve balance by adding, not subtracting. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(deindent)
The Career360 article is one of the most recent and most in-depth independent source we have on the subject (can anyone point to any other such source ?). As such it is not surprising that one of the best sources would be used multiple times in an article. Also the Career360 findings are certainly not a "minority view" but well in line with claims discussed in IIPM Advertising Controversy and finding by the University Grants Commission; therefore there are no WP:REDFLAG concerns. Finally, as Wifione notes, the Career360 article is cited only 6-7 times, out of a total of 60-70 citations, so there are no undue weight either.
Wifione, if you still have concerns about how the source is used in the article, I would suggest that you start an WP:RFC and invite outside opinion on the article talk page, since this noticeboard is not the right venue for such detailed analysis, once a source has been determined to be reliable. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks Abecedare. Let me go through the points. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Career 360 seems to be like a consultant/placement agency whoa re using this page for publicity purposes. I vote for all their links to be removed and if possible blacklisted. If it was Times education, it would have been different, but not this.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with Rsrikanth05 - it is editorial content, not advertising, and appears to be a magazine with journalistic standards.Martinlc (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Martinlc, you're right; this is a magazine meets the typical requirements for a reliable source. Here's a summary by Abecedare from the end of the previous discussion:

1. it has a reputable publisher, Maheshwar Peri, 2. reputable editor, B Ramesh Sarma, who also happens to have penned the article being cited, and 3. it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India. 4. Finally the claims made by the magazine article are similar in nature to the ones made by other media and governmental agencies (as summarized in IIPM article and in IIPM Advertising Controversy), so there are no WP:REDFLAG issues either. As long as we paraphrase the magazine claims accurately and neutrally, and attribute them to the source, I don't see any problem with reliability. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, your suggestion of removal and blacklisting seems quite drastic. Can you go into more detail of why you feel the page should be blacklisted in spite of the above points? I don't think simply saying it is used for publicity warrants that kind of response, especially when consensus has been that it's a reliable source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War

I wonder how to deal this book for the topic of the 1948 Palestinian exodus :

• Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War, Arabicus Books & Media, LLC, 2008.

My main concern is that Rosemarie Esber got a PhD for a thesis directly linkted to the topic in 2004 from the University of London [46] but that since then, she is introduced as an 'independant scholar'. More, Arabicus Books & Media seems to have published nothing but her book : [47] and that all that sounds a self-published work even if (reading the book), it is a work of quality... 87.67.11.48 (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem that she is an independent scholar per se. It is a bit disconcerting, however, to see that Arabicus Books have only published one book, but I notice that they have at least planned another [48]. There is no sign that it is a self-publishing press either. But even if we treat it as self-published, it seems to me that Esber meets the criteria of being an "established expert" in that she has a PhD in the field, published in scholarly journals in the topic,[49], an article by her appears on this bibliography produced by a scholarly journal [50], and the book has already received at least one scholarly review [51] .--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merci pour cet avis indépendant :-) 87.67.25.13 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

De rien :-)--Slp1 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] acclaimedmusic.net

I was looking at an article for a song and noticed this website used as a reference. I did a search and see that there's no article on the site itself, but it is used on quite a bit of album and song articles.

After looking around the site, it does not seem like it should be used as a wp:rs. It compiles lists of critic rankings, etc., but there's no fact-checking. One thing that I was particularly curious about is if it links directly to a verifiable source (ex. rollingstone.com). Nope. Take this page for example. It links a Q Magazine's list to an indirect source that reprints the list. There's a real question of verifiability here.

It's a good site, but it certainly doesn't look like it should be a wp:rs. Seems like there should be an effort to remove all references to this site.

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Court documents?

Are court documents and sworn written testimony acceptable as long as it is mentioned as such? For example, writing in WP "However, according to court transcripts, defendant Paulo Santos testified that he was not at the murder scene and produced a store receipt from a shop that was 2000 km away" This is not original research if no conclusions were made, just summarizing the source documents. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable but primary sources, and should be used with great care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you've prefaced the statement with the word "However" indicates that it is intended as a counter-argument. One shouldn't use primary sources to do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say in that case using it as a counter-argument would be ok, as it is stating that Paulo Santos is himself counter-arguing X and so using the word HOWEVER may in fact be the best use for that sentence.Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cannot construct counter-arguments. Please see WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It isnt "constructing a counter-argument" it is attributing the actual statement and opinions of the defendant as they appear. The defendant himself is counter-arguing information/evidence presented against him. We do not put forth information as "the truth" when there is more than one "side" to the story, in that case we use attribution of the opinions. If one "side" says X, and one side says Y; and we can not realistically know which side is correct, we say "V says X, and W says Y", that isnt wp:SYNTH that is how Wikipedia functions. See- every discussion on the OR/N that has ever happened.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't mine court transcripts to build a defense for an individual. We're not defense lawyers here, we're Wikipedia editors. We summarize what reliable secondary sources have to say on topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue might be brought to WP:BLPN since there is more latitude in allowing defenses of individuals against accusations, including through primary sources which can be used carefully. I think you could leave out the "However" and just say what he or his attorneys or witnesses say. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Court documents do not demonstrate the notability of whatever you are gleaning from the document. If whatever information is in the document had any relevence to the article at all, another, obviously reliable source would have noted the court document. While the source is reliable, it is primary, and should not sole-source any questionable fact. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the source can show what he alleged was his alibi; it can't be used to say "this is a good alibi and proves he wasn't there." That's the big difference. Though it seems some WP:RS covering the trial might have mentioned the fact of that alibi also. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read Hipocrite's and my previous responses. There's no indication that this statement is notable, and one cannot mine court transcripts to build a defense for an individual. If reliable secondary sources did not see any need or reason for quoting the primary source on that specific point, then Wikipedia should not do so either. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Peregrine Fisher and CarolMooreDC, primary sources can be reliable but must be used with caution. You can say something like "Mr. A said X happened, but Mr. B said Y happened", and you can add fine detail to what's been covered in broad strokes by secondary sources. But it can't go beyond that, lest it stray into an original essay. It may also help if we knew whether this was a hypothetical or if this is a debate happening on someone's biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Squidfryerchef (which is pretty much what I said, I see PF and Carol get mentioned, cant I get some credit in your post too? ;-) ). To Jayjg- Wikipedians cant go and argue at the VPP that it is ok to use primary sources for spoilers/plots because "notability" only applies to article topics not to individual pieces of information and then say the opposite here. I dont know if your involved in the other non-related discussion, but if your one that agrees that pieces of information must have secondary sources to back them up then I ask you go there to support my claim that you cant have an entire plot section based solely on the primary source, "if it isnt notable enough to be covered by a secondary source, it shouldnt be in the article" is what I said and I was shot down. If you disagree with my statement at that other discussion but then want to use the exact same argument here, you'd be a hypocrite.Camelbinky (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect that testimony would count as the equivalent of a WP:SPS, and should be subject to the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB. It would also not be considered to have much 'prominence' per WP:DUE. WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Court transcripts and judgments should almost never be used as sources on wikipedia except to supplement what is already sourced to independent secondary sources, eg, if we are describing OJ Simpson's testimony based on what LA Times says, it would be okay to also add a supplementary link to the transcripts (if available); similarly Supreme Court judgments can be linked in articles that discuss them based on secondary sources. Except for such narrow common-sense exceptions, such sources should not be used, especially in BLPs. This is the case not only because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR concerns, but because legal documents can be difficult for non-experts to interpret, and transcripts are easy to misinterpret and quote without context. Anyway, is there a specific article and source that you have concerns about ? We may be able to provide a more specific answer if we know the context. Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User-submitted reviews

The PC version of the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has received a notable backlash in the form of user-submitted reviews. The average user-review on IGN is 1.9, on Metacritic is 1.6, and Amazon.com is less than 2 out of 5 stars. The content of these reviews would not be used as a source, but would the average score of user-reviews be worthy of mention in the article? It is notable that the average user reviews across these major websites is almost entirely negative compared to hugely positive reviews from professional reviewers.    Jhonka 03:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable, someone should have noted it. There are a lot of statistical anomalies if you look hard enough ( in fact, a 1 out of 20 will be significant at p<.05 LOL). I find a lot of interesting observations and stories but you have to look at the notability and even to some extent the archival value of these observations. Do you want an encyclopedic article on every car, movie, or widget that was more bad than most but didnt' do anything singular like kill people? If someone has noted the badness, there should be a secondary source to that effect. I'm not commenting on yes/no, just trying to add perspective and thoughts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Myung Moon's papers for controversial political claims

Can we use Messiah Sun Myung Moon's newspapers for controversial political claims? In this case it is the Washington Times being used to call Shaker Elsayed a fundamentalist.[52] We don't use the Church of Scientology as a reliable source for information about its enemies. Should we use the Unification Church as a reliable source for information about its enemies? ~YellowFives 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The Church of Scientology does have a news publication, Freedom Magazine, which it uses to make often quite lurid claims about its enemies. However, it's explicitly branded as the voice of the Church of Scientology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Washington Times claims to be the voice of the Unification Church. It's certainly heavily influenced by the UC but it doesn't position itself as the UC's house newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Scientology is upfront about it, then. Moon has said

We even have to utilize the media for the sake of church development. The church is the mind and the media is the body, to reach the external world. We should begin that movement and activity in the United States, because the Washington Times and UPI are headquartered there. Once we establish our organization in the United States, it can be expanded to the world without much alteration.[53]

but apparently not on the Washington Times' website. ~YellowFives 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The paper has the potential to be as reliable as Fox News - they're both considered conservative and are sometimes seen as mouthpieces to be used against enemies. Quotes from the paper should not be given undue weight, which in this case means that if they're the only one making such a claim making it at all may be too much.--otherlleft 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, that makes sense. But if there are other sources, isn't it preferable just to use those other sources instead? What more does a biased source add? ~YellowFives 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again! The news portions of Fox News and the Washington Times are Reliable Sources. Just because their opinion portions may lean to the political right doesn't automatically make them non-reliable sources. That's as if we were to say that the news portions of MSNBC and the Huffington Post are not reliable sources because their opinion pages lean to the political left. Such statements as the one above are a disservice to Wikipedia and scream of political discrimination. Wikipedia is suppose to maintain a neutral POV, therefore to exclude a reliable source due to its opinion portions, would itself violate said neutrality. If we are to go about removing all sources that have a right leaning opinion portion as reliable sources wikipedia could not maintain its neutrality, and it'd become just as bad as Conservapedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Although not "the voice of the Unification Church", there has been questions raised repeatedly about the editorial independence of the WT (including by former senior staff). This should mean that considerable caution should be taken with it as a source -- and that "controversial political claims" would be better cited to a less questionable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all that. I wouldn't take one news report from any newspaper, including the New York Times, as establishing a "fact" on a controversial issue. In this case the word "fundamentalist" has so little meaning that it would probably be better not to use it at all. Borock (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure that Elsayed should be strongly defended per [54] "It is evident that Muslims should not expect justice, Shaker Elsayed, secretary general of the Muslim American Society, told reporters later. Muslims are besieged after 9/11, for no fault of their own." [55] "For all those reasons, the mosque has come under closer scrutiny by prosecutors who say its brand of Islam may be encouraging sympathy for groups like Al Qaeda. " ("The mosque" refers to Elsayed's mosque). " And though its leaders adhere to Wahabism" strongly implies that Elsayed is a "fundamentalist" in the Western sense. All this from the New York Times. The Imam had earlier been in the NY area per [56] "Imam Shaker El Sayed, the principal of the Al-Ghazly Islamic School in Jersey City, where Mr. Nosair sent his children until the beginning of 1989, and many Muslims argue that the killing of Rabbi Kahane was not in violation of Islamic law." Leading me to believe there are sufficient sources to corroborate the WT statements. Unless, of course, saying that Muslims feel murdering Kahane was proper is not an unusual claim. Per the NYT, the man is a Wahabist who justifies assassinations. Collect (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to say that than to use the almost meaningless term "fundamentalist." Borock (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that's why it's not RS. It's ownership is less relevant. Dlabtot (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen nothing supporting this claim. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] anecdotage.com

Anecdotage.com appears to be a site where people post funny anecdotes. Many wikipedia articles are citing to anecdotage.com. One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#cite_note-12 It seems to me not reliable, but it appears the site has not been posted on this page before, and wanted to get some more opinions. Nightkey (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't hit this nor seen the site but you have to ask what of encyclopedic merit, beyond maybe the site itself if it has achieved notability, could possibly be shown here? Maybe a notable anecdote that was shown here prior to achieving notability could ref the site, maybe a modern Mark Twain could get started at such a place, but otherwise you'd have to ask what claim it could back up? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Marker Database

Is this site reliable? Seems much like IMDb, and in fact uses similar initials HMdb (but this site is about historical markers). Its a good source for FINDING information even if we cant use, but I'm curious if it is usuable as a source itself.Camelbinky (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not RS. I'm sure most of the photos are genuine, but it is user-generated and subject to a) errors and b) hoaxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About two studies re-stated by The New York Times and Las Vegas Sun

The article Las Vegas, Nevada uses [57] and [58] to reference the statement "Las Vegas has one of the highest suicide and divorce rates of the U.S.[23][24] A research study that found Las Vegas residents are 40% less likely to commit suicide if they leave Las Vegas and visitors are twice as likely to commit suicide there as elsewhere was published in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper in 2008, breaking a long-time taboo on discussion of suicide in Las Vegas.[25]". But I think that [24] should not be uses as the source since when referencing official statistics Wikipedians should not use news reports as sources as they are mere re-statements. Please substitute official statistics and academic sources for journalistic sources.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a question, but if the question is "are the new york times and the las vegas sun reliable sources for what a study says," the answer is "yes, they are." Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

However, since journalists and reporters are usually gradated from department of journalism or mass media, they usually are not able to fully comprehend the topic a research paper belong to, therefore they make re-tellings unreliable. [25] is acceptable since this verifies the fact that finally one news media in Las Vegas is willing to discuss suicide there, but [24] is unacceptable since it is primarily a re-statement and can be verified by academic sources and official statistics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not how we operate here. Newspapers are reliable with respect to the content of studies. If there is any dispute to the accuracy of the newspaper account, that dispute will appear in other reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree with RekishiEJ to this extent: while the newspaper reports establish that these statistics are "notable" (and can be included), in such cases it would surely be even better to cite the study directly (when possible) as well as or instead of the newspaper reports about it? --Paularblaster (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources are better than fewer. Citing the study directly in addition to the newspapers would be nice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. On one hand WP should not be original research. On the other it should not just be a digest of what the newsmedia say. Original sources can be used to give more depth and accuracy, as in this case. Good work. Borock (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Corporal punishment in the home#New Zealand Study for a fairly recent example of when a newspaper summary was shown to be quite different from that of the actual research study. This does not, however, mean that we can't use newspapers as references in these cases. That a study or poll is referenced in a newspaper doesn't generally mean that we're not allowed use the newspaper as a citation, so long as the newspaper has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But it is always proper to look up the actual research paper itself. Gabbe (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We should cite the study itself as newspapers, even the high quality ones, are usually not very good in summarizing the results of academic studies. Unfortunately this is particularly true when it comes to empirical studies and the interpretation of statistical results. So yes, cite the study and maybe cite the newspaper for the convenience of the reader if the newspaper summary is reasonably accurate. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where ref is not being used to reflect truth of statement, but only that ref made the statement

This is a follow-up to a previous question. I now have a clear RS for a fact (along the lines of "a Homeland Security official said x"). In addition, I would like to reflect that a later book reflected that the Homeland Security offical said x.

So I'm not using the book to reflect what the official said. Rather, I just want to reflect that the book reported it.

An editor has deleted my entry, arguing that the book is not a RS. The diff is here. Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at details but a reliable source depends on the claim. It seems if the source S claims "A said B" and you have a statement from A that "I said B" it would seem the source could at least be presumed to be right or reliable about this statement. Now, if you want to mention that "A said B" and not do original research, it helps to have a reliable source that made the observation and that it relates to a prominent view about A. If S is thought to be a reliable source about the beliefs of viewpoint V, then indeed it seems fitting to make the observation and cite both S and your primary source as an aid to the reader. If source S is making a fringe or view of unknown prominence, you may want to qualify or ignore it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No fringe theory here. It's actually a quite topical issue (Fort Hood Shootings related). It's the second sentence below ("This was also reported ...") that the editor insists on deleting.

"In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, said al-Awlaki "targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."^[2][3] This was also reported by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry in their 2009 book Muslim Mafia, which was published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting."^[4]

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of sourcing, but it may be an issue of undue weight. Basically there are two reasons why "Bob said foo" might be usable in an article: either to validate foo (which requires that Bob be a reliable source), or if the fact that Bob (as opposed to George) said foo is notable. If Bob isn't a reliable source and isn't notable, then stating that "Bob said foo" is usually a WP:COATRACK for getting foo into the article, which is undue weight. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, you or someone asked about the reliability and relevance of this source above Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Statement_in_book_published_by_WND_Books--Purpose:_to_reflect_that_author_warned_of_risk_before_event_happened. If you want to use it in two articles, just ask generally about it, not make two different sections here when you are challenged both times on using it. And as I say above, no WP:RS thinks it's notable that they predicted that and it doesn't add much to the article; more a an advertisement or pat on back for authors/book. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't overstate any connection between the GEOINT quote and what happened at Ft. Hood, which is implied weakly if at all by the Telegraph article, nor should we imply the WND book was forecasting the future. I'd rather see the GEOINT quote moved up to the section on "activities", not in the section about Ft. Hood. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree with the deletion of the book Muslim Mafia as a source for Charles Allen's statements. Given that we already have a transcript of his speech from a U.S. government web site and a major newspaper (The Daily Telegraph), saying that the book also mentioned it doesn't add anything significant, and the polemical nature of the book may distract readers from Allen's statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source?

Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? User:Ryulong thinks it's not a reliable source because "The Kentucky Kernel is the University of Kentucky student newspaper", but I think it's a reliable source as it's a award wining newspaper with readership of more than 30,000. The source in question is this news article from The Kentucky Kernel being used as a source for info that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers‎ will be remastered for its 2010 rebroadcast, this is the second news article that Ryulong says is not reliable source for that info, the first was this news article from TVShowsOnDVD.com. Powergate92Talk 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get to the general question. The cited source is not a news article, but an opinion column, written by a college freshman with no demonstrable expertise on the subject matter. In the absence of any evidence that the publisher fact-checks its opinion columns to this level of detail, I wouldn't treat this opinion piece as a reliable source on this point (or most of its other factual assertions). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hullaballoo. I do believe college papers can be reliable sources in appropriate circumstances, but this proposed use of an opinion column isn't one of them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. College newspapers may be reliable under certain circumstances, but not in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, go ahead and use it. Wikipedians are always complaining about pop culture articles lacking secondary sources. Here someone finds a source that is published through an outlet with an editorial process, and is a critical and not a trivial mention, and people say to take it out? Yes, a college newspaper is still normally an RS, and is probably a good choice for pop culture relevant to that demographic. After some quick Googling, I'd also say that it's a good secondary-source validation of something that's been all over the blogs, and is partially confirmed by this press release from Bandai.[59] I also wouldn't have too much of a problem with TVShowsOnDVD.com. Our own article about the site shows they are pretty notable in their field, have ties with studios, and it shouldn't be too hard to show that the authors know a little something about movies. We shouldn't be requiring academic sources for non-academic topics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would consider TVShowsOnDvd.com a reliable source. It is owned by the same company as TVGuide.com. [60] It is also used as a source for mainstream media (see [61], for example). I would not use the Kentucky Kernel for this purpose (to report on the remastering/re-airing of a television series) because that's the sort of news item that the writer would most likely have gotten from a published source, which should be tracked down instead. It's unlikely that ABC/Disney gives exclusive scoops about its programming to a freshman college journalist in Kentucky, as opposed to providing such information to Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and mainstream media. If the Kentucky Kernel is the only publication that can be found reporting on a scheduled network television broadcast, I would not necessarily assume that the Kentucky Kernel is the only publication that got the story right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be better sources, but a large college newspaper is reliable for non-controversial, non-BLP, type info. So, yes, it is reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Politico; Also for Book reviews: New Engish Review and Pajamas Media

Is it appropriate for me to use the following two sources as book reviews for the book in question?

"The New English Review reviewed the book ... writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America."[62] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book"."[63]

Also, is it acceptable to use as a RS this article by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, a former national reporter for The New York Sun, in Politico? --Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The refs don't work without a ref section. You should probably do simple refs with just hard brackets. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PF. Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New English Review looks good. Looking quickly, I didn't find anything to make the pajama site look reliable. Is this information controversial? I see you've used attribution, which is good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This relates to possible inclusion in an article on the book Muslim Mafia, where as you can see from the AfD many additions are challenged. I wanted to get a sense here as to which if any of those three were appropriate for inclusion in that article, to forestall possible edit warring. As to Politico (and specifically the article by that author), do you have a view? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Politico is reliable, but it's not a slam dunk. It's like the Huff post, where there's a bit of disagreement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Politico is definitely a RS, but as mentioned above, it's not a slam dunk; but the same goes for every major news outlet. Regarding Josh Gerstein, he's a professional journalist: current White House correspondent and blogger for The Politico; former national reporter for The New York Sun; former producer/reporter for ABC News (job titles included White House correspondent and Beijing correspondent); his op-eds have been published in The New York Times and USA Today; former senior editor of the Harvard Crimson. APK because, he says, it's true 02:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pajamas Media book review: Phyllis Chesler (note the spelling, and the blue link) is a professor emirita, and the author of 13 published books, including one that relates fairly closely to the topic addressed by the book in question. I'd say that in this instance, PJM qualifies as a reliable source for a book review. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it looks like they are all RSs in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The system works! You were all quite helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Diversity news page" on Latin American Britons

This source claims that there are "probably somewhere between 700,000 to 1,000,000 Latin Americans in the United Kingdom". This number seems far, far too high when compared with reality, yet the rest of the Wikipedia article has been distorted to suit this reality. Something need fixing here? Source dodgy?--Sangthebirds (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this source before. It says "probably" and "guesstimates". I seem to recall that my view was it could be used so long as the tentative nature of the estimates was made clear. But if there are multiple sources with very different estimates then just leave this one out. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the source mentioned by Sangthebirds (talk · contribs) doesn't seem particularly reliable. On the other hand, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reach the same conclusion on page 5 of their Latin America to 2020 paper (available here): "At any one time there are between 700,000 to 1,000,000 Latin Americans visiting or living in the UK". Gabbe (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions on RSN are:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Latin American Briton population estimates
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Latin Americans in the UK population estimates

Gabbe (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<looks at page> Tara Palmer-Tomkinson - huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And hold on a minute - Latin-Americans living in the UK would not be the same as Latin-American Britons which is the subject of the article. So a figure for the number of Latin-Americans visiting or working in Britain is inherently unreliable to give us the number of people who have Latin American histories but are British citizens. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but Latin American Britons redirects to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But the stat is being used for the statement about "latin American Britons" - so my stance is it's unreliable because the original source does not use such a term or claim that the number relates specifically to that particularly group. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you mean. Gabbe (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Map by individual

I originally raised this matter in the OR/Noticeboard. Apparently it was the wrong forum, so I am bringing it here with slight wording changes accordingly.

This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.

I say the map is not a reliable source for reasons given here:

• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]

Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:

• [68]
• [69]

The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.

The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is not reliably sourced by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.

All guidance appreciated. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map is reliable because the ALA endorses it. The ALA has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, regardless of the fact they are possibly stealing some guy's map. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That reasoning sounds flawed to me:

1. It would allow any large organization to promote anything, no matter how unreliably sourced, just because it is a large organization.
2. Further, the actual use of the unreliably sourced material was likely done by a single person in a single office, not by "The ALA [which] has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking."
3. Further, perhaps the "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" is itself a Point Of View, as this is a case where it is literally impossible to fact-check some unknown individual who only prints a map and nothing else, and nothing is known about him.
4. Further, how can there be a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" "regardless of the fact they are possibly stealing some guy's map"?

Comments anyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would want to know that the ALA vetted this map through the peer-review process first. The fact that they claim it as their own when it isn't gives reason NOT to assume they did anything right.--otherlleft 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the size that makes it reliable/unreliable. Scientology is quite large. It's not a reliable source. The reason the ALA is a reliable source for the map is because other, obviously reliable sources use the ALA without comment. Is there a reliable source that says that a lone ranger put the map on the ALA's banned books website? If so, please provide that. Reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, again, isn't PoV - it's based on reliable sources - which you provided - using the ALA as a source without reservation - per WP:RS. Stealing some guys map doesn't make you unreliable - it makes you a thief. If the stolen map is right, it's just taking credit. However, no reliable source has said the map is stolen, of course. Otherleft - that's not how we deal with Reliable Sources - by publishing the document, they take credit for it, and it attaches to them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having now done more work, there is no allegation made by anyone, including the purported map author, that the ALA did anything wrong. They are publishing the map, and I see no comment by anyone at the ALA regarding the authorship by anyone. I suggest that this be closed up at this point, and perhaps LAEC be reminded of the purpose of Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Several issues: if the ALA or someone else has republished the map without the creator's permission... we might have a WP:COPYRIGHT issue (in that we should not use images that violate copyright laws). Is there is a noticeboard on that? We do need to use great caution when using maps (or any other image) as a source for information. They can easily be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in ways that constitue Original Research (note... the map itself is not OR... but what a wikipedia editor says about what the map shows can be OR.) Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map itself is a google map. The ALA links to it from their website. The LATimes took a screenshot of the map. The map is not being used to source information except for the fact that the map is distributed by the ALA in connection with Banned Books Week - which the ALA is a damn reliable source for. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"However, no reliable source has said the map is stolen, of course." The map creator said he created the map, he said he is not affiliated with the ALA, and he said this in the document in the WSJ I linked. There is no way a stolen map is a reliable source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The map creator said he's not affiliated with the ALA. He dosen't say the ALA didn't have permission to link to the map. In fact, the only source ever saying this map is stolen is your original research here at wikipedia. It's not stolen. It's a resource that the ALA redistributes. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has edited the BBW page to add material related here, specifically citing this RSN. I think that shows a clear bias. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows a clear conclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you make a "clear conclusion" when the subject is still under discussion? If you have, and you may, then your continued discussion of the issue here is biased. Not in a bad way, just biased in favor of your conclusion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that my bias is that I think I'm right? GUILTY! Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ALA is "redistributing" it without attribution. That's stealing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's linking. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ALA did not just "link". Instead, it copied it wholesale. That's stealing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fabrication on your part, per [70]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That source is new to me, so thank you, but it makes the reliability of the map even worse, as now the author of the map himself calls into question the map's reliability:

Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.

Based on that quote from the author, and based generally on the new reference just provided by Hipocrite, the map is not a reliable sourced.

As to saying I am "fabricating," that is not only incorrect, but it the kind of behavior not welcome on Wikipedia. See WP:AGF. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just got carried away. Do not personally attack me further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A map itself, is a primary source, and as such, as Blueboar says above, interpretation of what the map says constitutes OR. Such a primary source should probably only be used as a supplement to a reliable, secondary source. Whether the map is accurate depends on who created it, and who is saying that it is. For that, and for Wikipedia purposes, the ALA would be considered reputable given its long standing reputation. Whether the map is stolen or not is a secondary issue and doesn't affect either the accuracy of the map or who has the map now. The Elgin Marbles are still the Elgin Marbles, whether stolen or whether they are in Greece. The issue per Wikipedia is, I would think, use of a primary source.(olive (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Something to note here... I just realized that we are talking about a map generated by google maps, and the copyright holder for the map (as is clearly indicated on all versions being discussed) is, in fact, Google. Has Google objected to the ALA using it? Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons the map is not a reliable source in the author's own words

From following is from the map's author at [71], quoting now:

In August 2009, a friend of mine named Alita Edelman - about to begin her senior year at Smith College - spent a month volunteering at theAmerican Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFFE). ABFFE is a tiny organization that operates within the long shadow of theAmerican Library Association (ALA). Her job was to organize data on banned and challenged books across America. The ALA compiles these records, and every year releases a long list of what books were reported challenged where, by whom, and why.
....
So I created a Google Map for Banned Books. I issued a strident call on my blog for contributors. My dream was that librarians everywhere - from the New York Public Library to Podunk Public - would begin placing pushpins every time a parent held a copy of Harry Potter in front of their face, demanding that this instructional manual for witchcraft and wizardry be burned like its practitioners. Of course, that didn’t happen, because I’m just some guy on the Internet, and not a media mogul with millions of eager readers with too much time on their hands. Instead, Alita and I began the arduous task of translating the hundreds of ALA records onto the map.
....
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.

So what can we do?

We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country. Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise.
....
So today, we’re launching the Mapping Banned Books Project We’ve created a new Google Map, one which is totally open to anyone to edit from the comfort of their local library and will rely upon concerned and active individuals to provide the critical data. The idea goes something like this: when a book is challenged at your local library, you get a copy of the formal documentation, scan it, and upload it. Then you drop a pushpin on the location of your library and provide a report of the book challenge, the reasons why it was challenged, and link to the documentation for verification. As more and more people begin to use the map, we’ll see more and more data, visualize new patterns, and learn new, wonderful, and terrifying things about the world around us.

It won’t be easy. The site is still under development, and we’re all busy people with too many things to do and not enough time. We’re going to have to get word out to all the people in big cities and rural towns who might be able to contribute to the cause. Such a massive undertaking won’t be easy, but here’s the good news: it’s easier than it’s ever been before, and we owe it to ourselves to give it an honest try.

Talk about soapbox, this map is an author-admitted soapbox, not a reliable source: "We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country." If this type of thing is allowed on Wikipedia, that would be very bad. But that's why Wikipedia has policies to prevent this sort of thing.

"Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise." So, according to the author, merely complying with library challenge forms is labeled as "censorious." A reliable source would not say that.

"The site is still under development...." The author himself admits the material is still under development.

The author even admits, "I’m just some guy on the Internet." Not a problem, but that is not a reliable source under Wiki standards.

This is not a reliable source, and the author so admits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Translating records: Several comments. First, if the ALA records are on a computer the owner should be able to provide some kind of API that would allow you to automatically take each record and put it on a computer generated map. Sometimes you need to fudge a bit, and say take unstructured addresses and see if google or US Census data can return a lat/long for you, but generally that part should automate ok. However, reliable records did exist before computers. "Some guy on the internest" may indeed have information which has been noted, used, and reviewed by others. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How exactly is this map being used?

In the process of this discussion, I have lost track of what this map is being used for. Could someone please remind me what statement in Wikipedia is being supported by citing this map? (this impacts whether it is reliable or not) Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The organization provides a map that shows where books were officially banned or challenged." Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

cite news |author=Carolyn Kellogg |title=It's Banned Books Week |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/09/banned-books-week.html |publisher=Los Angeles Times |date=2009-09-28 |accessdate=2009-10-22 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, no books have been banned in the USA for about half a century. School districts removing inappropriate materials is not book banning. "Censorship occurs when government refuses to allow people to purchase material, not when it refuses to provide that material at no charge." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard, not the arguing about banned books noticeboard. Please don't argue about banned books here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So most of the above discussion is, in fact, irrelevant since we do not actually cite the map in any article... we are not actually using the map as a source. The cited source is the LA Times (which is considered reliable). The real issue here is not the reliability of the map, but the possibility that the LA Times may not be looking at the map critically. And that is a very different issue.

"The real issue here is not the reliability of the map, but the possibility that the LA Times may not be looking at the map critically. And that is a very different issue." Interesting comment. The date of LA Times publication comes before the date of the author's publication, so the LA Times could not have possibly been aware of the true authorship of the map under the circumstances. I'll bet dollars to donuts the LA Times would not have seen it as newsworthy if the true authorship were truly known--and that's likely why the ALA hid and still hides the true authorship. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the Neutral way to deal with this situation is to attribute the information, as in: "According to Carolyn Kellogg of the LA Times, 'The organization provides a map that shows where the books were officially banned or challenged.'" (or words to that effect). Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding all this correctly, the challenged fact is not whether the map is being provided (everyone agrees on that) but whether the map actually shows book "bannings", so perhaps the wording could be "The organization provides a map that it says shows where books were officially banned or challenged."--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the issue wasn't about the map itself, as a source. I think the issue is quite simple, then. The LA Times is a reliable source, but reliable sources quite often get it wrong. For the sake of accuracy in an article, editors can together choose not to use the source, or if used, the source should be attributed in line as Blueboar is suggesting. Doing so creates a verifiable and encyclopedic entry although perhaps not a truthful or accurate statement.That's Wikipedia. verifiable not truth. (olive (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Hello, I'm the other editor who has been working on this article with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. I introduced the map with the LA Times citation. I didn't intend to imply that the map itself is reliable, but that the ALA is using the map to claim where book bans have taken place. I guess another question is, given the information that LAEC provided earlier about the map's author discussing how the map was created and information entered, is a disclaimer necessary? I personally don't think it should be, we already have sources in the article claiming that books aren't banned in the United States, which would automatically cast doubt on the map's legitimacy without requiring additional commentary in the text. -- Atama頭 23:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution and qualification is really about all wikipedia can do. Passing judgment and cherry picking what must and must not be right is a big problem. If you question methodology or one of those things that got by quality control from the RS, you may want to document that concern but once you start deleting stuff that just has to be wrong that could create problems. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfax County Public Schools - No Conact Rule Controversy.

An editor keeps adding that the section is unreliable. On the talk page I commented as below. I do not believe the page needs to be tagged. I do not know how to take action against the editor to stop these actions. The section has been on the FCPS page for a long time and only now was "discovered" to have issues. I believe there is a bias as the editor seems to cover many issues associated with Fairfax County. I am not sure anyone here can do anything but I thought I would bring the issue to your attention.

Below is how I have responded.

This issue was important enough to be covered on CNN, Fox News, etc. It was in the Washington Post and the The Guardian in Britain. It was covered around the world - Australia, India, France. The Students name receives over 4400 hits in google if you do a search for it! The importance of the issue is the fact that the rule infringed on Constitutional rights. Not to mention human rights. To tell a person they can not hug another person or even shake hands is beyond the pale. You don't agree with this? What would the founding fathers have thought of this? That is why the article is in there. The FCPS never issued a statement saying this was NOT a policy. In fact a federal suit was about to be filed but the student changed schools instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it is a tiny issue that kids cant give hug or high five each other? The FCPS system refused to take any action on the matter at all. The matter is accurate. CNN covered it and so did the Washington Post. The section has been there since it happened. All of a sudden it is not accurate? I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the same topic is discussed at Joyce Kilmer Middle School#No contact rule controversy, and I imagine both articles should be considered at the same time, although there is currently no ongoing dispute there. RossPatterson (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

probably (looks like cut/paste, at any rate). I added to the original discussion page some of the issues I see with the paragraph. (A couple of them could be expanded upon, but lacking an audience, there's little point). Tedickey (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral leaflet published on a personal website

Can this, at best a primary source, an apparent funeral leaflet (there is no evidence that it was ever published in a newspaper) created by persons unknown from material allegedly compiled by the deceased's son, and published on a personal website be considered a RS? --Martin (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, unless Darby is an expert in some way that I'm not seeing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Darby was for many years one of the leaders of the Liberal Party of New South Wales, but was suspended and now is a leader of the Christian Democratic Party. He is written about extensively in the book The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia.[72] The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he might meet WP:SPS for political issues, but I don't think that helps with obits. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that funeral notices are usually compiled by family members it not unconceivable that negative information is censored. For this reason we shouldn't consider funeral notices as reliable source. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Context is important... few sources are "always reliable" or "always unreliable". A self-published obituary or funeral notice is probably very reliable for non-controvercial information (date of birth for example), but not for anything more. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not self-published less reliable than self-published?

This is a PDF about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights co-authored by Ray Murray, senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, with publications in scholarly journals on the subject of conflict resolution and "Contemporary Challenges to the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law". It's published by a rather obscure NGO based in the Israeli-occupied Golan. Does that count as a reliable source because it's "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per WP:SPS? Or should it be considered unreliable since it's not actually self-published and may be influenced by the publisher's bias? Currently it's mostly used for the list of village names in the appendix, and for the fate of one village not included in that list. Huon (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar cases may come up again, so it would be good to get a variety of views. My instinct is to treat as self-published by an expert. The reason we do not treat it as equivalent to a book issued by an academic publisher or an article in a scholarly journal is not because of potential bias. It's because the safeguards of peer review and fact-checking are missing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that he is an expert on conflicts and humanitarian law, so my guess is that he wrote the part of the report that addresses these issues, but not necessarily the list of village names in the appendix. It is more likely that the coauthor or the NGO staff did that, and this guess is supported by the footnote in the report. So I wouldn't treat this as self-published. Ray Murray is an expert for law and conflict resolution, but not exactly an expert on Syrian or Israeli villages and history, at least according to your description and according to his previous publications listed on his webpage. In any case WP:SPS should be used only in expectional cases. It is not unusual for experts to both have a distinguished publication record and to be polemic, misleading or partisan in other publications (such as newspaper columns, blogposts etc). I am not saying that this is here the case, but given the controversial nature of everything related to the Mid East conflict I would be very cautious about any source that is not of a very high quality. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about this one. Given what passes for the copyright notice on this, final editorial control may rest with the organization rather than the individuals bylined; we don't know what the expert' final text looked like. There's a notorious example of a piece by Desmond Tutu on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which turns out to be republished by various organizations in heavily edited/distorted form, including a standard headline making a claim that wasn't in Tutu's actual text Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some additional information: First of all, it's Ray Murphy, not Murray - my mistake. And he seems aware of the publication and mentions it in his list of publications, downloadable under http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/documents/ray_publications_2009.doc . So it's probably not distorted beyond his recognition. Indeed he didn't write that list of names; it's supposed to be a translation of an Israeli military order. So the conclusion is that Murphy's NGO connections might have misrepresented that order, so the PDF is not a reliable source for that list of names? I'll try and ask the IDF for an official Israeli translation, but I don't think one exists. Huon (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[73]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [74] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [75] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This source is being discussed as a RS regarding the article Pre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights. See the talk there for opinions of involved editors, and the recent comments at an Afd debate on this article. Shlomke (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Self-described guide to "alternative opinion"

Basically, the situation is that an editor has added a very explosive passage that was taken from a film review titled "Ridley Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer's latest is racist crap" that was posted (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/down_the_tubes-38345929.html?rating=&rating=) on the Philadelphia Weekly website. This passage from the Philadelphia Weekly film review also contains personal insults, racial epithets and all sorts of charges of racism vis-a-vis the movie Black Hawk Down over which there is a disagreement on content. Here it is for reference:

"As these interchangeable models of Aryan handsomeness valiantly blast away at hordes of shrieking monsters, Black Hawk Down begins to resemble Starship Troopers, only without all the klutzy satirical aspirations--and with black people instead of alien bugs.

That's where we run into the real trouble. I have no idea if Ridley Scott is a racist (though judging from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s scenes in Pearl Harbor I'm certain Jerry Bruckheimer is), but Black Hawk Down often plays like Birth of a Nation: The Next Generation. Scott has reduced the complexities of a notorious foreign policy blunder to what happens when a bunch of clean-cut white boys venture into the wrong side of town and get roughed up by some giant, scary niggers.

Then, later on in the movie, we get to watch the good guys blast all those dirty black bastards straight into oblivion--much to the audible, hollering delight of the capacity crowd at the screening I attended.

Pearl Harbor may have turned tragedy into a porn film, but Black Hawk Down is strictly snuff. Racist snuff, at that. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Although I believe the editor who added that passage above to the Wikipedia article ultimately meant well and was simply trying to expose what he felt was racism in the film, I think the passage is problematic because the Philadelphia Weekly describes itself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Philadelphia+Weekly+is+your+local+guide+to+Philly%27s+alternative+news%2C+reviews%2C+opinion&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) as "your local guide to Philly's alternative news, reviews, opinion, ..." According to Wikipedia's WP:QS policy on questionable sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." WP:PROFANITY also states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

Since the Philadelphia Weekly article contains offensive terms and admits that it is an authority on "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and since this film review heavily relies on personal opinions (including the passage at hand), I believe this article is indeed a questionable source and therefore ought to be avoided as it is making contentious claims about a third party. I would like to know whether this is indeed the case, and if not, whether a simple sentence to the effect that the author of that article takes exception to what he feels are racist moments in the movie wouldn't perhaps work better? This is what I've tried to add in the past as a compromise, but other editors have insisted on including the full passage -- personal insults, racial epithet and all. This is also despite the fact that much more authoritative film reviews by critics with the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly are also cited in the article as taking exception to what their respective authors believe is the racist treatment of the film's plot, yet these more reliable sources aren't quoted from extensively let alone in the form of personal insults and racial slurs. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a WP:RS, this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Devoting this much space to a local magazine's opinion is too much weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely seems like a weight issue. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge. The Philadelphia Weekly is an alternative newsweekly in the tradition of the Village Voice. Using it as a source in general is not a problem, although I agree with you that quoting four paragraphs filled with personal insults and racial epithets is excessive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Metropolitan90; that's basically what I was trying to say. Had this been a passage on fishing or weight loss, something mundane like that, instead of flippant accusations of any living person(s) being "racist", the n-word, an "idiot", etc. or describing a mainstream Hollywood film as "snuff" with little to no qualification whatsoever, I don't think anyone would've had issues with the source. 74.12.222.75 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harold W. Clark on George McCready Price

Is Harold W. Clark a RS for extensive information on George McCready Price? The former was a protege, co-religionist/fellow YEC and successor at Pacific Union College of the latter.

Ronald L. Numbers does cite Clark (as well as Price himself and numerous other Adventist sources -- Numbers tends to cite multiple sources per footnote, dozens per page & hundreds per chapter) for a small amount of material on Price in The Creationists, but this appears to be mainly for uncontroversial information: parentage & early childhood, bibliography, and similar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may depend on the nature of the information that you are musing about. Certainly, for some information (such as the non-controversial info you point to) you can even accept it from someone with a direct COI--even the person himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The information in question is about the circumstances under which he gained his qualifications (generally at sectarian insitutions he was teaching at), his teaching (at PUC) & his writing career. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the details of where he taught and when should be available from third WP:RS, to fact check. Other stuff is opinion and should be labeled as his. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gisborne Herald and The Local

The New Zealand Gisborne Herald offers a news and interview article with a music personality. The Swedish English language paper The Local offers a news report of an event.Both small circulation publications with editorial staffs. They look like their articles are, per WP:V, based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But an editor claims one is not "notable" and therefore not usable but the other is. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not require that sources be "notable"... we require that they be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blockland - world map of servers

http://blockland.kalphiter.com/stats/world.php

Is this a good thing to put in the "external links"?

It's a map of the world showing every Blockland server, their location, and title.