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

This website is used as a source in the Skookum article, and does not meet the editorial oversight or even remotely meet anything that would make it a reliable source. User:Skookum1 seems to think that their credentials (supposedly, I've not seen any proof other than claims) and their claim they know it's true trumps the necessity for having a reliable source to cite the information this company has on their website. My issues (some of which may be better handled elsewhere this is done):

1. This source is a company website FAQ, nothing near a scholarly journal. First of all, it barely pertains to the subject other than the one FAQ topic (which took me a few minutes to find) about Snookum.
2. User:Skookum1 claims that "YOu still don't get it that that was the first cite for this page when it began", and goes on to say that it is a valid cite for partly that reason. Have things changed to where it is now acceptable to claim "first cite on the page, therefore it must be reliable and must stay"?
3. The same user also is engaging in credential-mongering (if that's a right term) to try to claim it's true, and therefore the source is reliable.

If these topics could be addressed (if only for my benefit of knowing which interpretation is correct for the future), I'd really appreciate it. gwickwire ^talk _editing 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a tack-on, it's not currently in the article, but I'm sure it'll be readded at some point pending this discussion. gwickwire ^talk _editing 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The bias in this complaint by a person who knows nothing about the Chinook Jargon is evident to me, holding a hardline on RS when the fact is that the nature of the Chinook Jargon is that it is in use as a brand name (not just for Skookum Tools) and it happens that that site had definitions of "skookum" online and it is factual and is meant to serve a community service, it's not spam. The further bitch about me is that I had tried to "scare" qwickwire with my credentials as a more-or-less chinookologist (I'm the siteowner of http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ and was part of the modern Chinook Jargon revival/research movement). To me it's notable that the term is in use as a brand name (also Skookum Dolls, cites for which tend to be sites selling them) and given that it's verifiable in terms of its content (easy enough to do), the claim that it's unreliable is spurious and not a bit hostile (as evinced by this complaint being brought here). I know there's a way to self-cite if one is an expert in a given field; I've never tried that and don't know the templates, but to me this complaint is ridiculous because the site's content is valid (sez me, yes, but I know what I'm talking about, qwickwire doesn't) and it's also an example of this term's usage in modern commerce/branding.....as I recall there was a long-ago disussion on the use of this citation when the page first began, and it was kept at the time, and not just by me. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop claiming you're going to self cite, and stop this "I know it's in use as a brand name and we can use an unreliable source to say so". I know it's in use as a brand name too. But that site is not a reliable source. Reliable sources (as I tell people in the help IRC channel), are those with editorial oversight of some sort. That could mean newspapers, magazines, or academic journals. It's not some brand name's FAQ page on the internet. I'm not saying the content is valid, I'm saying the validity of the content does not make it a reliable source just because it is true. I never called it spam, and you also have tried to "Oh, I know it's true I'm a selfproclaimed chinookologist so back off" (not exact quote) to me. Just let someone from this noticeboard answer. gwickwire ^talk _editing 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not RS, but don't lose it: put it under external links. If it's any help, the word occurs multiple times in DARE, according to the search function on the official website. Andrew Dalby 20:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not hard to find reliable sources about this. I don't have time right now, maybe later. For now, this book is a RS and has basic definition and etymology, plus related terms like skookumchuck and skookumhouse (ie, jail or fort), and the variant spelling skukum. Not much, but a start. I'm not sure about all the claims on the page, but I don't think it should be deleted. Pfly ( talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who PRODed it, just the one who's fed up that Skookum1 thinks that website is a reliable source. Looks like here people are agreeing that it isn't a reliable source. Any other comments ya'll have would be appreciated :) gwickwire ^talk _editing 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Crunchyroll is a professional website which legally host hordes of anime, and has a professional paid editing staff which does interviews. In the Arin Hanson article it list an interview he did on that website. [1] Would this be considered a reliable source? Dream Focus 05:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would consider it a primary source as it is a recording of the subject of the BLP article regarding Arin Hanson. The source appears to be a reliable source only for the opinions of the subject of Arin Hanson. Secondary sources are preferred, by primary sources are valid sources for matters of opinion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of how interviews related to proof of WP:NOTABILITY. This is no different than a major television station interviewing someone. Dream Focus 16:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would actually say that since, I consider the interview a primary source, that it should not be used by editors to consider whether the subject is notable or not.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the interview is a reliable (primary) source for his views. No, it's very weak evidence of his notability, because the aim of Crunchyroll is to sell anime. An interview with an anime artist can be seen as just a means to that end (like an author biography on a book jacket). Andrew Dalby 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On Bulfinch's Mythology, MelanieN ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored a quote from two non-Classicists making the claim that Bulfinch's Mythology is "the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English". Neither of the individuals who may be attributed to this claim (Claudia Durst Johnson and Vernon Johnson) are specialists in any particularly related area, and this book seems to have been compiled along with many others similar to it as a sort of "intro to literature" work. They cite nothing in support of their claim; no reference, no data. For those unaware, Bulfinch's Mythology is an early Victorian general audience introduction to (mainly) Classical mythology, complete with heavy bowlderization and without access to the numerous important discoveries in the field after. It has long been superseded by numerous other general audience works, such as Classicist Edith Hamilton's Mythology. I argue that Claudia Durst Johnson and Vernon Elso Johnson are not a reliable source for the claim they are attributed to. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As the article indicates, Bulfinch's Mythology is not a scholarly work and is intended for a general audience. For nearly 100 years it was THE popular reference on mythology in English, at least until Hamilton's Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes (not Mythologie) (striking this since Bloodofox has corrected it) came out, ^[1] and it is still a best-seller. The fact that it is still a highly popular general-interest mythology book in English is the fact that is cited to these authors. Bloodofox claims that these authors are not reliable sources for the fact that it is still a highly popular general-interest book, because they are not classicists. However, both authors are PhDs (one in English, one in World Literature), and they write and lecture widely on general literature topics, as well as authoring student guides such as the one under discussion. ^[2] I contend that they ARE reliable sources on the subject of what the general public is reading - and that the requirement for sources to be independent and reliable does not mean they must be scholarly experts in a particular field, particularly if the information they are cited for is not scholarly in nature. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I contend that Melanie has done a Google Books search and this is what she found and this is what she has dug in to defend. Again, the claim by these two is that this Victorian general audience work is "the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English". Even a Classicist making such a claim—which is extremely unlikely—would have to be met with suspicion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• It indeed was been the standard popular reference work for a great many years, but a good source is needed. The most recent edition of Guid to /Reference Books I can find it in is the 1928 (p89: but it is also in Shores, Basic Reference sources, 1954 ed.p.349. (it is in several vols., the Greek & Roman material is published as Age of Fable. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) .

There is no dispute that this was quite a popular general audience book about the topic in North America for a long while. The issue is the insistence of MelanieN of using the quote from the two authors above that states that it is not only currently "the most popular [...] book on classical Greek mythology in English" but also, totally unqualified, 'the most useful'. I guess "most useful" if you want your Greek and Norse myth dressed up in Victorian morality and devoid of near 150 years of scholarly innovation on the topic, including such pithy things as the decipherment of Linear B. Please note that the quote also directly contradicts the accurate source cited before it, which simply states that it was a popular general audience source for a long while before being superseded. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As to truth: Bulfinch may possibly still be the most popular, because it's PD and can therefore be reprinted very cheaply. It definitely isn't the most useful (one simple reason is that it uses Roman names of gods, not Greek ones, thus introducing a fundamental confusion; another reason is that it was written before any serious modern work on anthropology and comparative mythology, etc. etc. had been done). We could easily name some other sources that are far more useful.

As to the expertise of the Johnsons, no, they weren't expert on mythology, or on Greek literature, and didn't claim to be. Here's an obituary of Vernon Johnson; his wife, the lead author of this book, is still alive. He was a Shakespearean scholar; she is a speaker on general literature for a general audience. They were perhaps an odd choice to compile a casebook on Homer, but then, some very odd people have written about Homer :)

I suspect they chose to quote Bulfinch at length because the text is PD, and maybe this sentence was inserted to justify that choice. On the other hand, from the special point of view of a teacher of Shakespeare (which Vernon Johnson was) the Bulfinch book could have its uses, so he may really have believed this. Andrew Dalby 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said here. I don't suspect them of bad intentions, I just think that their observation is misleading and inappropriate for the article. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. Andrew Dalby 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, I agree with Dalby's assessment. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just curious as to whether the website Les Gens Du Cinema is sufficiently reliable to verify someone's death. A death date for Rosine Delamare was added, first referenced by a blog (not a reliable source), then by an obituary that may or not be her (it offers no details and overstates her age by a year), and finally Les Gens Du Cinema. I have no idea whether or not it is reliable (thus I haven't reverted), but I was curious to know if it was sufficient in this context. Canadian Paul 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That site looks entirely self-published with no editorial oversight. It also doesn't look like it's affiliated with a majorly notable person, or entity, so I'd wagger that it isn't acceptable, but that's just my interpretation.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The second source, www.avis-de-deces.net, is a service that accepts information via funeral directors (like the deaths column in a newspaper). There is (as you say) the question of whether it's the right person. But the age error is probably faulty communication and not an indication of total unreliability (in her 102nd year or aged 102? that would make all the difference).

OK, so: Les gens du cinéma. Yes, I would say it is reliable in our terms. It's an online continuation of a published (not self-published) encyclopedia, and the author can be found fairly widely described as an expert in this area. Here's a page about the book; here's a site showing that the publisher exists and is a member of the Belgian publishers' association.

I would accept the information from Les gens du cinéma, backed up by www.avis-de-deces.net. Andrew Dalby 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My reply is a little late, but thanks for the information! Canadian Paul 21:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

At [2] I have presented several reliable sources that Rudolf Steiner did pseudoscience. Among these source are Quackwatch (in respect to Steiner's contribution to medicine called anthroposophical medicine) and books by Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer. Some editors have challenged the appropriateness of these sources for calling Steiner a pseudo-scientist. Please note that I did not add the category pseudo-scientist to Rudolf Steiner, somebody else did that, and I support such category being applied to Steiner. Another user has also expressed support for it, but some editors who support Steiner have challenged the category. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I have also used quotes from Anthony Storr's book Feet of Clay to support my view. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Another author who called Steiner a pseudo-scientist has his own article at de:Martin Mahner. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The quotes from Storr are available at [3]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that an encyclopedia of the broad field of pseudoscience, whose articles are listed at User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles, includes a separate article relating to Rudolf Steiner. I don't remember the specific content of that article at this point, but I think it would be very useful to see if someone can check it for what it says about Steiner. I could myself in a few days, but the book isn't one I generally have immediate access to, so I would probably want to get a note on my talk page asking me to check it first. Having said that, I would be myself rather hesitant to use a phrase like "Steiner practices pseudoscience" or "Steiner was a pseudoscientist" because it strikes me as being potentially overbroad. Detailing what specific work he did which is counted as pseudoscience would probably be more neutral and encyclopedic. John Carter ( talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch is reliable as far as it is edited or supervised by Stephen Barrett, M.D., and its committee of advisers, and with respect to the reliability of the author of the particular page in question. The Shermer book and the Regal book are good sources for describing certain beliefs of Steiner to be pseudoscientific. The British Humanist Association calls Steiner's school system a school of pseudoscience in an op-ed piece in the Guardian. [4] David Jelinek identifies California skeptic Dan Dugan (audio engineer) as a prominent critic of Steiner school pseudoscience. [5] Journalist Todd Oppenheimer agrees that Dugan calls Steiner's theories pseudoscience. [6] In early 1914, Steiner himself responded to accusations that his beliefs were pseudoscientific: he gave a rebuttal speech called "The Pseudo-Science of the Present Time". [7] Yuko Kikuchi, PhD, describes Steiner and Blavatsky as the leaders of two different "pseudo-scientific occult movements". [8] British history scholar Janet Oppenheim wrote that Steiner manipulated and misused scientific language for spiritual purposes in a pseudoscientific manner. [9] Biologist Lee M. Silver devotes six pages (225–231) of his Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality to a discussion of Steiner's pseudoscientific beliefs. The French Association Française pour l’Information Scientifique characterizes Steiner's beliefs as pseudoscience: Skeptical Inquirer, November–December 2007, Jean Günther: "Le Monde et les pseudo-sciences" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet ( talk • contribs)

I'm not sure whether the last of these count as reliable sources. The AFIS articles are clearly not peer-reviewed. hgilbert ( talk) 01:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

For clarity's sake: the editors on the Rudolf Steiner page are agreed that there are a number of reliable sources on this theme that can be quoted within the article: Gardner, Oppenheim, Silver for example. The only question that has arisen is whether Steiner can be put in the Pseudoscientists Wikipedia category purely on the basis of these skeptics' evaluations. Categories are supposed to be from a "neutral point of view" and "uncontroversial...A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." But biographies of Steiner from standard biographical sources do not usually characterize him as a pseudoscientist (or the equivalent). For example:

1. Britannica's article on Steiner characterizes him as a "spiritualist, lecturer, and founder of anthroposophy, a movement based on the notion that there is a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge".
2. The Encyclopedia of World Biography" : "Austrian philosopher and educational reformer Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) remains perhaps best known for the educational methods he pioneered in his Waldorf schools, which have spread slowly but steadily around the world since his death. The philosophy underlying those schools grew out of a lifetime of innovative thinking that encompassed fields as diverse as traditional philosophy, spiritualism, color theory, art, agriculture, medicine, music, and architecture. A trained philosopher and at the same time a mystic, Steiner believed that spiritual insights could be gained through systematic thought."
3. New Catholic Encyclopedia describes him simply as a philosopher.
4. Merriam Webster's Biographical Dictionary: social philosopher and "Founder of the spiritualistic and mystical doctrine known as anthroposophy."

None of these touch even remotely on a term justifying such a categorization. hgilbert ( talk) 01:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to think that settled the point. Qexigator ( talk) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. The sources cited above are by and large from pseudoskeptics and debunkers. The sources are reliable as to their opinions but their opinions should not be used as the basis for WP declaring as a fact that Steiner (or anyone else) was or is a pseudoscientist, given the highly controversial and pejorative nature of that term. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 20:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No source has been shown that the statement "the mainstream academics regard Steiner (and clairvoyants in general) as pseudo-scientist(s)" would be controversial. Fact is that inside Wikipedia the category pseudoscience and pseudo-scientist has been applied to many other articles, and saying that it should not be applied to Steiner is special pleading. Seeing what has been argued above against the reliable sources, the proper action course would be to propose the whole category for deletion. In fact, failing to admit that the mainstream regards Steiner as being fringe is a lack of fair play, regardless on whether one considers true or false his views. Each person defines truth according to his/her own standards, therefore saying that humanity could agree upon what is true is illusion. That is what WP:VNT is about. I think a minimal sense of reality should compel anthroposophists to admit that they are regarded as fringe by the mainstream. They do debate the truthfulness of such label, considering themselves promoters of true science about the world and spirit, but they cannot deny that such label is applied to them by the mainstream. It's like Scientology would pretend that it is mainstream religion and would seek accreditation as psychotherapy. I understand that they see themselves as apostles of a new world-view, but until they get mainstream acceptance they are considered fringe. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironical enough, the article Pseudoskepticism bears itself the category pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides, Stephen Barrett is both a debunker and largely seen as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Therefore there is no conflict between being a debunker and being trustworthy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to use pictures as a source for a military colonel. Before I state my reason as to why I believe it is perfectly reliable, I want to provide the external links to the pictures first.

• From article 1 by Armenian Reporter:
• picture of medals displayed with a caption of: Medals of Col. Juskalian
• From article 2 by Armenian Reporter:
• With a caption of: Col. Juskalian in January 2008. Armenian Reporter
• From article 3 by Armenian Mirror Spectator:
• With a caption of: The late Col. George Juskalian with his wife Lucine. Note: it is the same display box as the first picture listed above.

The reason why I firmly believe these pictures can be used a reliable sources:

1. It is published by reliable sources such as Armenian Reporter and Armenian Mirror Spectator
2. The pictures have captions that are compatible with what the pictures presents
3. The Mirror Spectator and Armenian Reporter have provided two different pictures of the same display case, thus signifying that it is indeed Juskalian's medals and confirming verifiability.
4. The medals (though not all) are also confirmed with other third party sources such as: here
5. The medals that me and other medal experts have examined clearly indicate that the medals all conform to the battles and wars which written sources have claimed.
6. The second picture of Juskalian confirms that the displayed medals are in fact the same one's he wears as ribbons.

Now the reason why I bring this up is because I haven't found any written sources that indicate all his medals, only a handful. Turns out, he has dozens upon dozens in accordance to the pictures. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I request that the pictures should be accepted in good faith as an expendable source. The article I am creating is in my sandbox currently and I have plans of nominating it in FAC in the future. Thank you. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source for the photos, but I see a couple of problems: First, the six articles with pictures don't identify the medals. If the plan is to compare the medals with some other source and list them in the Wikipedia article, it's just your own original research. You need a reliable secondary source, like the Centereville newspaper article, if you want to identify them all. Also, if the plan is to use the photos in the article, you have a copyright issue. Other than that, you're golden Fladrif ( talk) 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

In this article there is a section titled Nikah mut‘ah (a form of temporary marriage) saying it is legalizing prostitution. Some of the references mentioned there are quoting Sunni sources. (check for example, the Washington post article) I am planning to include a sentence in that section that says similar marriage types exist in other sects of Islam and this is not specific to twelver Shi'as. I am planning to use the following sources and I am wondering if you find them reliable enough:

• "Mut'a is legalized fornication. Then there is Misyar marriage, sanctioned by Sunni Muslims. Misyar reduces marriage to a purely sexual relationship"

The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms By Elie Elhadj, p. 51

• "Although mutʿa is prohibited by Sunni schools of law, several types of nonpermanent marriage exist, including misyar (ambulant) marriage, which has gained official state sanction in Saudi Arabia, and ʿurfi (customary) marriage, which is becoming increasingly popular in Egypt."

Mut'a, by Karen Ruffle ( Professor of religion in Toronto University), Oxford Bibliographies

• "The sole object of the Misyar and Muta marriages is for sexual gratification in a licit manner. Like most practices in Islamic society, this is also skewed in favour of the male."

Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism, By Mushtaq K Lod, p. 59

Thank You.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 01:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just to say that kazemita has decided that he will try and alleviate the criticusm of twelvers by trying to show that sunnis supposedly also practice something like mutah. He has his agenda 1st then he has decided to find any refs to support that agenda no matter how ridiculously false. His 1 target is misyar. But misyar is permanent marriage yet he quotes a ref that says misyar is nonpermanent. Clear falsehood and example of any source to fit agenda. He also quotes ref that says misyar like mutah is purely for sexual pleasure. But misyar is permanent marriage so how is that possible and what makes it different to any other permanent marriage. Is western marriage also comparable to mutah then. Another clear falsohood and example of using any ref no matter how uneducated and wrong it is to suit an agenda. I hope you can see that he is abusing the wiki system for a sectarian agenda. Also if you check the article talk pg you will see that misyar was previously rejected for inclusion in the section by neutral editord. Suenahrme ( talk) 02:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The first source is published by Universal Publishing. It's not exactly a vanity press, but a publish-on-demand press. It doesn't look like it is a pay-to-publish model, and it specializes in academic publishing, so I'm not going to dismiss it, but I'd prefer a better source.

The second source, at Oxford Bibliographies, looks like it would be OK. It looks like a legitimate source and the author is a recognized expert in the field, previously published by respected academic press.

The third source is published by Strategic Book Publishing, which is a vanity press. I see no indication that the author is a recognized expert or that he has been previously published by independent, third party, legitimate publishers. That one is out.

Not commenting on whether the sources support the proposed text - not the job of RSN. Fladrif ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif except that I would add a firmer caveat about "Universal-Publishers" (the first source listed above). I don't see any sign of peer review there, so, if citing that book, you'd want to show that the author is accepted by peers (in reviews or via other peer-reviewed publications) as expert in the field.

Oxford Bibliographies, which I hadn't heard of before, is an arm of Oxford University Press, so our presumption would be that it's fully RS. Andrew Dalby 08:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have pit forward why misyar cannot nor ever be equated with muta yet nobody seems to want to discyss this or cares. Let me put my point to you in different way. If albert einstein said that 1+1=3 and then oxford press published this do we then add it into wikipedia vecause a repurable source published it? But this example isnt even as bad as the misyar example because the editor seeks to add misyar in an article called criticism of TWELVER SHIA. So why is this article being turned upside diwn into criticism of sunni no natter how inaccurate that mat be? If you want to add misyar or any other then you must note the PERMANENT nature of these compared to temporary muta. Otherwise the comparison is being grossly misrepresebted in favour of a twelver defence. Suenahrme ( talk) 00:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any specific challenges yet, but I was wondering if there are any general thoughts regarding La Cosa Nostra Database that is cited in various article pertaining to organized crime. It appears as though someone has put a lot of work into this website and the information appears to be accurate when verified from traditional reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is no "About" page to determine who is responsible for the compilation of this material. Thanks! Location ( talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an anonymous, self-published website. I see no record that the person to whom the website is registered is a recognized expert in the field, or has been previously published by an independent, third party, legitimate publisher. It is definitely not reliable source. If it is being used in any BLP, it should be immediately removed. Fladrif ( talk) 02:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the material is well done, if it is made in an anonymous way we would not normally use it. The only justification might be if the website is widely cited by experts in more traditional publications. That could at least make it notable, and if the citations were positive enough, there could even be discussion about whether it has a reputation for accuracy.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif, Andrew Lancaster: Thanks for the feedback! Location ( talk) 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yer welcome. Two more observations. First, the site might not be a reliable source by itself, but if, as Andrew Lancaster suggests, other reliable sources are using it as a reference, you may look to those sources instead. Second, it looks like the site contains a lot of links to other sources, and so even if it isn't a reliable source by itself, you may be able to use it as a research tool to find the original sources. Fladrif ( talk) 16:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User:SafwanZabalawi just reverted my addition of academic sources on the grounds that Wikipedia is more reliable:

(Undid revision 548079374 by Shii (talk) Reference to WP is enough+Quarterly is RS)

He also claims that an internal religious publication (Quarterly) is reliable enough to deserve a long quotation in the article about the religious group's own history.

I realize posting this here is almost specious but I would like someone else to confirm my interpretation of WP guidelines rather than just edit warring with SafwanZabalawi again. Shii (tock) 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, citing Wikipedia itself, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, would not be a reliable source. However, using the reference provided in the article in question would be fine, assuming it is reliable. TB randley 04:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I have been trying to supply this article with peer-reviewed academic sources and SafwanZabalawi argues that these sources are biased and that we must rely on the religion's own publications. See Talk:Soka_Gakkai#Improving_the_History_Section. Shii (tock) 04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the citation of WP itself, which is obviously not appropriate, citation of self-published materials can be useful for showing what a person or organization says about themselves. The normal warning we give is to avoid allowing this to become simple self promotion.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, such citations are only for self-description, not for historical analysis, right? Shii (tock) 16:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The source called the Quarterly, it would fall under WP:PRIMARY. It can be used to verify what the organization itself says (opinion), but not to verify any facts outside of that.

Wikipedia itself is a WP:SPS, and itself is not reliable. The source that verifies the content which is on Wikipedia is what should be used, and not the text on Wikipedia itself.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification. It may sound contradictive that WP source is not recognised by WP itself as a Reliable Source! However, for the current question asked by the concerned editor - I respect your presented views.

Thank you also for clarifying the position of citing from the "Quarterly". I appreciate that the Quarterly can be referred to but only to clarify a matter from the point of view of its publisher. I will use this guidance in the future for citation (from Quarterly or other related sources) as a referrence for clarification of whatever matter at hand. But now, to avoid complexity and raising emotions, I am satisfied by deleting that part related to the Quarterly.

The editor who raised the current matter to you - should have abided by your mentioned above statements.

However, the editor in concern used the view of this Board to conduct an editing further and incorrectly deleted other quotes from Reliable Sources. Not only the Quarterly quote was deleted - but other quotes from RS were deleted). It is not fair to report to you on one quote and then to delete other quotes (based on RS). SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The guideline "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has been stated and agreed from the very beginning of the encyclopedia.

You perhaps would like to read about reliable sources and try to agree with other editors on points at issue. If there are real problems over how to apply the guidelines, you can bring other specific questions to this board. Andrew Dalby 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

SOURCE BOOK : Social Mobility In Kerala (Modernity and Identity in Conflict) Fillippo Osella and Caroline Osella Publisher : Pluto Books, LONDON ISBN : 07453 1694 8 (Hardback) ISBN  07453 1693 x Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character (Paperback)

Thiyya is completely distinct caste, SNDP (is an organisation) merged Thiyya to Ezhava… THIS IS THE PROOF.

Page number 189 Last Paragraph.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rMRw0gTZSJwC&pg=PA265&dq=Dowry+tiyyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AnZXUeD2CNCSiAec8ID4Bg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tiyyas&f=false

Tiyya caste unified with Ezhavas during formation of SNDP. Formation of the SNDP created conditions for unification within a state wide caste of hitherto endogamous regional groups such as Izhavas, Chovans and Thiyyas., but also for the articulation and projection of an essentialised collective identity, albeit moulded in the image and aspirations of the izhava elite.

This is the evidence that SNDP was behind uniting Ezhava and Thiyya for political gain and it is clear that these castes were distinct.

Also on Page 95

The SNDP has been by and large successful in unifying formerly endogamous regional groups (Tiyyas, Chovans and Izhavas) into a state wide caste. While marriages between Travancore Izhavas and Malabar TIyyas are rare, they do occasionally take place, as love marriages needing little rehabilitation or as sought for alliances between wealthy elite families.

ARTICLE Ezhava

CONTENT

The Ezhavas are a community with origins in the region of India presently known as Kerala. They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Tiyyas, Thiyyas and Theeyas in Malabar.[1][2] The Malabar Tiyya group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the others, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were treated as being of similar rank.[1][3]

Above mentioned section is a copy paste from Ezhava article it is completely wrong, It has been cited from a book published by a political biased (communist) writer and the author cited SNDP in the book. SNDP is an organisation who merged Thiyya and Ezhava in 1903. But Thiyya and Ezhava Castes, culture and rituals are separate.

The book i have provided above is reliable. A group of contributors declined to accept these book as a WP:RS just wanted to know wikipedians opinion on this. Some wikipedia contributors just declining it just because the content of the book doesnt come inline with their views and I think it is against WP:RS

irajeevwiki talk 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Osella book is being used in the article already. The item that the initiator of this thread is interested in certainly appears in the book but those involved in the extensive talk page discussions have yet to evaluate the context and the extent to which it might give rise to a fork of the article. The issue is complicated because of the numerous reliable sources - such as those of Thomas Nossiter and David Mandelbaum in the refs of the copy/pasted excerp tmentioned above - which say the opposite.

This is not a matter for WP:RSN. It is a content dispute and is basically a group of new SPAs vs a group of experienced contributors. It can and should be worked out at Talk:Ezhava, where it has been explained on umpteen occasions that if different reliable sources say different things then we show those various opinions. - Sitush ( talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I said some contributors not ready to accept it is reliable source. Please go to this link [ [15]] a user called Qwyrxian disagrees to accept the book as wp:rs. I request wikipedians to look the page talk link I mentioned above. Sitush says it is reliable but Qwyrxian says not reliable. On the other hand Sitush says he will only accept if Qwyrxian accepts it.

I am bit confused here, especially when experience contributors say different opinion on wp:rs. I have submitted some 6 reliable source books already, they all rejected by these senior contributors and saying just NOT RELIABLE. this time I need to get other wikipedians help here, please. irajeevwiki talk 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your confusion is because you are not reading the responses as intended. You are in WP:IDHT mode and tempers are beginning to fray elsewhere as people try to cope with that. All but two of your sources have been rejected as unreliable. One of the remaining two is the Osella source that you have raised here. As I have said, that is currently in use in the article for various points: it is prima facie reliable and the issue regarding the specific item that you want to take from it is that the thing does not appear to say what you think it says - that is a content dispute. Qwyrxian is not the only person who has raised the issue of your abilities to comprehend both sources and other Wikipedians but, regardless, this is not an issue for RSN. At a push, it might be an issue for WP:DRN but I really would advise you to hang off going down that road. Right now, you are giving the appearance of forum shopping, even raising this general stuff in a sockpuppet investigation. Everyone knows that you are well-intentioned and that is probably the only reason why they are still tolerating your unwillingness or inability to accept how things work here. There are plenty of administrators involved in or watching that discussion, and there are other experienced contributors there: the chances of every one of them being wrong are pretty slim but every one of them has bent over backwards in an attempt to explain things. - Sitush ( talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Osella book is a reliable source. Pluto is an established, respected academic publisher. The authors are recognized experts in the relevant field, and have been extensively published. Content disputes, or how to resolve differences between two different RS sources, however, are not something that RSN can address. Fladrif ( talk) 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is the Singapore Infopedia considered a reliable source? See They Do Return...But Gently Lead Them Back, for an example where it is used (as the single source for that article). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

From the information on its webpage, Singapore Infopedia appears to be a project of the national library. It is not user-generated. It states that there is an editing process on any articles that are published. I'd say this is a reasonably reliable Tertiary Source that can be used within the limits of WP:TERTIARY. It should not be relied upon as the sole source for an article. Fladrif ( talk) 22:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I have concerns about the use of the British Film Institute's database. Some of it has been used in some Wikipedia articles, but is it considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of your concerns? The BFI is a tertiary source but not a User generated one so its better than imdb, but that's not to say it doesn't have mistakes. As usual secondary sources are better but there's nothing (generally) unreliable about the BFI that I can see. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but there's an RfC going on at Wikipedia_talk:FILM#Final_Fantasy_VII:_Advent_Children:_Science_fiction_or_Science_fantasy.3F, in which a user has expressed concern about using BFI as a source. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I can see no reason the BFI's site should not be considered reliable for information about a film. However, in this specific case - genre - things are always a bit fuzzy or arbitrary, and there is rarely one authoritative or definitive answer to be given by anyone about what genre something lies in - disagreeing with it on an interpretative point doesn't make it unreliable, it can just mean you're both right (or both wrong). Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC concerns the genre disputes on FFVIIAC. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the only issue in dispute, I don't think this is a case that can be answered meaningfully with "reliable" or "not reliable" here. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew there is no reliability issue here - though I can see from the GA and RFC why the GA reviewer has led you to believe otherwise. I think there may be a problem with the GA review and perhaps requesting a more experienced reviewer to look over the review may be more beneficial than spreading the debate across multiple venues. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BFI is supplied as a source that a film is "science fantasy" while some editors consider it "science fiction". Secondary sources are preferable. It could be that the two terms are synonyms, or one is subtype of another or that one classification is controversial. A secondary source would resolve this. TFD ( talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Do ChessGames.com is a Reliable source? -- Armanjafari ( talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but I can't see any use for it.-- Laun chba ller 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This source used in Chess. -- Armanjafari ( talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see a couple of reasons why not. The founders/publishers and the site appears to have a level of acceptance in the chess community based on interviews, articles etc. But there are some red flags as well. Per its webpage a fair amount of the content is user-generated. One of the pages used as a ref on the Wikipedia Chess article, the bio of a player, is a mirror of the Wikipedia article on that player. It says that the choice of famous games and matches are user-chosen, not editor chosen. So, I'd want to look reference-by-reference as to how it is actually being used. Stuff like images of positions in games to illustrate the text are probably fine. I'd be cautious about anything else. Fladrif ( talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But this source has been used in 4 texts. According to this that chess is a featured article, can I use this source in featured articles? -- Armanjafari ( talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a persuasive argument. There are a multitude of sources that have been extensively discussed at RSN, that are clearly not reliable, and yet have been used in thousands of Wikipedia articles, including many that managed to pass GA review. It looks to me that chessgames.com has been cited in 1070 articles at Wikipedia. That probably puts it squarely in the middle of cleanup nightmares. It could be worse: findagrave is cited over 11,000 times; thepeerage.com nearly 6,500. Just because Wikipedia editors have used a source that they shouldn't have ten times, or a hundred times, or a thousand times, or ten thousand times doesn't make it right. In my experience editors use these sources because they are more convenient than going to a brick and mortar library for sources that would pass RS, and also because 5 or 6 years ago Wikipedia was a lot more lax about use of convenient, but unreliable sources. There isn't a single thing at chessgames.com that couldn't be sourced to a reliable source if the editors would be bothered to do the work. Fladrif ( talk) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Raising Roses Among the Thorns by Rabbi Noach Orlowek. Feldheim Pub (January 2003) - Page 345, footnote 1.

2. Article: Elazar Shach

3. Content:

Shach is also quoted as saying that although the yeshivas are the heart of the Jewish people, it is the ba'alei teshuvah who will be the one's to bring Mashiach

.

The original quote in the book is as follows:

Dr. Alan Weiss, a prominent cardiologist from St. Louis, who enjoyed a close relationship with Rav Elozor Shach , zt”l, quoted Rav Shach as having told him that although the yeshivos are the heart of the Jewish People, it is the ba’alei teshuvah who will be the ones to bring Mashiach.

.

I restored this quote to the page, but then it was later removed. See the discussion on the talk page there.

Would this quote fall under the same category as the quote from Mishpacha magazine discussed earlier or would this be considered more reliable?

Yonoson3 ( talk) 05:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The supposed quote in question is, at best WP:HEARSAY and therefore fails WP:V. If it is accurate, there should be no difficulty providing a reliable source (perhaps from Shach's own extensively published writings) to support inclusion. Also relevant may be Alan Weiss' own WP:NOTABILITY or lack thereof...-- Winchester2313 ( talk) 06:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis. Secondary sources are inevitably and by definition hearsay, so that is no objection to a reliable source. The fact that Orlowek is relating something that Shach said to Weiss (double hearsay, in fact) might be a good objection in court, but not on Wikipedia. Verifiability does not contemplate that editors are able to check the original source material for a statement in a source and verify it for themselves, but simply that it is possible for someone to check the reference to see that the text in Wikipedia is supported by the citation. That is clearly possible here, so verifiability is met. Weiss's notability or lack thereof is irrelevant, because this does not concern his opinion on anything, where we would be asking ourselves "Why should we take note what he thinks?"

As for the source itself, Feldheim Publishers is an established publisher, in business nearly 75 years. It's not a vanity press. Noach Orlowek is sufficiently prominent to have 4000+ hits on Google, nearly 1000 on Google Books and 25 on Google Scholar (the BLP on Orlowek is unsourced, so I'm not relying on that as any proof of notability, but that's something to be remedied by someone sourcing that article), and has published several books. This is different from the magazine discussed earlier, because it is not a self-published editorial. So, I think this is a reliable source for the purpose proposed, but I would inject one caveat. This book, like most of Orlowek's books is on the subject matter of raising children. The statement attributed to Shach is an aside. I think this source can be used, but I would think that a better source along the lines suggested by Winchester2313 would be preferable. A source doesn't need to be available on-line, if that is the problem. Until a stronger source is found, however, I see no problem with this source. Fladrif ( talk) 13:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Source: A 30-minute-long film about the making of the film by Armenia TV link
• Article: User:Yerevanci/Tjvjik is just the draft, I will move it to Tjvjik as soon as I'm done.
• Content: The source is basically a film about the 1961 Armenian film called Tjvjik by one of the most popular TV channels of Armenia - Armenia TV. This video is really valuable, because it interviews people that had been part of the making of film. Do you think I can use it as a source? -- Երևանցի ^talk 02:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

House News is a fairly new Huff Post-like site in Hong Kong. Currently, the only article that links to it is the article on House News itself, but at the crazy rate at which they're expanding, it's only a matter of time before Wikipedians start citing it. They have articles from reputable and/or famous people and organisations like Greenpeace and Murong Xuecun, but there seems to be Joe Bloggses on there as well. Is it reliable? Thanks. Kayau ( talk · contribs) 04:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. Yes, I'm thinking of using it as a source. The article in question is Occupy Central (2014). Kayau ( talk · contribs) 05:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The history of the Kraus is all messed up on this site. The timelines are not accurate at all. You need to access the ship's deck logs for her locations and time periods. See National Archives.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The following sources were recently added to Arthur Rubin

• "Anti-Semitism by Jews for Claims that Prof. Santilli is anti-Semitic". The International Committee on Scientific Ethics and ASccountability. October 5, 2012. Retrieved March 20, 2013.
• "Jewish mathematician caught editing Alex Jones Wikipedia page". September 26, 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2013. (twice)

The only statemet sourced by either of those is "Rubin was born to a Jewish family," and probably some of the categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Already removed, per comment on talk page. However, the former site needs to be watched for reinclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither reference is a reliable source. The first is one of the many projects of fringe theory promoter Ruggero Santilli The second is blog by an otherwise unremarkable, unknown and unpublished conspiracy theorist. Deletion was the right course of action. Fladrif ( talk) 03:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Attacking BLP's is bad enough, fellow editors is downright loathsome.   little green rosetta (talk)
central scrutinizer  03:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a persistent enough problem, then we can WP:BLACKLIST the websites. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to the process, having usually been a single point editor on various topics for either minor spelling/grammar errors, or correcting information I personally have first hand knowledge of or can site correct sources for. However, I found this and it struck me as "off" and upon further investigation I realized I had to look into how to fix this.

The article in question is about "turning the other cheek" - Christianity Portal.
There are several things in this article that draw one's attention, and it's obvious from the Citation tag in content point one that someone else has already noted attribution issues. However, the article (specifically the header "interpretations") contains several wordings that make the article difficult or confusing to read.

The first sentence under the header Interpretations contains the phrase "subjected to both literal and figurative interpretations." However the following sub-headers are "Straightforward interpretation," "Righteous personal conduct interpretation" and "Literal interpretation" none of which can be reconciled (IMHO) with the word "figurative" (although since the WP post is about a cliche phrase, the phrase can be considered figurative itself, but any interpretation of it included in the article does not fit this criteria.)

Under the "Literal" sub-header, the text is taken *word-for-word* (including spelling errors) from a user comment following a beliefnet.com article. (Said article is listed under the "external links" footnotes.) However the BN article itself does not directly address the topic of turning the other cheek, but rather seems to be vaguely about the general topic of nonviolence. The "view history" tab seems to indicate several revisions where uncredited material or opinions were edited or deleted completely, specifically one time stamped 15:04, 28 June 2011‎.

The user comment on the beliefnet.com site was created by Jbrown77, timestamped by their site 09/12/2010 05:28:37 PM. This precedes the time stamp of June 2011, leading me to the conclusion the user comment came before the inclusion/edit on WP. Specific wording include:

• UC-BN: "That is also why He says, "you have heard it said" instead of, "for it is written" during the sermon. He was teaching against teachers not scripture."
• WP text:"Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture."
  

• UC-BN: "At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."
• WP text: "At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."
  
• UC-BN:"Just like the teaching about being compelled to walk a mile, under roman law you had to be a courrier if the military commanded you too but it was illegal for them to make you walk more than a mile, so by walking two miles you were making them testify against themselves in order for them to keep from breaking the law."
• WP text:The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions."

Based on this information, I felt that *someone* should look into this, as I do not know if some disciplinary action is necessary, nor for whom. If the original poster of the user comment on beliefnet is *not* the contributor of the text on WP (which based on slight changes and context I doubt) this could result in issues of plagiarism. While I am willing to do some research to find better sourcing and help, I do not know enough about the WP procedures to go about this correctly.

1) http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/01/The-Limits-Of-Turn-The-Other-Cheek.aspx
2) Turning_the_other_cheek

Ladyisarma ( talk) 07:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, plagiarism needs to be fixed, but I'm not entirely sure that all of this is a case of plagiarism. (The word-for-word stuff is both plagiarism and a copyright violation.) There are only so many ways that you can usefully express some of these concepts.

But no matter what the proper label, the solution is the same: you can WP:BOLDly improve the text by either adding attribution or quotation marks or by re-writing it yourself. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked at AN/I. Fladrif ( talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics should be added as a reliable source. It is edited, in part, by Norman Geisler (a noted scholar). Other information here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca Yeoberry ( talk) 19:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible to say without exception that a particular source is or is not a reliable source. What we need, as requested at the top of the page, is a link to the Wikipedia article that the source is used for, in the case of a journal like this, the specific author and journal article that you wish to cite, preferably the passage in context, and the text that the cited source is being used to support. Fladrif ( talk) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I now see that the dispute is over the articles Iconography, Eastern Orthodox Church and History of the Orthodox Church and Epiphanius of Salamis and Icon ; the proposed text is here [16]and here [17] and here [18] and here [19], and the specific journal article is John B. Carpenter, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 111.

Setting aside that it is highly irregular to insert the identical language into three five different articles simultaneously, and then to edit-war over it, practices that raises all kind of red flags, I'll confine myself to the source. I have no idea who the author, John B. Carpenter, is, or whether he has any qualifications as an expert in the field. The journal itself is obscure, is virtually uncited by other established journals in the field, indicating that it has not established a reputation necessary to be considered a reliable source. Given its stated mission, and that membership is limited to those professing agreement with its statement of doctrine, I would not consider its "peer review" to be commensurate with that of an academic journal. Also, the question of journals published by religious organizations like this one has come up before, and the general rule is that such journals can only be used for statements about their own beliefs, and not for statement of fact or about other religions. See this discussion about the Christian Research Journal. [20]].In sum, I do not think that the Carpenter article qualifies as a reliable source for the statements is is being used for in the various articles on the early iconography of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church and its history of iconography is outside the narrow sectarian scope and religious beliefs of this journal's members. The deletion of the proposed text and source by other editors was correct. Fladrif ( talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no roster of reliable sources, but this journal would probably be unacceptable for most articles since it presupposes the absolute truth of biblical teachings about science and history. Geisler does not appear to have written anything in mainstream academia. TFD ( talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Geisler is just the editor, not the author, and I agree that there is no indication that he is recognized in scholarly sources. Based upon information the requester posted in yet another article, the author is merely a church pastor in North Carolina. The link to his website indicates that he previously taught at two bible colleges in Singapore and Ethiopia. I see no indication that he has ever been published by an independent, reputable third-party academic or similar press or publication prior to this article. Fladrif ( talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)::And although editors with a COI can edit, edit-warring by an editor with a COI is not acceptable. See WP:COIN#Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy. Dougweller ( talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the publication and the article do not fit the requirements for a relaible source according to WP policy. Essentially, it is nothing more than a prosyletizing tract, and is by its very nature unduly, and solely, self-serving in nature. The claim that this publication is scholarly and peer-reviewed is unsubstantiated. As far as I can tell, the ONLY purpose of the publication is to promote the particular religious views of Norman Geisler and his sympathizers. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The worldview of the journal certainly doesn't disqualify it - what disqualifies it is that worldcat only lists two institutions that have copies. St Anselm ( talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Scholar results indicate very little to no academic impact. This so-called International Society of Christian Apologetics is almost non-existent on Google Scholar and it gets only 14 hits. Its journal gets only one indirect hit. This is clearly not a mainstream theological journal. Meanwhile there is no mention of John B. Carpenter's paper on Google Scholar on which it gets precisely zero hits: [21]. And John. B. Carpenter is also close to nonexistent on Google Scholar and certainly his existing work, sparse as it is, is nowhere near the topics he is edit-warring to add information to. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not rs because its writers have different criteria for establishing facts than used in reliable sources. For example, Geisler has said that the existence of flying saucers, which are sent by the Devil as part of his final assault on Earth, is established fact. TFD ( talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TFD. Obviously you have specialised information about which I have no idea. :) No wonder Google Scholar has such low metrics. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 03:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• This matter is now being discussed at WP:AN/I#Yeoberry. Fladrif ( talk) 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Others and I are appalled that the flu shot article reads like a mindless piece of propaganda for promoting the flu shot with only infinitesimal attention to the downsides. Many, many people weigh the pros and cons of a flu shot before getting one, and some parties/sources are completely against it. A lot people are looking up this article looking for information on the controversies, but virtually none is there.

There are tricky problems here that warrant discussion. Foremost, people that are against the flu shot claim the entire general medical community promoting it is unreliable/subjective, because many in the medical community (especially the CDC) benefit financially from reporting positively. This can emulate via isomorphism a groundless conspiracy theory, and in fact, much of the negativity goes too far because the actual level of subjectivity is very gray. Another issue is that long-term effects of particular ingredients can only be theorized about ahead of time with no medical evidence to quote. The WHO claimed that mobile phones had no ties to cancer, and now research is out that contradicts that. That in my book diminishes some of the WHO's credibility for objectively denying that something they have an agenda with causes long-term damage. The CDC and WHO are heavily quoted on the flu shot page. If they're both being subjective, then not only does all the material quoting them as sources come into question for reliability, but this snowballs an automatic sentence of subjectivity to much of the medical community quoted on the page relying on them as their primary sources.

I have a very low immune system and I've been constantly researching whether the flu shot is a good idea. I'm a very objective party because I have no ties one way or the other to the medical community and don't benefit by spending my time doing all this. I have perfectly good proof of this as a long-term comedian, writer, and artist online. I say this because the situation is very difficult to correctly gauge at a glance given that the flu shot article is so flooded with "reliable sources" that it makes any glancing editor question editors that disagree heavily with the balance of the article. Hence, one thing I suggest you take into account is the objectivity of the editors raising this complaint like myself.

There's a lot of relevant discussion on Talk:Influenza vaccine. Please especially note the cons and controversies draft I've posted there under discussion. Thanks for any help with this. Squish7 ( talk) 03:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The question as stated is completely unreasonable. If the flu shot article reads (to you) like a mindless piece of propaganda for promoting the flu shot, it's because reliable sources, with no financial interest in the subject, agree that that the "downside" is infinitesimal. I don't see any reason why your concerns belong on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I started a draft section (or maybe the base of an entire article like the mobile phone radiation controversy) with 12 extremely varied sources that as a whole contradicts the tone of the main flu shot article, and is such that all the sources have to be deemed unreliable for it to have no weight, and I'm looking for advice on those sources in this particular context as it may be somewhat unique. Squish7 ( talk) 03:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Squish, you should really take a read of WP:MEDRS. It would be quite unusual to use the news media to present any point of view, when the other points of view in the article are backed by peer-reviewed secondary medical articles. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Several of those sources in that draft are dubious at best. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the third person to present the absurd logic that "12 minus several = zero". I know that some of them may not be reliable, that's why it's there as a draft. I don't need anyone to point out again that "some" of the sources are unreliable. The single sentence I supported by 12 sources is so contradictory of the tone of the entire article that even if two of the 12 support it well, it warrants revision of the article's balance and tone. Squish7 ( talk) 04:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Listen sport, I don't know where you came up with this 12 minus several crap, but you can peddle that little tirade somewhere else because I didn't say that. Obviously you do need someone to point out that some of the sources are crap, then maybe you won't waste everyone's time by putting them into the draft and making us review them. Doesn't matter if it's a draft, you're presenting them as evidence here. Lastly, so what if 2 sources say what you want. The other 500 that don't make your 2 a WP:FRINGE issue that really doesn't merit much coverage. Stick around and maybe someone will explain why you are totally misinterpreting NPOV. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What is "much" coverage? It's just all but zero right now. When a new reader first looks at the article, they see literally thirty lines of links in the Contents section all neutrally or positively worded. If there is a significant group of educated people that disagree with the primary medical consensus, they can't just be cut out entirely, nor can downsides and potentially dangerous side effects of the flu shot be worded specifically to trivialize such. You're glancing at my sources outside of context. If you were to thoroughly read through all the articles I link to and cross-reference them with the entire flu shot article as a whole, you should notice a gaping lack of representation of minority views. I'm not demanding such attention to detail but my claim is such that you can't possibly respond at a glance without seriously considering the details, because those details shift the weight of what you'd see at a glance, that's why I'm raising the topic here, to clarify a very tricky issue of which the factor of context is especially fragile and must be examined in depth. Squish7 ( talk) 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[cont] Please keep in mind the sources I gathered are a tiny drop of articles that come up on Google. I didn't hunt for years to come up with the list; it became so overwhelming that I didn't bother to go on to find 50 more sources. If 2 are sound out of 12 I gathered on the fly just to initially raise the issue, I'm sure a dozen more that meet the requirements that the 2 pass could be found with more research. Again I can't demand anybody do that research, but it's worth noting that the article may be significantly unbalanced and that things should be done now or at some point by someone (maybe me) to correct the issue I (and others on the talk page) have brought to light. Squish7 ( talk) 16:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy: The "other points of view" meaning the main point of view, isn't just a point of view, it's all but the only point of view presented. The minority POV is barely grazed. My sources contradict the balance and weight of POVs. Look at the size of the article; it's not 5 sentences pro and 1 sentence con; almost every sentence in the article serves to create promotion for the flu shot. Squish7 ( talk) 04:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The neutral point of view has literally nothing to do with balancing pros and cons. Nor does it have anything to do with "showing the other side of the story". The neutral point of view is about balancing all significant points of view on a subject, as described in reliable sources. If reliable sources present a monolithic point of view, then so will Wikipedia. What you have provided is not 12 reliable sources, or 12 - several, or 2. It's zero. Take a look again at WP:MEDRS. If there really the degree of controversy over the flu shot that you allege, then you should have no trouble finding medical review articles that discuss it, rather than news stories. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the types of medical journals you say I should reference, that's why I'm not directly editing the article, but I'm sure at least some of the references I'm providing are, and their removal from the medical community speaks to their ability to pipe up for the total balance of all available medical journals. How could I possibly research every medical journal and form my own opinion about their total and absolute balance? To mock-quote Star Trek, I'm a Wikipedia contributor, not a doctor. The doctors and generally knowledgeable and reliable editors/sources I've quoted are incredibly more versed than I am about the general weight of all those journals as a whole. If reliable parties who really know what they're talking about present an utterly different picture than the article here, there's probably something wrong. That in fusion with the general data that the net medical community gains all things considered by promoting the flu shot, that means there is going to be much more medical/journal evidence for the flu shot because it's the people promoting it doing the research! So even if the balance of the medical journals seems to be for the flu shot, what does that say to the lack of research that's been done on the negatives? Squish7 ( talk) 06:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[cont] Let me reword another way. What if a significantly sized article is off-balance the way it's written, but is monopolized by a majority, and only a minority would write a balanced article with the information at hand? Let's suppose that I'm correct in that the flu shot article does not represent a balanced picture. Even if I had complete, absolute medical journal information, there still would be nothing I could even do, because hacking away at the forest of convoluted references and writing would cause an edit war I would loose, because there'd be more people going against me on evvvery single stupid edit that diminished the overall tone of the article. Squish7 ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not a single one of the twelve (12) sources in the draft meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS and cannot be used, individually or collectively, to support any statement in a Wikipedia article about the efficacy, lack of efficacy or risks associated with flu vaccines. Popular press reports from sources like those you've listed, while reliable for most purposes on Wikipedia, don't meet the much more stringent requirements of sourcing for medicine-related articles. The kinds of sources you are going to need will be the kind you will find on Google Scholar, and not just individual clinical trials. You'll want to look for meta-analysis and reviews, like these: [22] Fladrif ( talk) 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So if every news station, newspaper, magazine, website, and blog on the planet, including a sea of reputable doctors of all fields including ones relevant to the issue at hand, declared there's a mass corruption of the medical community on XYZ issue, this is completely irrelevant to the article? What is the difference here between that and this issue aside from magnitude? I just don't see how parties financially motivated to report a certain way (PCP, WHO, doctors who financially benefit from promoting the flu shot, etc.) that may otherwise meet your stringent requirements, pass with flying colors for objectivity in such a scenario. Squish7 ( talk) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In a word, yes. I get 200,000 hits on Google for Jenny McCarthy's claim that vaccinations cause autism. We can, and do, cite those sources in McCarthy's BLP, but we do not use those sources in any medicine-related article on vaccinations or autism. In medicine-related matters, Wikipedia does not use popular press as a source. Fladrif ( talk) 16:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you're talking about one person vs. an enormous sea of reputable doctors and mainstream media. If the latter had Jenny McCarthy's theory, that would warrant inclusion as a "controversies" section in an autism article. Secondly, there's a section called "Activism and autism controversy" on Jenny McCarthy's page. I've stated that my proposed paragraph may be grounds for a separate article. Even if it doesn't belong on the flu shot page, it stands exactly the same as a stub article with the same title, or a section that should go somewhere on Wikipedia. I think it should go on the flu shot page, but I'm open to suggestions. (Other people have said the same thing on the flu shot talk page, that they specifically went there looking for information on controversies and downsides, etc.) Squish7 ( talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As, has already been pointed out to you on the article talk page, there is a separate article already regarding these issues: Vaccine controversies, so I am mystified by your claim that there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Fladrif ( talk) 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Squish7, just rewrite it only using WP:MEDRS, if it is a valid controversy and not WP:FRINGE then you will be able to do this. Our concern comes from the guidelines of WP:FRINGE/PS which states that we should not represent psudoscience as if it is valid scientific research. The way to avoid getting sucked into the psudoscientific trap is to rely upon WP:MEDRS. So find the sources, or use a different article, because the article you are currently trying to add to involves the scientific view of the subject and accordingly we can't put information that isn't backed up by the proper sources. Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Coffeepusher et al regarding use of WP:MEDRS. Peer-reviewed medical journals are the only reliable source here. Malke 2010 ( talk) 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I missed the sentence on the talk page directing me to vaccine controversy, I apologize, and I didn't catch the link to it in the main article because I'm forced to use a dark color scheme (because of vision problems) that doesn't highlight links unless I run the mouse over to them. I'm relatively good at picking up where they might be in context, but the link was buried in the article in a trivialized sentence in a trivialized sub-category ("side effects" section that begins by listing a herd of mild effects without any mention of controversy or serious negatives). I'll be more careful in the future, but the absolute absurdity remains that a generally competent Wikipedia editor and prolific writer did all this research, writing, debating, and inquiring to only now discover that there's an entire group of articles that I should have been able to find with 1/1000th the effort. At the absolute least, it stands that the composition of the article makes it difficult for people even specifically searching for controversy/cons to find these other articles, just as others have commented on the talk page. I don't need to do any research to know that the structure of the article is imbalanced. I can promise you I could go thoroughly verify every reference in the flu shot article, and I would still write a very different article with that information than is written now.

To quote the person who started a similar issue on the talk page entitled "More info on controversies to clarify the issue": "It would be nice if this article did not read like a mindless propaganda for getting the flu-vaccine, with no clear section delineating controversies. Anything negative is so buried in the article, such that the article seems only to sing the praises of the vaccines." Someone else in a topic after that in a topic called "needs reorganization" states: "Discussion of effectiveness appears at several places, and should be consolidated." Someone going looking for an answer on the flu shot's effectiveness is hit with an onslaught of technical jargon that doesn't give any clear answer. Anything to do with negatives, side effects, lacks of effect, history of controversy, is buried or difficult to locate in the article.

I do recognize I'm straying into issues that are for the flu shot talk page, not here, so let me make my main point regarding reliability of sourcing. If the information is correct stated in two of my questionable sources that the CDC has a 15-member advisory committee that has financial ties to the selling of the flu shot, does this not completely discredit the CDC as a reliable source of information in this article, which employes a silly slew of sentences that follow the structure "Despite [this], the CDC[/WHO] says there's nothing to worry about". You keep saying "reputable journals", but how can you keep cutting out the motive of self-interest. Where does the money for all these flu shots go? Who is sponsoring all these studies? They have to be paid for, and by whom? The people selling the flu shot have a financial motive to conduct these studies. Who has a financial motive to conduct studies that oppose the ones funded by people who gain from the motivated studies? Squish7 ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to have this discussion.

You are not asking about whether Source 1 can support Claim X. You are asking about WP:DUE weight issues, which are (1) best handled at the article's talk page and (2) supposed to be taken to WP:NPOVN if that's not good enough.

In general, though, your sources are the wrong kind. Journalists are notoriously bad at science reporting. If you want to write about a scientific question, then go off to http://PubMed.gov and search for scientific sources. Click the button on the left that limits the search to "Reviews", and you'll have secondary sources—and I guarantee that they will not say that flu vaccinations are perfect. ( WP:MEDRS, by the way, prohibits editors from cherry-picking sources based on a belief that vaccination is a big conspiracy theory that involves paying off all the doctors.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Start date in NRHP articles, about running a bot to implement "start date" and "end date" microformatting into NRHP infoboxes. -- do ncr am 01:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion is occurring regarding a disagreement of the casualty figures used in the lead section and in the infobox.

Another editor, prefers to use a single a reference from the Austin Statesman:

• "Lawmakers' briefing leads to confusion; 30 wounded". Austin Statesman. Associated Press. 6 November 2009. Retrieved 7 March 2013. Two congressmen and a senator said they had been told the number of wounded had risen to 38, or eight more than had been publicly reported by the military. But a fourth lawmaker, who had been among those briefed, said the 38 figure included some that had been hospitalized for stress, and had not been shot.

This reference is used to verify this content:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and a total of 30 people were wounded in the incident.

This content replaced this content which was verified by the sources below:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and a total of 32 people were wounded in the incident.

These are the sources which the Austin Statesman reference removed:

• Ned Berkowitz (14 February 2013). "Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Help Ft. Hood Shooting Victims". ABC News. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others wounded in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas.
• Jim Forsyth (28 February 2013). "Accused Fort Hood shooter seeks to move trial venue". Reuters. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Hasan has been in custody since the attack, in which 32 people were wounded.
• Debra J. Saunders (12 February 2013). "Fort Hood heroes are victims twice over". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Tonight ABC News will be airing a story on victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that left 13 victims dead and 32 wounded.
• Clifford Krauss (12 October 2010). "Defendant in Court for Hearing at Ft. Hood". New York Times. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan returned Tuesday to Fort Hood in a wheelchair and combat fatigues for a pretrial hearing 11 months after he opened fire in a base processing center, killing 13 people and wounding 32 more.
  Colonel Pohl has said that he will call all of the 32 wounded victims, who will be asked to describe what they saw of the shooting.
• David Tarrant (1 November 2010). "Fort Hood shooting sent wounded warrior, his fiance on odyssey of despair, hope". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 14 March 2013. In fact, Patrick, now 29, was one of the most seriously wounded in the slaughter at Fort Hood where 12 soldiers and one civilian died and 32 others were wounded.
• Jessica Stanton (22 October 2012). "Ft. Hood survivors: 'Attack was not workplace violence'". Daily caller. Retrieved 14 March 2013. The shooting rampage, waged by fellow soldier Major Nidal Hasan, left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded.
• Megan McCloskey (13 October 2010). "Another delay in Fort Hood shooting case?". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 14 March 2013. The Article 32 for the Army psychiatrist accused of murdering 13 people and wounding 32 others here last year has been postponed twice.
• Gregg Zoroya (4 February 2011). "Report faults FBI, Army in Fort Hood shootings". USA Today. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Thirteen people died in the shooting at Forth Hood and 32 others were wounded.
• Donna Miles (5 November 2010). "Fort Hood lessons promote better force protection". American Forces Press Service. United States Army. Retrieved 14 March 2013. One year after a tragic shooting spree left 13 people dead and 32 more injured at Fort Hood, Texas, the military is working at every level to apply lessons learned to protect the force against an increasingly complex threat, an Army force-protection official told American Forces Press Service.
• Chris Rovzar (5 November 2009). "Seven Twelve Killed and Twelve Twenty Wounded in Shooting at Fort Hood, Texas". New York Magazine. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Update 4: Military officials report that the total number of injured victims is now 32.
• "Nov 5, 2009: Army major kills 13 people in Fort Hood shooting spree". History.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC. Retrieved 14 March 2013. On this day in 2009, 13 people are killed and 32 others are wounded when a U.S. Army officer goes on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in central Texas.
• Dennis, Alicia (2010). "Fort Hood Massacre: One Year Later: A Survivor's Story". People. 74 (18). Time Inc. Retrieved 14 March 2013. Instead, the Army Reserve combat medic was shot in the deadliest rampage to date on a U.S. Army post-the Nov. 5 Fort Hood, Texas, massacre that left 12 soldiers and 1 civilian dead and 32 others wounded.
• Lieberman, Joseph I. (2011). Ticking Time Bomb: Counter-Terrorism Lessons from the U. S. Government's Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. Diane Publishing. p. 15 of 89. ISBN  9781437981223. Retrieved 14 March 2013. On November 5, 2009, 13 Americans - 12 servicemembers and one civilian employee of DoD - were killed and 32 were wounded in an attack at the military base at Fort Hood, Texas.

My question is, does the Austin Statesman article at the top of this question a superior reference to be used to verify the casualty figure in the Fort Hood Shooting article over the other references that I have listed? If yes, why? If not, why? If not, what source, or sources should be used?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's extremely disingenuous of this editor to act like there is only ONE source that uses the 30 figure, while going on to list numerous sources that use the 32 figure. In reality, there are TONS of reliable sources using the 30 figure, and it has actually been used more widely than the 32 figure and will give you more results in a Google search. It should also be pointed out that an RFC concluded this editor's proposed changes should be scrapped. The Austin Statesman source is by far the most detailed article on this subject, and it cites Fort Hood as its source. Quote:

This was all explained in detail on the Talk:Fort Hood shooting page, but it's pretty simple:

• • The 29 number (wounded) comes from excluding the shooter from the total.
  • The 30 number (wounded) comes from including the shooter.
  • The 32 number (wounded) comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter (32).
  • The 38 number (wounded) comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress.

Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, but we don't need to repeat their mistakes in the Fort Hood shooting article. ROG5728 ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Austin Statesman source which is quoted above is dated 6 November 2009, and yes as I stated at the talk page of the article in question, there are multiple reliable sources that verify the 29, 30, 32, and 38 figure. However, the summary just above this comment is WP:OR, as best as I can tell. Where are the references that verify what ROG5728 said above in attempting to explain the differing wounded figures? Moreover, one of the references completely contradicts, and IMHO supercedes, the Austin Statesman source by updating and saying that wounded figure increased to 32.

The reason why I list one source for the 30 figure, and the multitude of other sources for the 32 figure, is that they are the references removed by ROG5728.

This is not a mischaracterization, this is fact. There are diffs to prove it.

Since all those references were replaced by a single reference, this is the reason why I am asking other editors at RfC whether one single reference is superior than the other references I have provided.

Again, here is the question:

Does the Austin Statesman article at the top of this question a superior reference to be used to verify the casualty figure in the Fort Hood Shooting article over the other references that I have listed? If yes, why? If not, why? If not, what source, or sources should be used?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is a multitude of references using the 30 figure, not just that one. However, in Wikipedia articles (especially in the lead) it's not customary to cite every single source that agrees with a given bit of text; that's not how we do things. ROG5728 ( talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so where are they? And why are those sources better quality than the sources above? Why are the sources to be given more weight in deciding the wounded figure in the lead of the article, than the sources above? I have provided a multitude of sources, one being a republishing of a report from the United States Senate.

Also, please see WP:CITELEAD:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

As the wounded figure is challenged, verification to a reliable source(s) is required. The 30 and 32 figures can both be verified (as can other figures); this is part of the reason why we have reached this point (if we want to get down to the bare bones of the matter).

In the past I have even provided sources for the 30 figure, but I am of the opinion (presently) that the quality and weight of the sources that verify the 32 figure are stronger than those that verify the 30 figure. I have not seen this done by other editors (at least to the extent and depth which I have done).

That being said, I think we can agree that there are a multitude of reliable sources that also verify the 29, and 38 figure as well, without agreeing that those figures have the quality of reliable sources that the 32 (in my opinion) or the 30 (in ROG5728's opinion) figures have.

The reason for bringing a discussion of reliable sources to this noticeboard is his noticeboard is frequented by editors who regularly look at sources and determine if they meet reliable source qualifications or not; those editors are also likely to be able to give an informed opinion on the quality of sources as well. It is my belief that ROG5728 and myself had made our opinions very clear up to this point here, and on the talk page of the Fort Hood Shooting article. I look forward to other individual editors opinions.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No additional comments have yet been received. There are presently only two opposing editors involved in this discussion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting additional editors to comment.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to use reliable sources that have a reputation for accuracy, only one source should normally be provided. In my experience, a large number of sources for one fact indicates that there is a question of its accuracy. It can be irritating too to be presented with more than one source, because if one disputes a fact, then one must read each and every source. When reliable sources conflict, then the correct approach is to determine which one is accurate. Sometimes that means looking at the primary sources upon which the secondary sources rely. For example, in this case we can check where the sources claim to have received their information then look at that source to see if they are correct. TFD ( talk) 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a question regarding accuracy.

Multiple different reliable sources give different figures. It is my contention that the AP source whose author is "Wire Report" and reported by the Austin Statesman is not the most accurate of the available sources. It is the position of the other editor of this discussion that the Austin Statesman source is more accurate than the multiple references that I have provided above.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RCLC, your position has been dismantled time and again at Talk:Fort Hood shooting, and that's why everyone sided against you in the RFC there. Again, there are actually a multitude of sources that support the Austin Statesman source, so no one is pitting "one reference against multiple references" as you keep disingenuously claiming. ROG5728 ( talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was about using a single number or a range, I have stated in the discussion of the RfC how I believe it is best to implement the !votes of the RfC. Also, here is the diff of the removing the multiple sources I have provided with the single source being quoted by ROG5728. The question of this discussion is whether the single source is a better quality source than the multiple references that were removed. I have stated in the article's talk page that yes, there are multiple reliable sources that verify different casualty figures, however I am not the editor who have rejected that in the past.

I have shown how the publisher, Austin Statesman, in later articles produced have not been consistent with the Associated Press article they published that has the byline/author "Wire Report". Therefore, using past arguments made by ROG5728 to counter some reliable sources that verify the 38 figure, because the Austin Statesman has not consistently only stated the 30 figure in articles they have published they should not be considered a reliable source in the context of the casualty figure.

Also, if we look at the sources I have provided in this discussion, the reliable sources state who said that there were 32 casualties. This is more reliable than some unnamed Fort Hood official, whom the "Wire Report" author does not specify.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Again I can use reliable sources to verify a range of casualty figures, however the weight of the reliable sources have, upon my further study of available reliable sources, more consistently used the 32 casualty figure than the other figures that can be verified.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a simple Google search will show that the '30 wounded' figure is more widely used than any of the other figures. It's also used by higher quality sources, including Fort Hood itself (while CNN and the like have demonstrated extremely poor accuracy on this subject). ROG5728 ( talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet we can see even based on the references I have provided the United States Senate and a commissioned officer of the United States Army who is working on the case regarding MAJ Hasan both have stated specifically that the number of those who are casualties is 32.

Who is it that spoke on behalf of the entirety of Fort Hood in the Associated Press article authored by "Wire Report" which is quoted above by ROG5728? As far as I can tell it is an unnamed individual, therefore the quality of that source is very poor.

The sources that I have provided, I can at least point to specific journalists who wrote the article, or specific individuals who made the statements, or individuals who wrote the content (such as Joe Lieberman in one source).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So in the end we still have a situation where different reliable sources can verify different casualty figures, and an editor who says that because a Associated Press article written by an unnamed individual(s) going under the byline "Wire Report", quoting/paraphrasing an unnamed individual, says that the the casualty figure is X, that it must be the only valid casualty figure, and all other casualty figures are invalid.

I have shown how the sources that I have provided to date are superior to the source presently used in the article that gives a casualty figure of 30.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There remains an accuracy dispute regarding accuracy due to multiple reliable sources verifying different casualty figures. The reasoning for the differing causality figures, as stated by ROG5728, appears to be WP:OR (even if the editor means well). This is the reason why this discussion is here.
What sources that have so far been provided are valid within the context of the Fort Hood shooting casualty figures? Is the Associated Press reported written by the author "Wire reports " quoting an unnammed individual as stated here

Fort Hood reiterated that 30 people were wounded.

—  Wire Reports

a valid reliable source for the casualty figures in the lead of the article? If so, why? If not, why? What of the other sources provided, which are valid within this context, which are not? Why?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

One or two accurate sources is the most you should contemplate for the lead. You can reduce the confusion by saying something like "29 people were wounded, plus the shooter". However, even that may lead to confusion about whether the "total of 30 people" includes the people who were killed. I think that this might be better:

The single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others in this incident. The gunman was also wounded.

(Adjust the numbers as necessary.) I'd deal with the stress and number of charges separately, outside the lead. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but our issue is that multiple reliable sources give different casualty figures, some give 29, others give 30, others give 32 (more after the fact), and yet older (closer to the event) give 38.

ROG5728 has given original research reasoning for these differing figures, with one source (the 'Austin Statesman AP Wire Reports article quoted above by ROG5728) explaining away the 38 figure, but that still leaves the 29, 30, and 32 figures. Here are some of those examples:

29: Peter J. Sampson (20 January 2013). "Experts helping decide punishment of two N.J. terror plotters". The Record. Their arrests focused a spotlight on the problem of homegrown terrorism just a month after a failed car-bombing attempt in Times Square and seven months after a shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed and 29 wounded.

30: Scott Neuman (12 October 2010). "Defense Seeks Delay In Fort Hood Shooting Case". NPR. Hasan, 40, is accused in the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.

32: CPT Jay Taylor, Eighth Army Public Affairs (8 November 2010). "Eighth Army major receives medal for Fort Hood response". News Archive. United States Army. An Eighth Army officer was awarded the Soldier's Medal Nov. 5 during a ceremony at Fort Hood, Texas, for his actions during the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting incident there that left 13 Soldiers dead and 32 wounded.{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)

Consensus in the RfC on the talk page has the majority of respondents saying to keep with one figure, with a smaller number of respondents going for giving a range due to the differing verifiable casualty figures. So what to do in this case?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that he's violated NOR. I think he's engaged in source-based research to determine the meaning of what the sources mean and what the consensus is among the sources. This is normal and necessary when some sources contain errors. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I just compiled a list of people who were shot and added it to the page. There are 32 31 of them. (NOTE - I am NOT saying that this is the "right" number. There may be more, for all i know!) For what it is worth, IMO a lot of BS is generated by people trying to claim certainty where none is available; I am VERY surprised that editors on the page decided to pick one number when other reliable sources reported other numbers. That is cherry-picking supreme. This is absolutely not OK in WIkipedia! The best thing to do would be to say that sources report numbers from ranging from X to Y and provide reliable sources that account for the range. There are so many ways to count "injuries" - gunshot wounds alone? other wounds people got (apparently several people fell down and hurt themselves in various ways)? ... and apparently several people were psychologically traumatized - do you count them, and if so how? And in my review of all the sources mentioned above, almost nobody says what the number in the report is based on. To be frank this is a fruitless argument - trying to obtain certainty where none can be had. It is too bad people have become so passionate about it. btw, the official FBI report, says that 42 people were injured, with no explanation of what that is based on! http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/final-report-of-the-william-h.-webster-commission Jytdog ( talk) 00:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment - i counted the same woman twice in my list, leaving 31 verified people with gunshot wounds, so changed the number above. Jytdog ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

1. Source: A report by the ICIJ is being used to source derogatory information about
2. Article: this living person,
3. Content: in this edit.
I'm of two minds about this. I'm not sure it's a slam-dunk that it's a reliable source, but I'm not sure it isn't. I've started a conversation about it here. I'd sure welcome other opinions. David in DC ( talk) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The ICIJ counts as a reliable source in my books. More information about them here [23]. The story about the tax havens was written in cooperation with the BBC, Le Monde, The Guardian, the Washington Post, and dozens of other reliable news organizations that helped corroborate the details. TheBlueCanoe 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about two articles List of Christian martyrs and List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian. Both these articles consist only of links to other WP articles without any footnotes. They both have a couple of references listed at the bottom of their pages but the articles do not cite anything from them, only a list of blue-linked names to other WP articles. WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."I am wondering if there is some sort of exemption for "list" articles, although I do not see why there should be. In many cases in both these articles, the information in the "list" article does not agree with what is said in the article it links to. Just one example from each article, although I could give many many more - List of Christian martyrs says "Saint Luke the Evangelist was hanged" but when you click on "Saint Luke the Evangelist" you are taken to a page which says "Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia." List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian gives the names "Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia" with the very specific date and the place of their martyrdom as "October 11, 285, Gaul". When you go to the page linked to on their names, you find the information " Their historicity is uncertain, and no trustworthy historical reports of [them] exist." Almost every name on the list is a similar case. This does not seem at all OK to me, I wonder what others may think. Also I would like to ask, with reference to the article List of Christian martyrs, if it seems reasonable to others, as it does to me, to think that the earliest names on this list need a reference for the assertion that they were Christians at all. I have a source, a recent book by Princeton University New Testament scholar Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution, which says that the earliest apostles, disciples and so on, were not Christians as that term was not in use until around 100 AD, they were Jews, a sort of new sect of Jews who followed Jesus, but they thought of themselves as Jews and others perceived them as Jews. So I feel the earliest section on that list, "Apostolic Age—1st century" needs a source to back up the claim that the names on that list were Christians at all, as well as cites for such information as "Saint Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd (a combination of battle axe and spear) in 60 AD" other than linking to the WP article where the only thing said about his death is "Died near Hierapolis or Ethiopia." If anyone has suggestions about what to do about these articles, I would be glad to hear them. Smeat75 ( talk) 06:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as the "linked to" articles have reliable sources, I don't see an issue. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 10:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Do the articles have a source for each individual listed? Vandals are known to just throw in names for fun to both articles and lists. It can be annoying to have to add the same source for 15 listed names; could it hurt to say in intro as ref these names were compiled from the following sources and list them? CarolMooreDC🗽 15:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of Smeat75's concerns were raised (by me) when List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian was first created. (I still object to the title, since it's a martyrs list, and not a list of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian in boating accidents and boar hunts and street brawls. Or perhaps even executed for actual crimes.) When I asked how the list was generated, and what sources were used to compile it, I essentially got "I found it on the internet". The list struck me as an attempt to get around the high standards of scholarship used for Diocletianic Persecution, an FA. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so there are a few issues being raised which I would like to address. First it isn't uncommon for lists to not have references, although in some cases they are given to qualify the entry to the list. See List of Scientologists for example, to avoid WP:BLP issues, a person has to self identify with a religion, so references are given to prove they self identified (looking at that list though shows I need to go back and do some cleanup). Otherwise, as stated above, as long as the information is accurate and cited within the article it should be fine. Next, it appears that the information on this list isn't accurate, and from what I can see some people have avoided redlinking by linking to an outside source. These sources should be removed until an article can be created since lists are lists of wikipedia articles traditionally. This looks like it needs some cleanup, but as far as your question on references goes it isn't really a problem provided the articles themselves contain the proper information. I would also look at WP:LIST to see what is appropriate in the "references" section on the bottom of the pages and edit appropriately. Coffeepusher ( talk) 16:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a list article doesn't necessarily need independent sourcing if it essentially functions as an index of other articles. In some cases, items might be notable enough for the list, but can't sustain an independent article, and these would need their own footnote(s). If I understand Smeat75 correctly, however, the lists misrepresent the nuances of the main articles, which deal with issues of historicity vs. hagiography and legend. They therefore function as OR or synthesis, in implicitly making an argument that each person listed is historically verifiable as a Christian martyr (again, the more narrowly defined list is misnamed; it isn't about all Christians "killed" during the reign of Diocletian). It's the implicit advancing of a position not explicitly stated by RS in the main articles that's the problem with these compilations. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of historicity, I believe Smeat75 has found examples of listed figures who are rejected by the Catholic Encyclopedia as authentic martyrs. Wikipedia should probably exercise more skepticism than the Catholic Encyclopedia, not less. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

List entries would only require citations if the entry fits into one or more of the categories at WP:MINREF. Of course it's normal to exceed those (very) low requirements, but that's the minimum standard. For most lists, no citations are required. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. There are a few of us trying to fix List of Christian martyrs but I don't think List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian can be salvaged. I am going to nominate it for deletion, if anyone wants to comment during that discussion. Smeat75 ( talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Question, is this webpage produced by Advameg, Inc. usable as a reliable source in the Edward Soriano article? It appears to source one source that is already used in the article, but uses a periodical source that I do not have access to and an experts.com source which is on about.com. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Advameg is a content farm looking for eyeballs for advertisers across multiple similar websites. Many of these have been previously discussed and rejected as sources. [24] The biographies are anonymously written. There is no description of the editorial policy, and no identification of who the editors are. Fladrif ( talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Yated Ne'eman (Israel) newspaper and Dei'ah VeDibur website

2. Article: Elazar Shach

Please see previous discussions on Elazar Shach talk page regarding reliability of this newspaper and it's related website:

1 2 3.

What do the editors here think?

Would there be a difference if the website is reporting facts about Shach's life (see below) versus presenting his statements/opinions/ideology about various issues (see below)?

Example of the former:

News - Maran HaGaon Hagodol HaRav Elozor Menachem Mann Shach ztvk"l - His Biography

Examples of the latter:

1 - IN-DEPTH FEATURES - "Throughout My Life I Have Been Educated To Teach The Tradition Handed Down To Us Without Any Alien Admixtures" - Daas Torah From HaRav Shach ztvk"l

2 - IN-DEPTH FEATURES - For the Rosh Yeshiva, Bais Yaakov was a Complete Shulchan Oruch in its Own Right - by Yated Ne'eman Staff

3 - Opinion & Comment - To Cry Out and Plead for Mercy from Hashem, But to Understand That This is Not All! - Maran HaGaon R' Shach, zt'l in words of chizuk concerning the people's needs in times of trouble

Yonoson3 ( talk) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this newspaper and the associated website were founded an published by Shach as an organ of his political party. A source like that can be used to describe his beliefs and political positions, but not as a source for facts. The discussions that you're linking to are as much as three years old, and there doesn't appear to be any recent effort at the talk page to resolve these questions. Fladrif ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to create an article dealing with an online marketing company, UBM DeusM, a division of UBM plc. An article I previously created on the same topic was deleted [ [25]] because it did "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." References I previously used were to trade journals. Based on a discussion at this noticeboard relating to a different article, I had thought these were sufficient. I now have additional references, and would welcome an opinion re WP:RS before I re-create the article.

Old references:

• Steve Smith, " UBM Launches b2b ‘Marketing-as-a-Service’ DeusM", Min Online, Friday, October 15, 2010
• Matthew Schwartz, "UBM launches DeusM to help b-to-b publishers create online communities" B2B Media Business October 14, 2010
• Matt Kinsman, "UBM Launches New Marketing Services Unit", Folio November 1, 2001
• Alex Palmer, " UBM launches targeted social media company DeusM", Direct Marketing News, October 14, 2010

New references:

• Robert Cookson, "UBM's cautious forecast spooks investors" Financial Times, March 1, 2013.
• Charlotte Woolard, "NXP online community engages engineers" BTOB Online November 20, 2012
• Charlotte Woolard, "DeusM's Future Cities Community Spans UBM Markets" BTOB Online November 2, 2012
• Unsigned, "DeusM Launches the IT Services Site" TMCnet, November 10, 2011

Not all the sources are of equal quality, but they are all independent. I think Folio is an authoritative source for the publishing industry. Direct Marketing News is owned by Haymarket Media Group. BTOB Online is part of Crain Communications. Please let me know if more information is needed. WebHorizon ( talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)WebHorizon

Anyone? WebHorizon ( talk) 16:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)WebHorizon

There are some concerns about the use of three potentially unreliable video game sources ( Cheat Code Central, Screw Attack and GameDynamo), although one of them is situational. Please see the relevant discussions at Talk:Akuma (Street Fighter)#Reliability of sources and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Three sources. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This site appears to many people as a blog, however it isn't. It actually is a heavy metal news site. If it was a blog, it wouldn't have a notable and accepted article. See this. the link to it. It's been used multiple times as a source and is considered reliable by many. Even it's used on good articles. Isn't it reliable?

Stgw ( talk) 00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable is different from reliable. We have lots of Wikipedia articles about people, publications and websites that are not reliable sources. The problem with MetalSucks.net as a source is (i) the founders/editors/owners are anonymous, operating behind pseudonyms; (ii) so are most all of the writers/contributors and (iii) I'm not going to go through ever Google News hit I get for this site, but I have so-far not seen any indication that other sources that clearly are reliable sources have recognized it as a reliable source within the scope of its focus and coverage. I see that it is mostly cited on other websites of similar provenance, and I have yet to see a cite by anything approaching mainstream, recognized press. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. You say that it is considered reliable by many; by who, exactly? The other thing is that we can't answer a question like that in the abstract. Even if we decide that it is generally a reliable source, not everything on the site is going to be reliable. What article specifically do you propose to use it as a source for? What specific language is it being used to support? What is the language in the MetalSucks website is being used as a source? Fladrif ( talk) 00:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to agreeing with Fladrif's concerns, writing joke reviews like this doesn't make me think they're very profesional/reliable either. I say unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This source is a "blog" but I'm not sure how high the standards are for this low-priority and non-controversial topic.

Article: 4-sided die

The statement this would be verifying:

Because of their size and shape and the tendency of dice to fall on the floor, with a point facing up and underfoot, gamers frequently refer to four-sided dice as caltrops.

Link: http://diceaholic.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/dungeons-and-dragons-dice-dd-dice/ 98.202.95.55 ( talk) 14:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A non-expert blog is not reliable. Local slang is usually too trivial for Wikipedia. Binksternet ( talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Then should the slang quote be removed? (I didn't put it there in the first place...) 98.202.95.55 ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I removed it and greatly reworked the article. Binksternet ( talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We have been discussing content on the Derwick Associates page for some time now. It has come to light that a user, FergusM1970, has questioned a writer for Ultimas Noticias. I suggested that we bring the information up here to avoid WP:OR and to avoid constant back-and-forth with no forward progress. To be clear, I believe Batiz and Ultimas Noticias to be an RS; it is FergusM1970 who is challenging his credibility.

FergusM1970 is calling Batiz into question for his pieces on Derwick Associates. [26] [27] I cannot find any sources openly questioning Batiz and see several sources praising his work (award for investigative piece [28]), so I'm unsure of the problem with including his articles.

Can we get another opinion? Justiciero1811 ( talk) 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As requested, here is my detailed explanation of my thoughts. Ultimas Noticias is a very reliable source. It is the most distributed newspaper of the country, with around 150,000 copies printed each day, and is available in around most of Venezuela's states. Notwithstanding, Ultimas Noticias is a newspaper owned by the Venezuelan government, and its neutrality is non-existent in some topics (mostly politics). Therefore, I'd recommend using non-Venezuelan sources regarding political matters, and using other sources when it comes to matters about conspiracies, corruption, etc. The point here isn't if UN is, or not, reliable; but on ow it covers the topic that is being discussed on-wiki, and if it represents a neutral point of view, which UN usually doesn't have. — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 01:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it's owned by the government? I thought it was privately owned by Caprilles? Justiciero1811 ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait, no, I got confused. However, the neutrality concern is still there. — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Because Ultimas Noticias is assumed to be pro-Chavez, it seems that any article at odds with the government's actions should be treated differently than articles that are assumed to be blindly in favor of the Venezuelan government.

Batiz's work for Ultimas Noticias has never been questioned by any reputable source (as far as I can see) so I am worried that drawing conclusions about him like this constitutes WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. I have, however, seen praise of his work. I assume that if we attribute it correctly to him then there should be no problems. Justiciero1811 ( talk) 00:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The political orientation of a newspaper and its reliability are totally separate issues. Ultimas Noticias is a privately owned newspaper, founded 1941. If there is any reason not to treat it as reliable, then we need third party confirmation of its unreliability. While sometimes reliable sources are in error, the onus is on the editor challenging facts to find better sources. TFD ( talk) 23:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is covered at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. When a source is politically biased, it is often useful to include WP:INTEXT attribution. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

More likely "sometimes". We normally do not attribute in text straightforward facts from The Times, the New York Times, or Fox News Channel. The examples provided are an opinion columnist and an opera critic, which ironically are not considered rs anyway. TFD ( talk) 16:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

These are reliable sources for facts about what someone's opinion are. Additionally, they are reliable for some kinds of facts. If the opera critic says that this soprano performed that role, or that the scenery was blue in the fourth act, you may certainly rely on the review for facts. The critic's opinions (e.g., whether the singer was in good voice) should be attributed as professional opinion rather than as facts. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, so analysis or opinions need to be attributed as such. It appears that this may not directly apply to Ultimas Noticias in particular because the stories in question are reports and not opinion columns. Justiciero1811 ( talk) 21:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)