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.

What are the thoughts on the reliability of this source for the article Randy Rhoads? The material was researched and compiled by the International Guitar Research Archives (IGRA) staff and appears reliable. -- ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the title of the archive on this page naming the archive William Randall (Randy) Rhoads (William before Randall) as compared to the second page where the biography starts : Born Randall William Rhoads (Randall before William). Issues of accuracy.
• Also note : "The information contained on the following pages was researched and compiled by IGRA staff and has been approved and edited by Mrs. Delores Rhoads." Approval of content by a person with an inherent conflict of interest. Issues of independence.
• I would also point out that the content linked to is not so much "published" as it is promotional-ware describing their archives.

Given all of that, the source should be treated with care and not used for anything that is contested. Particularly anything regarding the name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines do not say "Any material that has been vetted by a scholarly community is regarded as reliable." They say "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." and "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community;" And these are only guidelines and not policy. For instance, we always have to ask "reliable for what"? An off-topic comment in a peer-reviewed journal article may not be considered reliable. Not all PhDs are created equal - I know of one from the American University of Bosnia for instance which we'd never accept as a reliable source. And I agree that content on a university website can't automatically be considered academically published. Ditto some university's magazines, newspapers, etc. ChakaKong wrote "The term academic press in the 21st century has evolved to include the gathering and transmitting of information in forms which include the academic institution's official internet site. And the guidelines state that in such instances, generally the information has been vetted by one or more other scholars and is thus sufficient as a reliable source" but I can't that statement in our guideline.

I'd like to know what this source is going to be used for. Dougweller ( talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The source in question is for use in the Randy Rhoads article, a deceased musician. There are no contentious or controversial claims; it's largely some background material about the subject's early life (i.e where he went to school, his musical training, etc.) and I honestly don't see why the input of the subject's own mother makes this type of relatively negligible information so unreliable. What reason would his mother possibly have to lie about which middle school he attended? Editor TRPoD, as he seems fond of doing, has turned a non-issue into a protracted and frustrating dialogue that didn't need to take place. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

if you notice and read my first post on the topic: "Given all of that, the source should be treated with care and not used for anything that is contested. " which was followed by " fall far short of anything other than WP:SPS - usable for non controversial content about self. " and ", so no, it would not be reliable, outside of perhaps WP:SPS non controversial content about the author of the SPS" and "any content that has been run through "final approval by mother" is in the exact same category as "self published" and "and in this case we know the vetting is FAR from the basic level of academic (or as pointed out above journalistic) publishing in that they clearly state that mom had the final editing authority. The use of the webiste as a source needs to be carefully bounded".

We initially came here because someone wanted to use the site as a claim for an official name and yet this site had TWO versions of the name and so any authority of the site to be used as a basis for one and not the other was completely unacceptable. Thats the only thing that I have been adamant about non-use of this site. And other reliable sources for the name have been produced and so that is a complete non-issue.

The only reason that this is " protracted and frustrating " is because YOU and the IP keep attempting to claim that the website is a fully academically vetted site that will meet all RS guidelines. No it wont. The contents of the site going through a final vetting by the mother cause real concern for its use as a source for other claims, but I have from the beginning laid out its potential for use for non controversial claims and to paint protraction on me is a completely false representation.

What specifically are the "non-controversial" claims other than the name that you wish to cite from this source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, RPoD, you have it wrong, again. The only reason why this is "protracted and frustrating" is because like your history has shown, you enjoy making a dramatic, big deal over nothing and have a knack for controlling articles you know very minimal about. There is absolutely nothing controversial on that CSUN webpage either, like I said before, everyone seems to have the same story regarding the late metal guitarist Randy Rhoads. The only thing that can be deemed "controversial" is that issue with the birth name which has since been resolved. Jawzey ( talk) 21:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

Beating the dead horse again: What specifically from the University website do you wish to source in the in article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I really do not care if the name is William Randall or Randall William; that fight was between you and the IP from day one. This discussion only happened because of your firm insistence that the source was unreliable. You, TRPoD, clearly get off on playing the devil's advocate and stirring up arguments (not discussions, arguments) over the smallest points. The combative nature and overly rigid interpretation of the guidelines by people like you makes it difficult for sincere editors with intentions of good faith to want to bother continuing with the project. Yes, that's the effect you have on people. Your confrontational nature is fully evident in your editing history for all to see. You can rest assured that when the inevitable RfC/U is filed against you, there will be no shortage of editors lining up to bury you. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It clearly was an unreliable source for a specific version of the name when it included two versions of the name. What specific content do you now want to source in the article based on this website? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your question was answered earlier in a response from myself to Dougweller. If you still want an answer go back and read it. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

your answer there was anything but specific. just your position that it was non controversial. as stated in the guidance under the orange notice " Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available: ... 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <:blockquote>text<:/blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y"."

Please provide the specific content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you lose the sanctimonious attitude and actually go the the article and look at the points that currently cite that particular source. It might be the most useful thing you do today. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 22:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I feel like this whole time, RPoD decided that the article is worthless because of the birth name debacle, not even caring to read over the rest of the great information it contains. If you clearly read the entire CSUN source, you would realize that it contains valuable information that is not even least bit controversial regarding Randy. I have studied Randy Rhoads for over five years now and I am very knowledgeable in regard to the subject, the CSUN source does not have controversial information about him in it. So even though Mrs. Dee Rhoads contributed to it, it shouldn't matter as the article does not even contain controversial information that Mrs. Dee Rhoads would potentially revise! No, I am not "beating the dead horse again," RPoD, I am restating this to you because you clearly do not understand and you are stuck in your "I am always right" mindset. Jawzey ( talk) 23:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

Jawzey, it is pretty clear that you do not understand reliable sources as it pertains to Wikipedia. "mom said" is not how we judge sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) YOU are the one who brought the issue here. As the points of the instructions for bringing a disagreement here say, bring the specific content that you want to discuss here as well. If the only thing you want to source to the site is the Name which was the item under discussion when you first sought help here, NO it is not a reliable source for that ( and besides, there is now a reliable source used for the name).

If it is for the high school, then you are wrong again about "non controversial" because this undeniably reliably published source by Bob Gulla which says that he went to John Muir High and it contradicts the IGRA site which says he went to Burbank High. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, RPoD, you lack of reading comprehension is showing. Junior High is NOT the same as high school here in the United States of America. Junior high equates to middle school, grades 6-8, while high school is grades 9-12. So yes, Randy did go to John Muir for middle school while he went to Burbank High for high school. Thanks for the laugh. Jawzey ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

Both sources are in agreement that he attended John Muir Junior High. So much for your latest bullshit attempt to prolong the non-existent controversy. Shite man, you are the most combative wikipedian I've ever encountered. Give up the coarseness and find a real issue to devote your energy to. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Oops too many windows open, it was a different source that had the John Muir High School. But, there is no reason to use the less reliable non published website source than the ABC/CLIO source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As if anyone believes that. Care to share the source that said he went to "John Muir High School" instead of "John Muir Junior High School?" Jawzey ( talk) 00:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

@TRPoD: I think I've reached the point in this discussion at which I politely tell you to shove the keyboard in front of you up your ass sideways. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 00:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion reads to an outsider like a waste of time. A publicly accessible website is "published". An informative introduction to an archival collection, published by the academic library/archive that owns the material, should not be dismissed as "promotional". The statement that the subject was "born Randall William Rhoads" may yet be true (or do we have a source that denies it?), so the argument based on that leads nowhere.

It's generally agreed above (currently in the collapsed section) that the reliability of these biography pages, published by a respected academic institution, is somewhat compromised by the fact that they were "edited by" the subject's mother. OK. To be used with care. Reliable for non-controversial issues. Other sources to be preferred for controversial issues. Is there honestly anything else to be discussed? Andrew Dalby 09:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No. This discussion has most certainly run its course. ChakaKong ^{Let's talk about it} 14:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It has indeed run its course. The only reason why this became an issue is because it is not necessary for RPoD to delete valuable information off of the Randy Rhoads wikipedia page, only because he personally deems the CSUN source unreliable. Jawzey ( talk) 19:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

Is The Sikh Times a reliable source? If not, I would be grateful for an explanation why. I used an article from that source as a citation when adding text to Forced conversion here. This was then reverted here with the comment "The Sikh Times is not a reliable source". (There is also material to do with an "Inside Out" BBC documentary, which was removed: while I accept this is not directly about forced conversion, it does substantiate the claim in The Sikh Times article that girls are drugged before having compromising photographs taken of them. I accept this may be WP:OR, but still not sure The Sikh Times should be so readily dismissed as "unreliable".) Alfietucker ( talk) 12:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Its Website doesn't smack of professional editorial oversight. In fact, at a glance it looks like a lot of the content has been culled more or less verbatim from elsewhere anyway.

However, the good side of that (from your POV) is that a little Googling will reveal that the story quoted as being in the Sikh Times appears to have originated in The Times (definitely a reliable source) in or before 2007. It's reproduced here, for example: http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/32438-muslims-accused-of-blackmail-to-make-student-girls/. Barnabypage ( talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's really helpful - thank you. Alfietucker ( talk) 12:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an article in science magazine by one of its writers who sent a really crappy, bogus scientific article to hundreds of open access publishers to see who would accept it for publication and 157 different journals accepted them. Should these journals be flagged for some sort of review in Wikipedia? AioftheStorm ( talk) 02:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such journals are probably unreliable, but I don't think you'll find many citations to them on Wikipedia Shii (tock) 13:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(please note this problem was badly mangled by a manipulative section heading above. )

1. source: 'Drafting the blueprint for Palestinian refugees' right of return
2. Article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War
3. Content: The Diff page

• A veteran of the southern front in this war was cited in a major Israeli paper for his impressions of that front that resistance was negligible.
• The veteren's comment coincides with what military historians like David Tal, who remarks that resistance was slight. Nishidani ( talk) 08:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not being entirely sure exactly what material is considered for inclusion, although I'm guessing it relates to the lack of resistance at least in some way, I can't see any reason to rule out inclusion of material, provided it does, more or less, concur with that of the academic sources and/or historians who cover the field. WEIGHT and other matters would also have to be considered as well, of course. John Carter ( talk) 15:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Impressions, yes, but not authoritative historical statements.

"We encountered very little resistance in the advance on X" - fine. A primary source.

"The enemy only fielded 1,000 troops, commanded by the inexperienced Colonel Z, to defend X" - not fine, because he probably wouldn't have known these things through direct personal experience. So he wouldn't be a primary source, and (presuming he's not a military historian) he might well not be reliable as a secondary source either. Barnabypage ( talk) 14:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we have some opinions on Snooker.info being used to source this table at Century break.

This site seems to be run by a single person with no professional oversight who has admitted to using Wikipedia and making mistakes (see "Daily Updates" section at [1]). Several editors have restored the information sourced to this site a few times now so I need an independent opinion. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

webs.com is never a reliable source. Shii (tock) 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Do editors consider this index to be a permissible source for articles? The index is purportedly available through various genealogy websites. My view is that until you have a reliable source for a death date, the subject of the article is governed by WP:BLP policy. In this instance, the applicable policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY. That policy says specifically not to use public documents "to support assertions about a living person." Even more clearly, it says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Just as we can't use a birth certificate, we wouldn't be able to use a death certificate or, in this instance, an entry in a governmental database.

The battle over this issue is occurring at Joan Gerber. I've already cited the policy, but, curiously, @ Beyond My Ken: asks me to cite policy in his re-addition of the index as a source. In addition, in BMK's edit summary, he analogizes the issue to using census records. Without addressing whether we should or shouldn't use census records generally, the analogy is fatally flawed as we don't use them in BLP articles.

An aside. The issue of Gerber's death has been a contentious one for some time now. She was a prolific actress but appparently, as a voice actress, not fodder for a lot of media attention. Therefore, no one has ever been able to find reliable sources supporting her death (usually they've been blogs, if I recall correctly, but I might be mixing her up with another actor).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we clear on what index is being sourced? Look at Social Security Death Index. Seems the "SSDI" is the commercial equivalent to the Death Master File (DMF). The DMF is available through the "official" SSDMF, another commercial database. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I'm reluctant to rely on the Social Security Death Index as the sole source for death information. Reasons are that it's a primary source that can be misinterpreted and it is periodically reported to contain errors (living people are sometimes reported dead); also, the online sources for the data are nongovernmental websites like [2]. In Gerber's case, IMDB and several online forums (none of which are reliable sources) say that she died in August 2011 -- and apparently have had that info for about two years. If she's still alive, it seems likely that someone likely would have corrected the errors by now. However, a user comment on this page indicates that an obit appeared in the LA Times on August 31, 2011. Can someone check that day's LA Times? That could resolve the matter. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall checking that LA Times thing out once before and coming up with zilch. Nonetheless, using the LA Times archive search, I searched for "Joan Gerber" or "Joanellen Gerber" from August 1 to September 30, 2011, and there were no hits.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a hunch about the August 31 obit, and it turned out to be correct. I went to the library and found the obit on microfiche. It's not an article, which, of course, is subject to normal fact-checking. It's a paid, very small obit placed by someone. It confirms the date of death (as well as the birthdate), along with some other details about her death and loved ones. The problem is it can't be considered a reliable source. Theoretically, anyone could place it. According to the LA Times, the only thing they edit for are "style and grammar". My guess is they wouldn't put anything obscene in, either, but the key thing is they don't appear to check the facts themselves. So, are three unreliable sources (IMDb, social security record, and LA Times obit) together good enough to put in the date? One personal side benefit, of course, is I wouldn't have to revert editors coming along and wanting to put in her death date.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The SSDI is a primary source and should not be used in articles. If a person is not notable enough to have their death reported by a reliable secondary source, perhaps there should not be an article about them. In this particular case, I send an email to a blogger who is a screenwriter and published comics/animation historian, perhaps he knows for sure. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it also WP:OR? I've used primary sources to help me find secondary sources (ie. narrow a search on a maiden/married name or birth/death/marriage place/date) but I haven't included it unless I can find a secondary source that reports it. AnonNep ( talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used and WP:RS#Context matters in determining whether the info is reliable. In any event, the SSA gets reports about deaths & (usually) stops paying benefits. But nobody at the SSA actually makes/produces the report of the death. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment on how the index works; I have no idea. However, primary sources, standing alone, cannot be used per BLP policy, unless you see a loophole I don't.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, context matters but if every government source is ok to quote verbatim then thousands of 19th century biog pages will be deluged with 10 yearly UK census results that, at present, are generally considered, original research to use. WP:WPNOTRS says; 'Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.' So, if this is notable, why isn't there a secondary source that mentions it? AnonNep ( talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP? The SSDI, a very grave subject, is a listing of dead people. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be 'a very grave subject' but, in genealogy terms, western death records are generally considered the most unreliable because those providing information are bereaved and relying on what they've been told by those in aging years who might forget/mistake/want to mistake things. If the primary source is notable it will have been mentioned in secondary sources elsewhere, if not, it shouldn't be used as per WP:OR. AnonNep ( talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cute, but BLP applies because one adds the death date to a BLP. Otherwise, you've bootstrapped your argument.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree that WP:V should be applied for every biography. Even more so when there is some doubt about the person being dead or alive. But if the article is about someone that could not possibly be alive, then the SSDI might serve as one possible source of info. It seems that a non-commercial, earlier version of the SSDI had a parameter that described the source of info for the DOD. (Being cheap, I have not purchased a SSDI report for quite some time.) – S. Rich ( talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Here ya go, big bad bobblehead. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You get a gold star.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I'd have to agree with User:Beyond My Ken. The Social Security Death Index is not a primary source — that would be the death certificate itself, not the SSDI, which is reporting what the death certificate says. I think we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face to disallow this reporting tool based on a faulty characterization of it. And certainly, there are many notable individuals who might not have been recognized during their lifetimes and received no formal obituaries, whose birth and death dates could not be verified any other way. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the SSDI is not a primary source, it is still a "public record", which is the term used in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Therefore, it can't be used in BLPs. Also, it is interesting to read the SSA FAQ on the death master file here. It explains how deaths are reported and then inserted into the file. It never says that the SSA does any kind of independent fact checking. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing there may be some decisionmaking in the process depending on the reporting source, one of which includes family members. In that example, I wonder how it determines that the "family member" is who they say they are and that the person really died. Finally, it acknowledges that "in rare instances it is possible for the record of a person who is not deceased to be included erroneously in the DMF."-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and in rare instances it's possible for otherwise extremely reliable sources to report someone is dead who actually is still alive. Extreme cases - "rare instances" - are not (and should not be) a criteria for determining reliability, because everyone, even the vaunted The New Yorker in the heyday of its fact-checking, makes mistakes. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

This was mentioned above and brushed away as "bootstrapping", but in fact, it is not. Ms. Subject is presumed to be alive, so we cannot use "other public document" to assert anything about her. Now, however, we see that Ms. Subject has been included in the SSDI list -- now Ms. Subject is presumed to be dead, so no BLP policy is being violated. That's not "bootstrapping:, that's simply new facts changing the circumstances.

An editor above also asserts that if there's no RS reporting someone's death, maybe they weren't notable enough to begin with, but that's absurd. It's hardly unusual for someone to be notable, even famous, even world-fanous and then virtually disappear once their career is over or their time in the limelight has ended. What do we do, then, when the tree falls in the forest and no one is there is publish the obit? Do we carry on regardiong them as "living" when they would be, say, 130 years old? 150? When can we make the reasonable assumption that they are no longer subject to BLP rules? (Not to report that they are dead, of course, since we don't report speculation unless it comes from a RS, but simply in how we deal with the subject.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, I hope everyone is aware that in the specific case that brought up this question, Joan Gerber, a RS for her death (her union's magazine) has been found and inserted in the article, so the discussion at this point is about policy and not editing driven. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough and is deceased, then the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is at best a concurrence. It should not be proof that someone has died, especially if many different persons share the name.

An example of what is contained should show its limitations with a notable person ( Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States of America whose biographical details are well known, and whose Social Security number could never be used for fraudulent purposes:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 8 May 1884

Social Security Number: 488-40-6969

State: Missouri

Last Place of Residence: Jackson, Missouri

Previous Residence Postal Code: 64050

Event Date: December 1972

Age: 88

What isn't shown? Where he died. SSDI could not show that he died in an auto accident near St. Louis or in a hospital far from his home (of course we know otherwise, but from other sources). His last place of residence is well known but the city is not named. In many cases the exact date of death is not shown. So is his middle initial, also not known.

Now here's another "Harry Truman", a crusty character who refused to leave Mount Saint Helens when the going was good and got much media attention at the time, and is thus notable:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 30 October 1896

Social Security Number: 535-20-8745

State: Washington

Last Place of Residence: Castle Rock, Cowlitz, Washington

Previous Residence Postal Code: 98611

Event Date: May 1980

Age: 84

He surely died during the eruption of Mount St. Helens. But note that his middle initial and his exact date of death are not shown. The town in which he was listed as having his last place of residence is clearly not where he died. That was a mailing address. I can only guess that the Postal Service was not delivering mail at the lodge on Spirit Lake where he was staying because delivering mail to a volcano known to be in imminent danger of eruption is unduly hazardous duty.

SSDI really says nothing of great usefulness to Wikipedia. It might be good for stopping some credit frauds such as assuming the identity of a deceased person and for filling blanks in genealogy. The Social Security Number of a deceased person is at best a means of distinguishing one person from another given other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 September 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. In the Joan Gerber case, we knew when she was born and where, so unless there was another Joan Gerber born in the same place on the same day, it was unlikely that we would confuse two listings in the SSDI. We don't necessarily need to know the circumstances of Gerber's death, just that she died, so I'm not getting how you think the index "says nothing of great usefulness", when it establishes that someone is dead. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Beyond My Ken. The SSDI as a source for a death date does not violate the living persons policy, by definition — the odds of it reporting someone dead who is alive is astronomical and well, well within the margin of error we'd give any other source in terms of reliability, including, as someone mentioned, The New Yorker. Other personal factors such as place and date of birth are, equally obviously, pertinent factors in identifying a person.

And as already mentioned, taking an ideological hard line and saying, "No, I'd rather not source someone's death to the Social Security Death Index and instread give the misimpression they're still alive" goes against the mission of Wikipedia and misses the forest for the trees. As Wikipedia policy makes clear, we follow the rules only up to the point where it becomes absurds to do so (i.e., suggesting someone is 130 years old). Obits are preferable — of course. When no obits exist, however, ignoring a source that institutions and the rest of real life uses, and knowingly leaving a misimpression, seems a very bad option. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 06:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this discussion is grappling well with the biggest problem. Many times on this noticeboard, documents such as parish registers and censuses have been discussed. The secondary/primary terminology is sometimes used in a confusing way, but we do not need that terminology. The question is this: do we need to use non-obvious "original thinking" in order to apply this data source to the subject matter of our articles? The answer is unfortunately yes. For example: Lots of people have the same name. These are good sources for conducting genealogical research, but we are not conducting research as WP editors. We need such data to be a bit more pre-digested in most cases. Of course there might be specific examples where my general remark here does not apply, but the question appears to be general.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please look above, where you will see that the name is not the only identifying information. There is also date and place of birth. Many people indeed have the same name, but add the date and place of birth and the odds of misidentification drop sharply to an acceptable level, on the order of the Times or any other reliable source making an error. This is no need for "original thinking" here, and more that it's "original thinking" to reject the use of an obit in the Times of a person of the same name as the article's subject, but without any of the other identifying information. We do not ask that sources be absolutely foolproof, just that they be reliable, and the SSDI is indeed reliable. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically it is reliable, but not particularly useful. It has extreme limitations. Unless someone disappears and is presumed to be deceased (example: Jimmy Hoffa) something is going to show the death of almost anyone considered 'notable. SSDI is thus of little value to Wikipedia as a source, and enough mistakes can be made in identifying people (how many people named "Mary Smith" or "Juan Martinez" are there?) Pbrower2a ( talk) 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

At the article linked above, are two articles in the New Republic and Mother Jones to be considered reliable for the statement that certain laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics? Particularly in preference to self-published sources supporting a statement that "there is disagreement as to the purpose" of these laws. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My only concern with the TNR commentary and MJ article is that relying solely on them excludes a significant opposing viewpoint. But that's a POV issue. I don't object to their reliability.

As for the three sources I added in the given diff, I'm persuaded by Roscelese's advice that these sources aren't the best choice in this situation. These primary sources' viewpoints, whether reliable or not, are significant enough to have secondary source coverage, so can be replaced by citations to secondary sources. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 02:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that Roscelese is using these articles as references for the Wikipedia article, Matt. The problem is the way she is using them: to support as fact in Wikipedia's voice a contention that is eminently an opinion; the OPINION that these laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics. All Roscelese needs to do to correct the problem is to attribute this OPINION to one or both of her sources in-text. See WP:RSOPINION. Badmintonhist ( talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: By the way Roscelese's complaint about Matt Fitzpatrick's "self published" sources is something of a red herring. Those sources present the contrasting takes (i.e. the OPINIONS) of certain interested parties in the abortion fray as to the purposes and effects of these laws. These sources are reliable as to the opinions of the organizations they represent and not being used to support contested facts which Wikipedia's guidlines warn us against. Badmintonhist ( talk) 03:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RSOPINION should be used with caution in all cases. It can not be used for instance to say in an article about African-Americans that- "African-Americans have lower intelligence, according to the KKK." except in a specific subsection dedicated to, and clearly demarcated as being about, racism and racist claims clearly meant to be fringe. When dealing with many subjects it is not always necessary to mark two opposing views as "equal" opinions. Climate change, evolution, racial equality are all good examples where one side is science, one side is fringe. One wikipedian once said in an argument about climate change- "Any compromise between science and "not science", is not science." Now when it comes to politics, it may not be a "hard science", but last I checked my degree is in Political Science; so there is a component of science to it. There surely are, somewhere, perhaps even direct quotes from people/organizations involved in the legislation (the legislator who proposed the legislation) that makes it clear-cut one way or the other. Basically- we don't have to give equal time to each "side". One side is right, the other can be labeled as "according to the opinion of xx, it was (was not) meant to be anti-abortion" Camelbinky ( talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying that these secondary sources should be used in preference to the self-published statements, or that it is the self-published statements that should be used? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He's saying neither Roscelese; nor is it a matter "either . . . or," though you have tried to frame it that way. Both the opinion magazine sources and the so-called "self published" sources can be used provided that they are used properly. That means Wikipedia presenting their views as opinions. As for Camelbinky's point that something approximating objective truth can be found on this issue he's either being overly naive or overly sly. Legislators may vote the same way on an issue but have very different purposes in mind. Moreover, we aren't talking here about a single law in a single state but a variety of laws in a variety of states considered by a wide variety of legislators. By the way, I also have a post graduate degree in political science but I always basically considered it a degree in political philosophy not in "science" of any kind. Badmintonhist ( talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: You might consider the question of the purpose(s) of laws that expanded the ability of women to obtain abortions in a number states (and the District of Columbia) prior to Roe v. Wade. Was that purpose to enhance sexual freedom? protect women from unsafe abortions? reduce the number of the great unwashed? or perhaps all of these things and more?

Why don't we let RSN serve its purpose and allow uninvolved users to comment? I know you were opposed to bringing the matter here, but that's not a good reason to derail. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, in case it's not clear from the diffs, that I did not delete any references. The section cited all 6 sources now being discussed after my last edit. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the stated purpose is protecting public health but the motive is to restrict abortion. In order to challenge this assessment. The bill drafted by by the anti-abortion group "Americans United for Life" - their reason for being is stopping abortion. TFD ( talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a rather recent and more balanced source that might be used: [3] in place of news commentaries in opinion periodicals such as Mother Jones and The New Republic. Badmintonhist ( talk) 04:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How would you use it? It makes no comment on the motivation of anti-abortion activists. TFD ( talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Badmintonhist ( talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) PS: The topic of our article isn't the motives of anti-abortion activists. It's laws regulating the practice of abortion.

I think this noticeboard needs a bit more information to comment more effectively on this.

• It seems there is no disputing that we can use the New Republic and Mother Jones sources. Correct?
• It seems there is dispute about whether those two sources, which apparently say the same thing, need attribution as opinions. Correct?
• Therefore the obvious question is whether we have other good sources which show that these two are only one opinion and do not represent any mainstream consensus. Do we have any that we can discuss?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• No sources of similar quality have yet been produced that show otherwise, although obviously if any had been, this situation would be quite different! Do you happen to be aware of any? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Again as others stated -- it is far better to cite opinions as opinions and not to make assertions that an opinion is a fact using Wikipedia's voice. The "KKK example" given does not apply here, and using arguments of that type do not advance the purpose of this noticeboard. Collect ( talk) 12:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. If there really were no controversy about the purpose of these laws, we should be able to find voices from all sides, life, choice, and neutral, saying the same thing. The fact that only pro-choice sources are saying something is a reason to cite it as their opinion. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I cited the July 2013 New York Times article [4] for a reason that is seemingly being ignored here. It cites "sharply tightened oversight of Maryland abortion clinics that have won praise from both sides of the political divide." The Maryland regulations voted in by both pro-life and pro-choice legislators are also, of course, "TRAP LAWS," they just aren't necessarily the kind of "trap laws" that Roscelese had in mind when she created this section and assiduously selected her sources. Badmintonhist ( talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to overstate the obvious but, are these TRAP LAWS, then, always about trying close down abortion clinics or is it a bit more complicated than that? Badmintonhist ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Collect, you're absolutely WRONG. The KKK analogy is exactly what is going on here. NO we do not have to give everyone's opinion an equal weight. You are dead wrong. Wrong. I think it is terrible you and others would state here that we should "find voices from all sides"... We don't do that with climate change, racism, or evolution. The same is here, either the laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not. The other side is fringe. It is not naïve, nor is political science "philosophy", if someone has a degree in poli sci and they were taught to consider it a philosophy that allows free thinking and "opinion" instead of a science with numbers, facts, hypothesis that are testable with theory then they went to college over thirty years ago and haven't kept up. Most of poli sci courses now are statistics and have more math than hardcore science degrees like biology. Camelbinky ( talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the KKK as an analogue for every opinion source is reductio ad absurdum ... insisting that this is "exactly what is going on here" gets no points as an argument. That you know the truth on an issue does not, unfortunately change Wikipedia policies and guidelines to conform with your own personal knowledge. It would be nice if we had editors with such perfect knowledge that we could eliminate WP:RS and the like, but I rather fear this is not yet the case. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course we don't give "everyone's opinion equal weight." You're right there, Camelbinky (any connection to Binksternet??). However, you are as wrong as wrong can be in saying that "either laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not." Different lawmakers often have very differing reasons for passing the same piece of legislation. I have just produced an example, reported in the New York Times, of TRAP (Targeting regulations of abortion providers) laws in Maryland being praised by those on both sides of the abortion issue. Besides the common goal of protecting patients at abortion clinics, pro-life legislators may think that the regulations will make it more difficult for doctors to set up clinics in the state while pro-choice legislators (who obviously don't want to shut down abortion clinics) may think that such laws will help the reputation of abortion providers in the state. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist ( talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC). PS: Oh by the way, which source would we normally be expected to give more weight to . . . a New York Times article giving an example of TRAP laws being supported by pro-choice legislators or a an article in a magazine of political opinion broadly stating that such laws are intended to close down abortion clinics? Badmintonhist ( talk) 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist if I understand correctly the NYT articles is not exactly saying the opposite of what Roscalese's two sources were saying? Would it not involve non-obvious synthesis to say that "pro choice legislators think ok" means "has nothing to do with closing abortion clinics"?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here, Andrew. To a large extent the NYT article does contradict the assertion now found in Wiki's "Types of abortion restrictions . . . " article, that "these [TRAP] laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics." If that were always the case why would certain laws fitting this "TRAP" definition be supported by pro-choice legislators in Maryland? Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"To a large extent" seems a little vague and your closing rhetorical question reinforces the impression that you are coming to a non-obvious conclusion. Just to give an example of an answer to your rhetorical question: pro choice people might be happy with a law which closes particular types of abortion clinics. But it would be pointless to argue about all such possible ways of interpreting the situation you describe. So is there anything in the NYT source which literally says that the laws are not aimed at closing abortion clinics?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the NYT article does not "literally" say that laws regulating abortion clinics are not aimed at closing those clinics but it would be rather odd if it did. Straight news article aren't generally written that way. They tend to present certifiable facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. The issue with the Mother Jones and New Republic opinion magazine articles is whether we should be presenting their broad conclusion that "TRAP" laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics as fact (though I think only the New Republic article "literally" says this). It's not as if they are the only sources for the subject. Here [5] for example is a Politico article on state regulation of abortion clinics. As one might expect, it says that pro-choice advocates say this about such regulations, and that pro-life advocates say that about such regulations. It doesn't adopt either view as gospel. Badmintonhist ( talk) 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well if we have two sources claiming the same thing, and none contradicting, I can see an argument for reporting it as fact. OTOH, if both sources are known be of the same political colour, then I can see counter arguments. Using attribution appears to me to be a common approach in such situations, in order to avoid circular arguments.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: An anonymous editor has deleted the "laws are aimed at" sentence ( diff). I don't dispute that edit, but I've left a message on the IP address's talk page inviting the editor to add to the discussion here. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 01:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia dispute resolver has reviewed and assessed a content dispute (dispute & result here) about ancestral certitude in the Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article and concluded that the disputed source fails RS. The assessment turns upon the reliability of the source cited by footnote in support of an asserted fact, which the resolver maintains cannot substantiate a factoid in Wikipedia because the source includes the disclaimer, "Opinions and statements expressed herein are attributable solely to individual authors and are not endorsed by American Ancestors or the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)." My understanding is that, for liability reasons, such disclaimers are common even in highly reputable and entirely reliable publications. They refer to the publication's refrainment from "endorsing" POVs or assertions made therein which, given that it regularly includes adverts and two unfootnoted sections (the "Upfront" commentaries and "Family Focus" book notices) is unsurprising. However, the cited source in question here is an article on pp. 35-36 in one of the journal's two main, fully-footnoted sections. Signed and footnoted articles by columnists and guest authors stand on their own: the publication of such articles never implies endorsement of specific views or allegations, even in respected newspapers and peer-reviewed journals -- nonetheless editorial selectivity and review are normally exercised. The disclaimer on p. 4 is not unusual in reliable sources and constitutes no proof that the content has escaped the periodical's editorial review. The publisher's reputation for accuracy in the field is more relevant to a determination of whether the source meets Wiki's RS standard for reliability than a boilerplate disclaimer. In this case, the publisher, NEHGS, is of the highest scholarly reputation in the field of genealogical research, is a long-established entity, retains identified professional staff to edit content (incl. 4 staff proofreaders). Surely it therefore passes RS muster? FactStraight ( talk) 05:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

From the New York Time's website: The New York Times Company will use reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information on this Web site. However, by accessing or linking to this Web site, you assume the risk that this Web site and the content it contains, or may in the future contain, may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements. The New York Times Company assumes no obligation to update the content.

From Nature's website: The information contained on the Site is for information purposes only and does not constitute advice. You should check any information on the Site and use your own judgment before doing or not doing anything on the basis of what you see. We make no representations or warranties with respect to the Site or its contents. All warranties, express or implied, including without limitation the implied warranties of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose relating to the Site and/or its content and/or any web site to which it is linked are hereby to the fullest extent permitted by law excluded. No representations or warranties are given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided on the Site, or any web site to which it is linked.

You are correct that such disclaimers are common for even the highest quality sites. I'm certain most large western media groups (be they academic or journalistic in nature) will have similar disclaimers. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

By the looks of it Conyers is a 'gateway' ancestor (when you hit one of those the family tree goes back to gentry & nobs based on established research) but in the article itself that hinges on two lines ("Mr. Pattison found the baptism (11 August 1816) of Anthony Liddle at Chester le Street, son of James and Jane Liddle, and the christenings of Anthony’s seven siblings.[2] Also in this parish register was the marriage (6 May 1815) of James Liddle, from Newburn, Northumberland, and Jane Hardy, aged twenty, from Chester le Street, witnessed by William Hardy. [3] I found Jane’s baptism (3 May 1795) at Penshaw, Durham...") of two pages. The rest of the article is about the 'discovery' in those two lines. But that's just a genealogical view. I think additional sources - those who have independently verified the data and reached the same results - would be preferable. Otherwise its weasel words and the Duchess of Cambridge is 'reputed' to be descended from Conyers (and so on). Genealogy is a messy business and when it appears in Wikipedia articles about historical figures its usually well trodden ground and the sources (generally) agree. But using a single source for a genealogy of a BLP back to the 1400s doesn't seem to be reliable or necessary. AnonNep ( talk) 13:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly worth reminding everyone that there is no obligation for us to include everything that every appears in reliable sources in Wikipedia. So for example it is not necessary to argue about the details of reliability forever if there is cause for issues of notability. Gateway ancestor claims are published light-heartedly all over the place, and I tend to agree with the idea that only the strongest of them are worth being considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

NEHGS is one of -- arguably the most -- respected scholarly institutions in American genealogy, receives tens of thousands of submissions, and typically doesn't publish articles that haven't been vetted enough to appear under their aegis. Your input nonetheless convinces me that attributing the finding in the article, in addition to footnoting it, may be appropriate here, something like, "According to an article published by the New England Historic Genealogical Society's journal, American Ancestors, Kate Middleton descends from King Edward IV of England". And while the more RS citations for any fact, the safer, Wikipedia does not require multiple sources for inclusion of info, especially when the source cited is of high quality, as in this case. The issue relevant here is whether the generic disclaimer, "no endorsement of content" ipso facto precludes citing their journal as a reliable source -- which is the sole ground on which all mention of Kate's documented descent from Edward IV has now been excised from the article. Is it your experience that if reputable sources, whether journalistic or scholarly, generically disclaim "endorsement" of article content, that implies they don't subject articles to competent editorial review -- which is all that our RS process mandates? The one comment in this discussion addressing this issue cites several major publications widely considered "reliable" and much-cited in Wikipedia which nonetheless disclaim responsibility for contents. More? FactStraight ( talk) 19:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed all of that sounds reasonable to me. I was indeed making an aside, but nevertheless an aside with practical relevance, but actually more related to WP:NOTE. I think your suggestion of using attribution is probably a good way to reduce potential controversy. I agree that as a general rule normal types of cautious disclaimers do not necessarily mean we should delete anything sourced from a publication. But I am not expressing a strong opinion about this particular case, not having looked at the details.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that proposed wording return to the original problem that NGHS doesn't endorse any article (& shouldn't be seen to endorse this inclusion)? Therefore the original ruling stands? Especially given the 'leave it out if in doubt' of WP:BLP)? I could see it as a clearly labelled (very) narrow untested one author view but nothing more. And, given WP:BLP, and the convoluted wording required, tend towards not including it, at all as per original decision. AnonNep ( talk) 11:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How does that jibe with Someguy1221's cites, above, which show that even the most respected periodicals, such as the New York Times, include generic disclaimers, yet are frequently cited as reliable sources on Wikipedia? In this case, the assessment was that it does not matter whether the journal in question states "Kate Middleton descends from Henry IV" or "Sailors on the Mayflower have living descendants" because it has been concluded that the disclaimer makes the source, however reputable or footnoted, completely useless as a cite for any statement, being no more than "a blog". Are you agreeing that any such disclaimer discovered in an otherwise respected or footnoted periodical renders it an unreliable source? FactStraight ( talk) 01:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only about a publication or its disclaimers, its about the nature of the publication, the section of the publication its in, what the content is and how its being used and cited in a Wikipedia article. As WP:NEWSORG states '"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact' but their 'Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces' are not. That includes the NYTimes. There's another level, even a NYTimes blog, as per WP:NEWSBLOG where you must 'attribute the statement to the writer'. In your example it isn't the opinion of NGHS but one author that they expressly do not endorse and it would need to be cited that way. The next issue is how you propose to use this source - to make a claim about a living person. Under WP:BLPSOURCES 'unsourced or poorly sourced... whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable' has to be removed. You can't look at one side (the source) without evaluating what's its used for (a BLP). Its a close call but the BLP context forces caution. That's why the dispute resolution decision came down the way it did. AnonNep ( talk) 05:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand this. The resolver explicitly stated that it is not a "close call" because s/he construes the generic disclaimer to be an absolute negation of the validity of the journal as a "reliable source". Moreover, the disclaimer appeared on page 4, and was in no way specific to the article in question -- which was published in the section reserved for footnoted research, whereas there are two other sections which include uncited commentary. The NY Times disclaimer refers to all of its content published on its website, not just to the Opinion section or blogs. You seem to be ignoring or sidestepping the point which brings this matter before this board: whether or not generic disclaimers render sources unreliable. I think it's already been demonstrated that they do not. While more is always better when it comes to reliable sources, a disclaimer such as made in this NEHGS journal should not discount a footnoted article published therein as a reliable source because Wikipedia doesn't expect or require that sources "endorse" or "vouch" for the veracity of their contents, but applies a much lower threshhold: is the source subjected to editorial review, and if so, of what quality? With respect to BLP criteria, the sole (and, obviously, real) objection voiced was not methodological, but that the source supporting the datum was only published in an American journal -- rather than in a British one. That's not a legitimate BLP objection. FactStraight ( talk) 06:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

'Close call' is my opinion, I'm not speaking on behalf of the resolver. Short of repeating what I've said above, I really don't think there's anything useful I can add. AnonNep ( talk) 09:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This International Organization for Standardization working document [6] is being used to interpret and inform readers of the history of the Armenian Eternity sign. Specifically it is being used to say the symbol originated from the swastika (a claim it doesn't make nor does any other source I can find). I don't think it's RS for even the suggestion that it is related to the swastika. There is some text that should perhaps be removed as copyvio - I've done that once and was reverted. There has been long term edit-warring at this article, perhaps by supporters of the Borjgali page which claims the symbol as Georgian. Dougweller ( talk) 13:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The document you link to doesn't actually state that the symbol originates with the swastika, so it isn't reliable for that information. However the document now in the article does say so, quite explicitly. If I read it correctly, that information comes from the National Institute of Standards of Republic of Armenia (SARM). The question thus boils down to: (1) is SARM a reliable source, (2) is ISO an trustworthy publisher. My feeling is that the answer in both cases is "yes", although admittedly the only thing I know about SARM is that it was taken seriously by ISO. Zero ^talk 11:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But neither SARM nor ISO are recognised experts for history - that's not their remit. Dougweller ( talk) 13:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

All we know from the second document (which is not meant to be distributed) is that that the national standards body of Armenia submitted the swasktika comment as part of its comments on a ballot. However that comment was eventually received/resolved, and even if it ended-up in Unicode, the committee is question has expertise in coded character sets, not necessarily in the history of the glyphs. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 13:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that "according to the national standards body of Armenia, the Armenian Symbol of Eternity is the direct descendent of the pre-historic Swastika". A national standards body may not be the best source for the history of one of their national symbols, but, even if they're wrong, their opinion is important enough to be included. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant about that, because we don't know what kind of internal processes SARM has. In many national standards' bodies committee members' opinion is simply forwarded without additional scrutiny - and in any case by the rules of the system these communications (ballot responses) are supposed to be a confidential part of the consensus-forming process, and not public documents. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 14:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Again, their opinion is important enough to note even if it's wrong. The sheer fact that an Armenian national standards body thinks this about their national symbol, and says as much to the international standards body, is strictly necessary to include in our article about the symbol. Our article would be incomplete without mentioning it. It's like Voltaire's famous quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Well, he didn't actually say it. But it still needs to be part of his article. Same for many other possible errors; at a certain point, just the fact that it's wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't write about it. The opinion of a national body about a national symbol is, in itself, notable, whether or not it is correct. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it has insufficient WP:WEIGHT, if we're weighing up prominence of opinion, then an opinion expressed in a document that a standard body permitted to be its position, on something that was only tangentially related to a preliminary-stage ballot, which ballot is in a subcommittee of a subcommittee of ISO and IEC, AND which they assumed would never be public, is hardly a "prominent" viewpoint. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient WP:WEIGHT? Compared to what? WP:WEIGHT says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." What are the other reliable sources about the origin of the symbol that it's outweighing? The whole article is 13 sentences long! It looks like this is the sole significant viewpoint published by reliable sources that we've got. If we had 10 others, we could consider including some and excluding others. We've only got this. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

in itself; it's not a significant viewpoint (and it's not reliably sourced). Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The section Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Social_inequities quotes a complete magazine article. Is this magazine article from 1905 a reliable description of a political regime that began in 1910?

The original article is located here: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Outlook-1905nov11-00609 Shii (tock) 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously an article from 1905 cannot be a reliable description of something that began in 1910. However, our article doesn't seem to present it as such - it seems to clearly state that this is a description of Japanese attitudes and behaviour in the run-up to 1910, not thereafter. Whether it is given too much WP:WEIGHT I'm not qualified to say, having very little knowledge of the subject. Barnabypage ( talk) 16:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a WP:SYNTH use of the source; shouldn't we be quoting a reliable history here? Shii (tock) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

even if it is out of copyright, there is generally no call to directly quote that much from a single source. there is the issue of WP:UNDUE weight to a single source, particularly one so old. There is much more recent scholarship on the issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. source: 'Drafting the blueprint for Palestinian refugees' right of return
2. Article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War
3. Content: The Diff page

• The veteran said also:

1. "They didn’t think they were fleeing for a long time. They didn’t think that they wouldn’t return. Nor did anyone imagine that an entire nation wouldn’t return...
2. We expelled them because of Zionist ideology. Plain and simple: We came to inherit the land and that’s why we didn’t bring them back.

Is it acceptable to quote a veteran, talking about issues which he has not experienced and are not within his credentials?

I said in the "citation needed": "Mr Neumann is not a RS in the context of his OR. e.g. why they did not fight, was Zionism purpose to expel Arabs etc. Am I right or wrong? Ykantor ( talk) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Simply being a veteran of the conflict doesn't make him any kind of authority on it. He might be a usable source on the narrow details of particular engagements in which he was directly involved, but that's about it, and even then I don't think he'd be an ideal one. (He would be a primary source; see WP:PRIMARY.) Barnabypage ( talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a primary source, the raw material which historians of Israel have analyzed in many books. Shii (tock) 17:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnabypage ,Shii, Thank you for your prompt replies. Ykantor ( talk) 17:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a repeated behavioural problem. Ykantor doesn't understand the elementary rules of editing, and has repeatedly put up cit needed tags when the sources that support the statements are already provided. He does this because, as he boasted on a talk page today, he is not concerned with wiki policy on RS as much as with 'the truth'.

'you have, as elsewhere, consistently failed to distinguish what RS say from what the truth might be'(Nishidani). 'I consider it as a personal compliment' (Ykantor

He doubts the truth of this statement. Well, I am just interested in RS and verifiability of quality sources.

With regard to the incident, Neumann was a direct eyewitness to much of the southern front where he fought. What he says is well known, and if you read below you will see that his statement is confirmed by a major Israeli historian, David Tal. Immediately after the Neumann attributed statement (not direct, but as gathered by two notable Israeli journalists, Gideon Levy being one, which was published in a major mainstream Israeli newspaper, I provided a second quote which says exactly the same thing.

What slight resistance was offered was quelled by an artillery barrage, followed by a the storming of the village, whos residents were expelled and houses destroyed.

This is from David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge 2004 p.307. who writes:

11th Brigade's movement along the southern arm was easier. ... The slight resistance offered by the villagers was quelled by a barrage followed by the storming of the villages.'

The incidents Tal refers to are in the upper part of the same southern front, but confirm what Neumann says was the general trend in the south.

Most disturbingly, Ykantor was reverted on this and immediately he quietly came here, and entitled the question ' A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience?.' That is completely deceptive and prejudges the answer expected. The veteren is speaking about actions in which he directly participated. So Ykantor 'framed' or 'distorted the issue', and once he received the answer his twisting of it expected, reintroduced his {cn}, in the face of other editors who have noted that though Neumann is the primary source, his remark is quoted by a reliable secondary source. If we challenge secondary sources for quoting human participants in an historical event, then we are going to throw out virtually every historical source so far written.

Note further that Ykantor is so confused he says the primary source is engaged in OR. I.e. the opinion on a war zone given by someone who fought there, as cited in a secondary source, is unacceptable because it is, in his view, an example of original research. He confuses what editors must not do, with what participants in a war are reported as saying happened to them. It is an attributed opinion and has nothing to do with original research. Proof if ever, that Ykantor has no grasp on the most straightforwards elements of wikipedia policy. Nishidani ( talk) 22:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It seems that you are the only one that does not understand the question, and reffers to other issues. Hence I repeat: the question is concerning the 2 Mr. Neuman quoted sentences only, which are differnet from what your issues.
• Please stop with personal attacks. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly asked you to stop it, but to no avail. Ykantor ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Several editors of long experience have noted on many pages your consistent misuse of, or failure to understand, wiki policy. To note that is to note a general perception. I respect the judgements of the two editors above, from other cases outside this field. But I suggest they reexamine what is going on, without relying on your biased description. Thirdly, the quote in the footnote (not the actual article page edit I made) is there provisorily, as I did for you on several other pages. I gave the full quotes in order to ensure that you have read them. That note can be removed when you have done so. But this is quite a distinct matter from the key issue. Is it proper for Neumann's retrospective account as a participant in the war for us to use him via a secondary source dealing with that period? The answer, unequivocably, is yes. In Vietnam War we read of 'Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wrote in Argument Without End (1999) that the new American patrons of the ROV were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture.' He is reflecting back on events thirty years earlier. Examples of this are manifold. Nishidani ( talk) 13:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to see anything wrong with the source or text. There isn't any OR here, nothing here goes against wp:primary, his knowledge and views are important enough for Haaretz so it's not like it's a case of a self published source. There is nothing wrong with this sourcing. Sepsis II ( talk) 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like we're dealing with a couple of separate issues here. For the diff provided (general lack of resistance), I don't see a problem; Neumann's being cited here as an eyewitness of these particular events and not as an analyst of the conflict as a whole, and the statement is attributed to him. Additionally, it seems that a historical source backs him up. If other sources contradict, there could be a problem. I would not consider him a reliable source for the other two statements in the original post in this thread. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Among other questions, It is very important to establish weather the "eyewitness" is reliable, objective and non biased for claims which have political and historic repercussions. Unfortunately this is not the case here, so this can not be used as WP:RS in the context provided. He is also not an authority on this subject. -- Tritomex ( talk) 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Third party impartial editors can respond in the revised version of this query two sections below. This is a policy issue, not a POV pushers' bunfight. Nishidani ( talk) 09:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose I count as an impartial editor, but I am an RS regular. This article is a train wreck when it comes to sourcing. It needs to be pulled back to the academic history only. I'm not happy about the source at issue here, but it's by no means the worst offender. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There were 13,000 Palestinians killed in the war, almost three times the Arab army casualties, but the article is organized to depict the major battles between Israel and foreign states, and to ignore the real high-casualty battles in which several hundred villages were devastated. My one edit to adjust this oversight has generated Ykantor's fussing. Nishidani ( talk) 13:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know "who is in which party" based on your categorization, but as I see exactly because POV pushing should be avoided, this edit based on this source is against Wikipedia policy of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.-- Tritomex ( talk) 21:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cite the policy or for ever hold your piece. Just waving names will get you nowhere. Nishidani ( talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As user:Nishidani has deleted the problematic sentences ,The issue is fully solved. It is a pity that user:Nishidani has used the problematic quotes, since he is an experienced user and knows the rules. Anyway in my opinion as the editor who posted this question here, this section should be closed. Ykantor ( talk) 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've told you before, English is not your first language, and several times you even posted cit needed tags when we had an impeccable source. Therefore, I added, provisorily, the full text to ensure that you would read it. All of this nonsensical waste of time would have been saved had you had the simple good sense to say, 'okay. I've got it. Do we need the full quote?' and I would have said, 'No. Fine. I'll remove it.' Take this as a lesson. Engage intelligently on the talk page and don't forum shop. We are all responsive editors on these pages, and, actually, enjoy tracking down stuff, as you should have learnt by now. Nishidani ( talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that you admit deliberately entering unreliable information to the article. And , NO, your claim of provisorily, is not true, as you inserted it without any provisorily, note, as seen along around 10 editing sessions ( The Diff page of the first and last of the 10 sessions ).

As you claim to know Wikipedia rules, is there a rule that support you in deliberately entering unreliable information to the article? Ykantor ( talk) 01:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please realise that the text Nishidani removed was never visible to the reader in the first place. It was only visible to editors when viewing the wiki-source. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. It is always visible by either hovering with the mouse around the in line reference number , or by clicking the reference number and reading it in the footnotes section. Please verify before you write. Ykantor ( talk) 11:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. I stand corrected. But still, most people won't ever see the footnote. People read the text, not the footnotes. That was the point I was trying to make. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 12:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that you admit deliberately entering unreliable information to the article

If you violently distort what I do, and maliciously assert nonsense like the above once more, I'll break a self-imposed rule and ask that you be suspended. Deliberate falsification of an article's information, which you say I did, is a major infraction of wiki protocols that almost automatically, if reported and verified, earns the abuser a longterm band. I entered that information to ensure all editors could immediately check the source I was synthesizing. I removed it once its use-by purpose had passed. I've always suggested till now that your grasp of the niceties of both English and logic is frail at times, in mitigation of the evident incomprehension of what other people say or do in editing. But this attack on my bona fides should be struck out. I did not such thing, and if it is not struck you, it will form an important, perhaps damning, diff if someone eventually reports you. Nishidani ( talk) 12:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• what you are doing now is threatening me, that you might report me in the future. It make sense that by threatening me you are breaking a Wikipedia rule, which is not desirable. I am helping you to avoid such a situation by saying: Go ahead and report me now. I stand by my word. Ykantor ( talk) 17:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Source: news story from CVT published May 25, 2013 6:32PM EDT about March Against Monsanto, a global event which had yet to begin in places like Hawaii at the time of publication.

Statement printed in March Against Monsanto:

On May 25, 2013, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the march.

The source claims that "200,000" is an estimate. The number coincides with the expected turnout given prior to the event, but differs wildly from all other coverage of the event by larger media outlets, which state that around 2 million protesters participated:

• This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times

• CNN: Millions protest genetically modified food, Monsanto, organizers say

• IBTimes: ‘March Against Monsanto’ Draws As Many As 2 Million Globally

• Guardian: Millions march against GM crops

• RT: Over two million march the streets of 436 cities, 52 countries

• LA Weekly: Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto

Editors were able to find one other source that they thought supported the lower figure (can be found in Talk page archives), it is a NYT article about genetically modified oranges. The piece is not about the protest, but mentioned it in passing near the end of the article. [Later edit: one additional source follows the statement in question, but does not give a number, I'm unsure why it is being used.]

If the "hundreds of thousands" claim is found to be unsupported, the March Against Monsanto article would be left with: "Organizers estimated that two million protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part." In my opinion, this wording seems to best reflect RS and is sufficient.

Further, statements claiming there was a "range" from 200,000 to 2 million, based on the CVS article, would also be unsupported; two other articles would then require some editing: Monsanto and Genetically modified food controversies. petrarchan47 t c 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see what is so wrong about being honest with the numbers, if we said something along the lines of according to organizers 2 million people participated in 436 cities blah blah blah....independant sources have stated that hundreds of thousands participated. (citing the New York Times GMO Oranges article, the Washington Wire truth in crowd size estimates Article and others). [7]. In addition mentioning some specific marches: Las Vegas Nevada 2000 - [8] Salt Lake City Hundreds - [9] San Diego, CA - Over a 1000 - [10] Vancouver, BC - Hundreds - [11] etc. To me this seems more reliable than just parroting the organizers. VViking _{Talk Edits} 00:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - that looks like a good neutral way to present it. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 05:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The number claimed by the organizers is fine as long as it is clearly said that way. Then this is clearly coverage of a claim, not of attendance. It would be automatically known that such will be a wildly inflated number. But other sourced information about attendance estimates should CERTAINLY be included. Otherwise there is no coverage in the article of actual estimated attendance. And the sourced data on individual marches certainly helps. North8000 ( talk) 11:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is an example of OR/SYNTH and does not support a case for presenting a "range" which is mentioned in no media besides Wikipedia. petrarchan47 t c 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I vas hoping to get some input from uninvolved editors on whether the CVT or the NYT oranges article are reliable sources for the lowball number, especially in light of the majority of RS stating a few million. It is not an opinion I am seeking, but a guideline-based assessment, thanks. petrarchan47 t c 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved and I have no strong personal opinion in the matter. I looked at each of the sources cited above. My take:

• The CVT article does not specifically say that the "hundreds of thousands" figure is the number of people who took part in the MAM event; it refers to people "targeting Monsanto". My sense is that the article was based on forecasted estimates of the participants prior to the event, and worded in such a way as not to require correction if the actual number of participants turned out to be much different. I do not regard it as reliably supporting any estimated figure for the actual number of participants.
• The NYT article says, without qualification, that hundreds of thousands took part. There is nothing to indicate how they came up with this number, but the NYT's reputation for fact checking does weigh in favor of regarding this as one reliable (albeit imprecise) figure in describing the number of participants.
• The Miami New Times article states without qualification that the number of participants was two million. I am not as familiar with the MNT's reputation for fact checking but, assuming it is equal to that of any other mainstream reliable news source, it can be regarded as another reliable figure in quantifying participation.
• All the other sources offered a figure in the millions, but they were pretty uniform in attributing it to the organizers' own claims within the article text, and (aside from headlines, which often omit context and detail) do not adopt the figure as unqualified fact.

Based on this, the article should probably state that the number of participants has been variously estimated as "hundreds of thousands" or a couple of million. Attribute the lower figure to the NYT article (footnote it, quoting the pertinent sentence since it's buried deep in a large article) and the higher figure to the MNT. Don't over-complicate the article text with discussion of how reliable the figures are, but an explanatory footnote might be appropriate that explains something along these lines: the predictions were for 200,000+, the organizers' estimates were ~2M, and no independent reconciliation of these figures is known. alanyst 18:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Would we be able to call the NYT mention an "estimate"? I wonder. Because of the context: (yes, NYT is reputable, but) this is a very long article specifically about genetically modified oranges. It wasn't remotely about the March, and mentioned it in passing in such way that it is hard to believe any research went into the statement. They may have found the number by looking at Wikipedia. The NYT didn't claim it was an estimate. The fact is, no other media gives anything but the "2 million", so it doesn't seem a strong enough source, in this context, to counter all the RS listed above by introducing the idea of a "range". My understanding of RS guidelines was that to make a claim such as this one (that there was a range, or any estimates made that called organizers numbers into question) especially if it runs counter to all other RS, it would have to come from an article dedicating much more space, if not entirely dedicated, to the claim being supported. petrarchan47 t c 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The objection to the NYT figure can apply to the MNT figure as well: neither source makes it clear how they vetted the figure they cite without qualification. It's possible the NYT reporter did a cursory search for attendance estimates for the protest and adopted it as fact without further checking; it is equally possible that the MNT used the figure provided by the march organizers and adopted it as fact without further checking. It's also possible that one or the other did independently verify their figure and did not see fit to explicitly say so. Without additional insight, we are left with the two figures that differ by an order of magnitude, each adequately but not incontrovertibly supported by one independent news organization. All other citations are inconclusive, because they are either too equivocal (CVT) or provide no independent support for the estimate (the remaining citations, which all cite the march organizers). However, I do not think the article should suggest that the number of participants was in a range between those two numbers; there is no authority cited to suggest it was, say, 1.2 million. Rather, simply say the protest size was "variously estimated" at those two numbers. The march organizers' estimate should neither be privileged nor contradicted by such a statement, and the reader can decide for herself/himself which, if any, seems more likely. alanyst 19:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not in favor of giving the organizers' number privilege - my entire point here is that we are saying things in Wikipedia's voice that are unsourced. The protest size was not variously estimated according to any source I've seen to date. The NYT mention cannot be used as a statement of an estimate. In case you miss my other entries, I have asked the author of the oranges article where the number came from, so that might help us a lot. Meanwhile, the only thing WIkipedia can claim, given we do not have RS for a lower estimate, is that the organizers said ___. I am not opposed to giving a range, but we do not have adequate sourcing to do so. If I am in error regarding my assessment of the NYT article and its usefulness as our sole dissenting "assessment", please let me know. petrarchan47 t c 03:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The only base source for "two million" is "event organizers" which is a very weak source ... which cited event organizers.(AP), 1.700 locally (the Miami New Times source), CNN organizers say, Guardian Organisers say that two million people marched, RT.com is "Russian television" and has not been vetted here as RS for much of anything, Louisiana Weekly got "millions" from Millions Against Monsanto movement and did not make any estimate at all on its own. In short -- all the "estimates" on the high side are from the organisers, and not independently presented by reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites RS. If RS says X, we say X. In this case, RS of all sorts found it acceptable to print the organizers' estimate, therefore Wikipedia should have no problem doing exactly the same, and going one step further by attributing the number to the organizers (not all media did) as well as perhaps mentioning that no independent estimates were made. In my understanding, this is actually a very normal state of affairs: event organizers are usually the only ones in a position to give estimates. As far as I know, unless there is a reliable source for a 'range' or lower estimate, or even a questioning of the "2 million" number that we have yet to see, no media outlet has taken the effort to fact-check MAM organizers. If that is the case, Wikipedia needs to just deal with it and stick to what RS says. Our doubts and opinion, our strong leanings really have no place here. Also it is not the case that RT is not RS, though I hear this repeated a lot. Btw, Collect, no one is arguing that we state the 2 million number as anything but an estimate given by organizers. petrarchan47 t c 02:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The two million claim seems quite dubious and should probably be only be presented as a claim made by MAM if contrasted with the reports by the non-partisan sources which are stating a tenth the numbers. If one does the math on MAM's self proclaimed numbers, the average city which took part would have had a crowd of 4600, but when one looks at MAM's reports on individual cities they are reporting only a few cities which reached the low thousands. Major cities such as London, Paris, San Francisco, and Tokyo were reported in the low hundreds, a few hundred for all of South Africa, a dozen in Argentina, protests in the hundreds, low thousands in the US. The only city that MAM itself reports to be above, or even near, the 4600 number was Portland at 6,000. I think it's safe to say the 2 million number is false and the numbers coming from NYT et al are much more reliable. Sepsis II ( talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The March took place in hundreds of cities. This may be one reason that an independent assessment didn't happen. We are not in the position here to take up the reigns, it is a big task whose results would still be considered OR and therefore, irrelevant. Editors here clearly doubt the organizers' number, but unless this doubt is printed in RS, how does it matter to the task at hand? Ours is simply to distill what reliable sources say (which is why I came to this noticeboard). There are no reliable, non-partisan sources which claim to have made an independent estimate, or which state 1/10th of the normally given "2 million" number. The CVT source was grossly misused for the past few months to uphold this idea of a lower number/range. The only other place where this lower number is mentioned is in passing at the very bottom of a very long NYT article about oranges, and cannot be used as an estimate in this context. I have inquired with the NYT author where she got her number, and will report back when I hear. If you wouldn't mind bringing examples of your "et al" giving lower estimates, it would be most helpful. Thanks, petrarchan47 t c 02:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Unless this doubt is printed in a RS..." Doubt in a RS:

• Truth in labeling rule for crowd size. [12]
• Cartoonish march against monsanto. [13]
• Anti GMO Scientist gilles eric.... [14]

VViking _{Talk Edits} 05:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I should have been more specific - by doubt I am not referring to a personal opinion, but to an alternate estimate, a neutral, nonpartisan reliable source that can be used to speak about raw numbers for the May 25th march specifically. petrarchan47 t c 04:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a situation where the difficult answer is, that nobody knows. Nobody counted. No source claims it counted (other than the organizers) The 2M number came from the organizers and was used with attribution by most RS and was stated baldly (without attribution) in a few sloppy instances. A few sources give numbers in the hundreds of thousands which was apparently those authors' back-of-the-envelope estimate. But nobody counted. This is not a question about reliable sources -- it is a question about how to deal with it, when nobody knows. The best thing is to give a range and a few sources that support numbers in the range. And a simple, in-text statement that the high end comes from the organizers. As I write on my userpage, "Where things are not fully explainable, and we are dealing with uncertainties, that has to be clearly acknowledged. (Much bullshit is generated in claims of certainty, in cases where none can be had.)" Jytdog ( talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a situation where we can only say what RS has said. This is the reason I have been suggesting we state the same thing CNN, Yahoo, RT, etc etc have stated, " according to organizers... ". I would be happy to include other numbers that are well-sourced, but for now we don't have support for any number besides the 2 million, so we are bound by the guidelines to bite the bullet and stay safe by not adding novel information to the web: that a range of estimates exists. Pending such a source (if you do have RS for a smaller figure please bring the links to this noticeboard so we can review them), we have to stick with the number media sources covering the march have used. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but I have been trying to make this simple point for three months and have never run into such static over attempting to use RS guidelines in the same way I always do. It does make one take notice - this strange behaviour happens to revolve around a sensitive issue for Monsanto. I don't want to believe they are actively trying to influence the pedia, and I look forward to editors allowing the MAM page to reflect what RS says, and to accepting the harsh reality that as a wiki editor, our doubts (POV) about what multiple reliable sources have printed are so irrelevant to the article building process that they should essentially be kept to oneself. petrarchan47 t c 04:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear you petrarchan. but you are ignoring what i wrote, in that nobody knows. The reason I think you are running into static, is that you are not acknowledging that nobody knows. This is more about WP:commonsense than RS. This situation is very analogous to the discussion that happened at the Fort Hood Shooting article over the number of casualties. Several RS gave several different numbers (ranging from 29 to over 40) and a really fierce and long discussion broke out. You can see it here. The problem was, that none of the sources defined what it meant by "casualty" or described how it arrived at its tally. There was no "right answer". It was not a question of RS at all, but how to deal with ambiguity. I put that to the rest with this and that resolution of the situation has held ever since. Jytdog ( talk) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional note - Salon has a great article on the politics and difficulties of crowd-counting with respect to protests here, which is cited in our Crowd counting article. Wikipedia should not be taking a partisan stance but should report what is neutral, reasonable and reliable. Again, the problem with MAM is that it didn't get much coverage... there was little effort to independently report on it and the turnout, unlike, say Protests against the Iraq War, many of which did receive serious independent reporting and accompanying efforts to estimate crowd size. That is why I keep saying that there is no good number for MAM and this is not about RS. Petrarchan if you know of an independent source that actually tried to estimate turnout using Crowd counting techniques. I would be happy to see it - I spent a few hours looking back when I was still editing that article, and didn't find one. Jytdog ( talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The promoted double standard doesn't fly. Setting a very low standard for putting in a high (certainly wildly exaggerated) number, and promoting a high sourcing standard to exclude lower estimates. North8000 ( talk) 18:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• We are waiting for RS to support a lower estimate. Until we have it, we must use what sources like CNN used. Your theory makes sense but as you know, this isn't a board for theorizing and articles require RS. See this example to understand the requirement for RS more deeply. petrarchan47 t c 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for RS noticeboard help - from editors unconnected to the MAM article I am here to get feedback on sourcing. From a read of all comments above, the CVT source brought to Wikipedia by jytdog seems to have 100% consensus that it is not usable to make a claim about crowd size given that it was printed before the march had begun in half of the world. Today, this same source has been re-added to the page by three separate editors, even after I pointed this out! I am now unable to fix it due to 3RR. There seems to be an endless group editors who come out of the woodwork and all agree to ignore proper use of RS. I am asking for help. I feel as if I fighting with people who continue to use personal opinion to build and shape articles, completely ignoring the efforts and points being made here. Pease advise. How to keep this bogus source from being used to make an unsourced claim (in 3 separate articles) and, does this issue need to go to a different noticeboard more designed to deal with behavioral issues? I'm at a loss, Wikipedia, I am begging for help. petrarchan47 t c 18:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are upset that a "bogus" source says 200,000 but are completely fine with the "bogus" estimate of 2,000,000? It would appear that you are using your personal opinion against the concensus of many others. Arzel ( talk) 19:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided an outside opinion based on an analysis of the sources. I agree that the CVT source is not reliable for the lower estimate of participants, but the NYT article provides enough support for the lower estimate that it should be cited alongside the higher claim, with neither estimate being cast in Wikipedia's voice as authoritative. I realize that may be a disappointing answer to someone who is ill disposed towards Monsanto and personally gives credence to the protest organizers' claims, but at some point you might have to acknowledge that your views regarding how the article should treat the crowd estimate figures have not gained traction. alanyst 19:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I no longer watch the MAM article and haven't for months now, so was unaware of the edit war that broke out today. To try to settle that (at least temporarily til the discussion here is done) I just implemented alanyst's suggestion in the three articles mentioned by petrarchan. here is the dif in the MAM article. Jytdog ( talk) 19:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the changes to those three articles slightly, so as not to imply that estimates covered the range from 200,000 to 2M, lest the reader mistakenly think there were (presumably more reliable) estimates in the middle of the range. Hopefully everyone can live with the resultant wording and be willing to move on. alanyst 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

the effort to temporarily settle this failed, as User:Petrarchan47 broke WP:3RR and reverted reference to the NY Times article in this dif with edit note "Removed false claim that "hundreds of thousands)" followed by a slight edit with edit note "Oops, didn't mean to press enter)" and a comment, out of place, on Talk here continued arguing against citing the lower number at all, and asking "I have a special request, that no one take me to the 3RR noticeboard. I did make a correction, but didn't actually mean to press "enter" as I remembered I may have a few hours left before I'm allowed to change this bit again. Oops." If Petrarchan had used the 2nd edit to revert herself I would be inclined not to bring 3RR but that a) she did not and b) continued the arguments driving her edit warring and made no acknowledgement of discussion here about the numbers in general, I don't see why that special request should be honored. Looking for input from 3rd parties. Jytdog ( talk) 09:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

quick fact check. Away up at the top, User:Petrarchan47 characterized a source from Canadian TV (the CTV source, referred to here as CVT and CVS for some reason) which is here, as follows: "published May 25, 2013 6:32PM EDT about March Against Monsanto, a global event which had yet to begin in places like Hawaii at the time of publication." It seems that several commenters here accepted that description. However, in waikiki the march apparently started at noonish and was over by 1ish. 1pm in hawaii would be 6pm in Kitchener, where the CTV source came from. The march in honolulu also started at around noon. So by 6:30 you have all of North and South America, as far out as Hawaii, and all of Europe too. And Asia would have already occurred too, as they are well ahead of East Coast US time. With all the realtime recording that was going on, it would not have been hard to do a quick estimate. And that is what the CTV article says, "an estimated 200,000...." The reason why I introduced that source in the first place, is that it was one of the few media outlets I found that even tried to come up with its own number, instead of using the organizers' number. P has said here and elsewhere that she believes I like the number and source because it is small; this is not accurate. I like the source because it appears to have actually tried to do some independent reporting; the number could be large or small for all I care. Jytdog ( talk) 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. source: Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2, Fayard 2007 p.96
2. Article: Kfar Etzion massacre
3. content:

   "the villagers' onslaught, which was motivated by ...the destruction of one of their villages several months earlier"

   . The source says that Kfar Etzion "opened hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village"
4. The Diff page

I hope that this noticeboard is the right place for the question.

a summary: The quoted text is well supported by a respectable RS. However, the statement seems to have a mistake, as all destroyed Arab villages around, were destroyed much later (after March 1948*(1)). Looking at other RS, we have not found (yet?) any evidence for such a destruction. We can not delete the statement, since it is well supported. However, as is, it is probably mistaken. What next? Ykantor ( talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• (1)Benni Morris,The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, ISBN  0521009677, p.12. a map of abandoned Arab villages. Ykantor ( talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source is making a clear mistake, then you can just not include it per WP:IGNORE. You may want to contact the author of the source to 1)confirm it is a mistake, 2)if it is a mistake let them know so they can correct it. AioftheStorm ( talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If. If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.This is the second or is it third time, today, that Ykantor has skewed the question to blindside editors and get the answer he wants. It is his WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR conclusion that the distinguished French historian has made a mistake. He introduces a map by Benny Morris of abandoned Arab villages? What's the connection? Morris knows no Arabic, Laurens uses Arabic sources little known in the West. A first rate secondary scholarly source cannot be questioned on a priori grounds, or mere suspicion. Lastly, Laurens is recounting the Israeli version and then the Arab version of events. He makes no judgement: neither should we. If expert secondary sources correct Laurens directly, the text will be modified immediately. To date, no information has been produced to permit such a challenge by wikipedians to that source ( WP:V) Nishidani ( talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Page 65 of the Benni Morris source seems to confirm that Arab villages were being destroyed from December 1947 onwards: ".. the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals. ... The Haganah initially retaliated by specifically and accurately targeting the offending terrorist, militia group or village...". The cited map doesn't have a description but judging by the key seems to be "abandoned" Arab settlements, and there are some with "unknown" dates. There are a number of possibilities why a December 1947 "destruction" isn't listed (it could be one of the "unknown" ones, the list might not be 100% complete, the list might start in March 1948 and the village was already destroyed, people might have remained at the village until later so it's "abandoned" date was later than the initial attack etc. etc.). I don't see a direct contradiction between the two sources here, it's much more likely that Ykantor's "no villages destroyed before March 1948" is a (mistaken) assumption. Tobus2 ( talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Laurens may refer eg to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre. 20 to 70 people of this village were massacred during the night from 31.12.47 to 1.1.48 and a part of the population left the village in the afterwards. I would have expected a village in the Jerusalem area but I could not identify this. Maybe he refers to a village in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. We could ask him but I don't want to disturb this historian for such a futility.

Anyway, I agree with Nishidani that Ykantor's behaviour has become a persisting problem.

Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nishidani, please stop personal attacks. The question is accurately presented.
• Tobus2, it would be beneficial if you spend your time verifying Laurens claim, rather than trying to prove that Morris is not really against the claim. Please read the cited discussion, and find that even a pro Palestinian site, does not claim for such an early destruction.
• AioftheStorm, thank you for raising this great yet simple initiative to contact the author. I should have done it earlier. Could someone find out his email address ? I could not find it in his page. Ykantor ( talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Contact him if you want to, but be aware that editors will want to scrutinise the authenticity of any reply you receive. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nitaf, also known as Khirbet Nataf, was depopulated on April 15 one month earlier. It was in the Jerusalem district about 1km from the present Israeli town of Nataf. I don't know if this is what Laurens had in mind but it fits the description. Saris, depopulated and largely destroyed on April 6, fits even better. It was 10km from Kfar Etzion. There were other possibilities slightly further away, like Khulda that was completely leveled in April. There is no basis to this objection whatever. And, yes, Ykantor's behavior is a serious problem. Zero ^talk 08:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith: I will appreciate it if you advise me how to email him in a verified method? To my knowledge, there is no such a method. Hence it does not worth to ask him, since the reply might not be accepted here. It might be better that someone else will ask Prof. Laurence.

• Zero: it would be beneficial if you read the source before writing your opinion. It is rather frustrating to be blamed for irrelevant evidence. Laurens says that this Arab vilage was supposedly destroyed on Dec 1947, while you mention destroyed villages during another and not relevant time frame. Ykantor ( talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Zero's information was very enlightening, but does not resolve the crux, since Laurens writes:'c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin' (It was the colony (Kfar Etzion) which opened hostilities in December by destroying a village).

Where Ykantor goes wildly wrong is in making the header here read: 'respected RS has a factual mistake?' That is a total twisting of the state of the argument, which, by the way, is not appropriate for discussion on this page. Ykantor suspects Henry Laurens made a factual mistake, i.e. he asserts that a palmary RS by a leading expert gets this wrong but, at the same time, has no evidence to show Laurens is wrong. All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence. Since we have several editors active on the page who delight in resolving mysteries like this, and don't care which side new evidence favours (Pluto, Zero), this issue can be returned to the talk page. We'll all try to identify by name the village near Kfar Etzion alluded to. None of this affects, for the moment, however, the notice in Laurens. Lastly, this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact', something Ykantor overlooks. Laurens is not necessarily stating the facts, he is reporting the versions by both sides. So, Ykantor, stop abusing several notice boards with false representations of issues best discussed on the various talk pages. Nishidani ( talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity that user:Nishidani write incorrect statements.

• user:Nishidani:"All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence". This is not true. I have provided an evidence. I suggest user:Nishidani to read the section before writing.

1. As I already said here, Morris abandoned villages map, does specify the date for each village, and I could not find a village that was abandoned on Dec 1947 as stated by Laurence. Moreover, the earliest date seems to be as late as April 1948
2. As already said in the talkpage, even a pro Palestinian (but probably not a RS) internet site, does not list any village around Jerusalem that was destroyed before (as late as) Apr 1948.

• user:Nishidani: " this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact'. This is an interesting idea. I would like to hear the experts here, when a respected RS quote a third party, what kind of responsibilty (if at all) he has to the quote's content? Ykantor ( talk) 12:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Your understanding of the rules is, to put a fine gloss on it, is chaotic and subjective. Nishidani ( talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the "December" aspect. There was a village depopulated near Jaffa in December, and some other stuff, but as far as I know Kfar Etzion was only attacking traffic on the nearby roads. If indeed Laurens is just reporting a story put out by a party to the conflict, that's only an error if that party didn't say it, and not a problem for us if we report the claim correctly as a claim. All sides to this conflict told whoppers. Does Laurens give a source? I can consult "A Soldier with the Arabs" if it might be there. Zero ^talk 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the very detailled map of Palestine in 1948 that you provided to us some time ago.

Except a village north of Kfar Etzion for which no name is given and that I could not identify, all the other ones were depopulated much later.

Pluto2012 ( talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I too exaggerated. I'm editing today between teabreaks while cutting timber and pruning a neighbour's overgrown garden, so I didn't have time to check Laurens, but relied on my memory. Let's reexamine it:

'le massacre de la part des villageois désireux de venger Deir Yassin et leur pertes depuis le mois de novembre (il faut rappeler que c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin).

So Laurens says the Arab Legion version has the villagers motivated by a desire to revenge both Deir Yassin and 'their losses since Novembre' and then adds his own judgement as a historian, adding in parentheses: 'One should recall that it was the colony which had opened the hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village). So the second part is not in the Legion's Arab version, it is Laurens's comment.

From the notes it looks like he is drawing on David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 pp.434-461and FRUS (Foreign Relations of (the) United States) 1948 V. pp.1680-1685. If you could chuck a shufti at the latter, then Robert would be a very close affine. I've just edited in Royal Institute of International Affairs. Perhaps their yearbook for 47 should also be consulted. Nishidani ( talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FRUS has nothing on it. Other interesting stuff though, like Bevin telling the Americans that Israel would be a communist state within 5 years. I can't find my copy of Tal at the moment... One thing to note is that bedouin communities were not counted as villages on maps or in official documents even when they were quite large and had been in the same place for a long time. So that is a possibility for what Laurens meant. Zero ^talk 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that, but on reflection, yes, it is a very good possibility. He uses Arif al-Arif extensively, even in this chapter, and he diligently collected and collated a huge quantity of oral testimony, which most other researchers only waited until the 80s to glean. Nishidani ( talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Henry Laurens must refer to the village of Hirbet-Zakariya. This "village" is right in the middle of Gush Eztion. Uri Milstein talks about it p.335 of his first book about the '48 war. According to the Israeli version, population (2 extended families) fled and it was conquered by "small HISH and Palmach" units in reprisal of the "convoy of the ten" massacre on 11 december. There had been no trouble with them ever; on the contrary. Milstein refers to it as the first village of the 1948 war that was depopulated.

Maybe Laurens is not 100 % neutral when he states that in these circumstances, the Gush Etzion settlers started the hostilities given the massacre of the 10 is an act of war but both these families should not have felt guilty either : it doesn't seem there is evidence they would have participated.

From my point of view, this is just another illustration of the spark of the spiral of violence mechanism to whom all scholars refer when they describe the events of the beginning of the '48 war.

Even if the information is correct, I think we should remove the reference to this village made by Laurens because per WP:NPoV it becomes hard to state who started the hostilities around Gush Eztion, as everywhere in Palestine. Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant piece of detective work, Pluto. To understand Laurens' argument one would have to clarify the links between the families at Hirbet-Zakariya and the villagers who attacked Kfar Etzion. I don't know if 'neutrality' in an RS can be adduced though. I don't think Gelber and Morris, our main sources, are neutral either, but it doesn't bother me to use them. Their narrative voice, at least in terms of the differentiating language they habitually employ, (particularly Gelber) is cogged to justify the Zionist version. Laurens is talking about the 'start' of their participation, not the start of the war. And, it is illuminating that the convoy of 10 incident was prior, but which Palestinian groups participated in that? In any case, I will defer to Zero's judgement, which will probably back you. Nishidani ( talk) 07:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm examining Milstein. I've copied the relevant section of this discussion to the talk page where this is best discussed further. We are doing talk page work here. The dispute's original terms are risible, and further discussion on RSN not helpful. Nishidani ( talk) 11:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is Milstein Vol 2, not Vol 1. I will write more on the talk page. Zero ^talk 12:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pluto, you have done a great research job. Well done. Ykantor ( talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering if Yahoo! News is considered RS. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RS for what? Please be specific, as the notes at the top of the page ask. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. But as AndyTheGrump correctly points out, reliability depends on context. Without more specific details, it's impossible to give a better answer. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: The website Victorian Maritime Centre and its subpages
2. Article: HMAS Otama, specifically the section HMAS Otama#Decommissioning and fate

Is the website of the Victorian Maritime Centre reliable and independent enough to be used as sources for information about the efforts of the VMC and related organisations to preserve the submarine HMAS Otama? As context, there's been back-and-forth at HMAS Otama, with a new user Terrence3915 ( talk · contribs) adding unsourced content to the article, and myself reverting (initially) or tagging the content as unsourced. The page Victorian Maritime Centre website contains some content that supports the additions to the article, such as The Hunt for Otama page showing a breakdown of the grant funding spending, which is currently in the article but uncited. However, I'm not certain that the site qualifies as a reliable source, because its not independent of efforts to preserve the submarine by establishing the Victorian Maritime Centre, and Terrence identifies themselves as the websites primary author at Talk:HMAS_Otama#Concerns_about_recent_additions. Opinions and suggestions appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The website would be a reliable source for the "Victorian Maritime Centre"'s claims and views, but I'd suggest not presenting these as Facts. I've got no idea if it's happening here, but the proponents of new museums can sometimes over-sell things and their statements need to be taken with a bit of salt (eg, whenever a major US Navy warship is decommissioned groups appear claiming that they have a rock-solid business case and guaranteed funding to put her on display permanently, and it generally turns out that they've under-estimated the complexity and costs involved and the project falls in a heap). Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article and section are Brahma Kumaris The concern I want to get some extra and more experienced opinions about is whether the second reference used (The Keimyung Gazette) is sufficient to substantiate the somewhat controversial claim below:

• The BKWSU is accused of fraudulently claiming that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world". ^[1] Journalists quoted archivists at the University in question and "found no mention of the experiments performed on Dadi Janki in 1978". Indeed, they could not even "find any University of Texas organisation called the Medical and Science Research Institute." ^[2]

The concerns with the supporting reference are: the 'published journalist' openly goes under the handle "Captain Porridge" (not a concern in itself, but links the journalist to the evidence below):

1. This individual has posted on Wikipedia requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s [15].

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference [16], and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation [17].

4. He writes for a student university gazette (Keimyung is the correct spelling) - hardly a credible source in itself

5. Januarythe18th has produced evidence that the journalist rang the wrong university. In the last 2 paragraphs it is stated that the testing was in San Francisco, not Texas.

It would be great to hear if other editors think that reference is sufficient to substantiate the claim, bearing in mind the person in question is still alive. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 07:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a very good source. Best leave out the whole claim and its debunking. There is a lot that needs improving in the article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. The article is a bit of a stinker, but any changes are extremely hard work at the moment. Best wishes Danh108 ( talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The above article was fully sourced, Pdfpdf ( talk · contribs) insists on replacing the sourced version of the article with one that is tagged for citation and is wholly sourced from other wikipedia articles. [18] He considers adding sources to the article "vandalism". [19] The main article he is using as a source is General of the armies, which is tagged as needing citations. Should the sourced version of the article be replaced with Pdfpdf's unsourced version? DrKiernan ( talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

DrKiernan's version of events bears no relationship to the facts of the situation. The article is about Six-star rank. DrKiernan has decided that the article is about General of the armies, and has provided a series of sources related to General of the armies. They have NO relevance to Six-star rank.

DrKiernan makes a number of false statements:

• The above article was fully sourced - Although relevant to General of the armies, these sources are of NO relevance to Six-star rank.
• " Pdfpdf ( talk · contribs) insists on replacing ... " - That is because the sources I quote are the ONLY information about Six-star rank.
• He considers adding sources to the article "vandalism". - False statement. I do NOT consider that, and that is NOT what I have stated.
• The main article he is using as a source is General of the armies - False statement.
• Should the sourced version of the article be replaced with Pdfpdf's unsourced version? - Irrelevant question!

a) The so-called "sourced version" is about General of the armies.

b) It's not my version.It's the version that is the result of 3 years of discussion and consensus which DrKiernan has refused to read, and continues to refuse to read.

Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

All sources in the sourced version specifically and clearly mention six-star rank.

None of the "sources" in the unsourced version are reliable sources. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, this guy's talents are wasted on Wikipedia - he should be a politician!

Whether they do or not is not the point, and never has been my point - only DrKiernan's point. DrKeirnan seems to have NO interest in any opinion other than his own. He is yet to address ANY of the points I have raised, or any of the questions I have asked him, or read any of the information I have suggested he acquaint himself with AND provide any sort of response relevant to that information. Once again I'll repeat myself. (I think I'm now up to the fourth repeat.) This article is about six-star rank. Maybe the sources he quotes DO mention six-star rank, but only in the context of General of the armies, and at least one of the sources he quotes makes statements that are just are just plain wrong.

None of the "sources" in the unsourced version are reliable sources. - For the fourth time, so what? (And the US Govt is NOT a reliable source?) As I've pointed out several times, this matter is discussed, at length, in the archives.

I await DrKiernan making a statement which is relevant to the topic. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I advise both of you to demonstrate civility toward each other. I am not seeing a clear Reliable Source question, and I believe the proper venue might be a Third Opinion or Request for Comment. Andrew ³²⁷ 15:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been uncivil. Pdfpdf claims my sources are not reliable: "at least one of the sources he quotes makes statements that are just are just plain wrong". I claim that his, which are wikipedia articles, are not. Which of us is correct? DrKiernan ( talk) 15:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan that neither of us has been uncivil. Yes, we disagree, but like DrKiernan, I'm puzzled by your assertions that we have been uncivil.

I am not seeing a clear Reliable Source question - I agree. Relevance and reliability are different issues.

I believe the proper venue might be a Third Opinion or Request for Comment. - I can't comment; I didn't know this page existed, and I know nothing about the pages you refer to. Never-the-less, thank you for your comments.

Regarding DrKeirnan's further comments: I'm getting rather tired of these false statements by DrKiernan, and his false representation of my statements of my opinions. At NO time have I claimed DrKiernan's "sources (plural) are not reliable", and I challenge him to provide evidence of this. I have claimed that the statements he quotes are supporting evidence regarding "General of the Armies", but as the topic is 6-star-rank, these are irrelevant - irrelevant, not unreliable. I have claimed that ONE of his sources is "just are just plain wrong", and it is! NO-ONE has been appointed to a six-star rank, and I challenge DrKiernan to provide evidence that this is not the case.

As for I claim that his, which are wikipedia articles, are not., I don't understand. My what are not what? Similarly: Which of us is correct? Too vague - I repeat, I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm saying you are addressing a different topic, and hence, your statements are irrelevant. Pdfpdf ( talk) 17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tut, tut. This topic is hardly worth a stand alone article anyhow. It would be better merged with General of the Armies, which has the merit of being about a small number of persons eminent in US military history, each with his wikibio, not a never-has-been detail of United States Army officer rank insignia, however big the package from the Heralds Institute. [20] Let six star admirals join up with the admirals. Meantime, DrK's is a better version. Qexigator ( talk) 15:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You astound me. Your reply shows an absolute zero understanding of the topic. IF "6-star-rank" and "General of the Armies" were the same thing, I would agree with you, but the facts of the matter are that they are not the same thing. It would appear that you, too, need to read the talk page archives and educate yourself. The rest of your statements beggar belief. There is not, nor has there ever been, a 6-star admiral. And how can DrK's version be "better" if it is irrelevant and addresses a different topic to the topic of the article? Pdfpdf ( talk) 17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you truly so easily "astounded"? Regardless of archive content, or the presently tagged version of the article as an interim, the ordinary general reader (say, the lower end of a range of one to six star) simply wants to see factual information properly presented. There are other websites to satisfy special enthusiasms. Cheers! Qexigator ( talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 1

1. Source: Wikipedia: General of the armies#World War II and six-star rank
2. Article Six-star rank
3. Content: "In 1945, in preparation for the invasion of Japan, ..."

This source is not reliable. Sections of wikipedia articles tagged as needing extra citations cannot be used to source other wikipedia articles. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 2

1. Source: Wikipedia: John J. Pershing
2. Article: Six-star rank
3. Content: entire fourth paragraph

This source is not reliable. Other wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources on wikipedia. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 3

1. Source: "Service Record of Douglas MacArthur – 1945 Promotion Proposal Package"
2. Article: Six-star rank
3. Content: "The Institute of Heraldry produced a single sketch of how the insignia for a six-star rank would appear; this sketch was later filed in Douglas MacArthur's service record."

This claim is not verified by the source. See Talk:General of the Armies#Verifiable six-star insignia?, where perusal of the source by two independent commentators (one forum post and User:OberRanks) has failed to verify the claim. Specifically, the forum contributor contacted Jim Zobel at the MacArthur Archive and the response was "no TIOH sketch in MacArthur's files as is claimed in multiple articles" and OberRanks acquired copies of the files directly from the archive and confirmed that they do not include an Institute of Heraldry sketch from 1945. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this gobbledygook, but I wish to point out that I am not claiming these as sources, and have no opinion about them. Pdfpdf ( talk) 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Underlining? Citing wikipedia articles as sources? I'm restoring DrKiernan's version of the article. Pdfpdf, you are welcome to object to the content of that version using the talk page or inserting appropriate tags, but please do not restore an amateurish version of the article that violates numerous policies and style guidelines. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion going on at [Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#BLP_sources] Please respond there to avoid forum splitting.

The article includes several highly controversial statements attributed to North. The claims have sources, but the sources themselves do not provide any provenance for the quotes. For example [21] says "So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

but has no information about WHERE North purportedly wrote this statement. Is a source like this claiming statements/writings by another person sufficiently reliable to state as a matter of fact in wikipedias voice that North did make those statements? Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a lucky coincidence that I found this, because there doesn't seem to be any notice on the article talk page. Anyhow, Reason.com is a reliable source, and since North's writing is broadly available on the internet, a quick spot check with Google easily confirms these claims. For example, http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/north-gary.html looks like it has a few of the quotes in question, and it's a reliable secondary source. I think we can also find the primary sources online, but I haven't looked hard enough. MilesMoney ( talk) 20:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1) notice is not required 2) I told people to discuss it on the main thread 3) YOU SUGGESTED I POST HERE. 4) You are claiming that link is a reliable source? is is clearly a WP:SPS and therefore not a valid source for a BLP "Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996" (and you can tell, it looks like its from 1996!) Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, with all due respect, the Preterist Archive gives page numbers in his book, and I have personally confirmed that these are legitimate. What more can you ask for? MilesMoney ( talk) 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you really think I'm lying and aren't willing to get your hands on the book, you can easily find references to it in a variety of reliable sources, including page 105 of "Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics" by Frank Schaeffer", which is searching through Google. Really, there's no doubt at all that these quotes are correct, even if they seem outlandish. He really said it and reliable secondary sources have made a point of commenting about it. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Except when you do look at the actual claimed source... IT ISNT THERE. for example the specific quote above about cursing parents, your "reliable source" the Preterist archive says this comes from "The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments". Conveniently, North publishes a copy for this document on his website. [22] find the quote. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The one currently up is copyright 2006. The one being referred to by our sources is copyright 1986. You are looking at the wrong book. This is why original research is forbidden; the average editor is unqualified to perform it.

We can only assume that, given all the attention those words got, he rephrased them somewhat. However, our sources confirm that his position is unchanged. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Hal Abelson re whether one of the sources is primary (and reliable) that may be of interest to participants in this noticeboard. In order to keep the discussion in one place, please contribute there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to remove the claim that "Anthropologically, the craniometrical measurements made on the Croat population show Croats from Croatia are predominantly dolichocephalic, suggesting that they are more prone to dolichocephalic sub-racial types such as Nordic and Mediterranean than brachycephalic ones like Alpine and Dinaric." from Croats. The source is a pdf at [23]. The abstract does say "The dolichocephalic head type and the mesoprosopic face type were predominant in the Croatian population, while the brachycephalic head type and the euryprosopic face type dominated in the Syrian population." but nowhere does it mention these obsolete racial types (possibly among other reasons because they aren't used anymore and certainly don't belong in this article). I have been reverted by 2 editors despite making it clear this isn't in the source. The last edit summary says " Do not remove but tag it instead if you find it contentious, someone might yet provide a source." Which is ridiculous. It isn't in the source and these classifications are no longer used. And although the source is interesting, I'm wondering if even if we used the source to reflect what it actually says rather than someone's original research we should use it at all, since it says "Remarkable differences may be noted when our results for head and face indices are compared with the findings of other authors. It is difficult to explain the reasons for these differences." Dougweller ( talk) 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the use of this source for comments that it doesn't actually make about "racial sub-types". This is clearly not appropriate. But the source is reliable for some comments about skull shape. This is a field where there is still some ongoing research, but I think it's fair to say that nobody has ever got any results from it that combine interest and validity. I'll have a look at the article itself and may comment on its talk page. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No source that asserts that "sub-racial types" exist can be considered a reliable anthropological source. Anthropologists don't use such terms, and haven't for many years. It isn't anthropology... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The source clearly doesn't do this, however, but was reinstated despite the fact it doesn't back up the text. In other words, at the moment we have a source being almost completely misrepresented in this article. Dougweller ( talk) 15:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not some terms are unscientific or not I do not know, it's not really in my field of interest, but I do know there is some valuable information there that should be kept, especially the anthropometric measurements which are valid and supported by the said source. Instead of deleting the entire section claiming it's original research (you should have quite a solid proof for such a claim) you could have edit out the contentious material and first and foremost tag it properly per Wiki policies. Instead you are deleting the entire section without elaborating or substantiating your claim of WP:OR. Shokatz ( talk) 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was OR, I said that the source doesn't mention the claims. As for the measurements, the authors say that their measurements are very different from those of other researchers and that they don't know why. Dougweller ( talk) 14:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor, a living person biography, There are many websites sources as national newspapers and prestigious magazines claimed her age differently. Times of India—TOI, claimed her as 24 year old [...] born 1989 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-21/news-interviews/38693520_1_dad-air-hostess-father-shakti-kapoor, some other newspapers claimed her as 21 year old [...] born 1992 http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/511874/20131007/shraddha-kapoor-commit-aditya-roy-kapur.htm, She herself stated in an interview she was cast in her debut (2010) movie when she was 18 year old, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vbA0uUdw0

I had came to a conclusion, her age is being represented differently, it will sound so dubious to add her DOB, so i had not add her age. There is already an edit war due to her age conflicts.

Archana Ramdonee 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai, is cited as one of the most beautiful woman in the world, She got an blue-green eyes, everyone know about it. CINTAA, is the most accurate and reliable sources to prove Bollywood Personalities identifications. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, CINTAA, profile identified her physicality as black eyes. ----> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/776

Membership, is not the issue, who edits the profiles? Anybody, the performer, or an editorial board at CINTAA?? but whoever edits the profiles do you think it is dubious at all, to identified her eyes as black.

But, still it is the most creditable and accurate sources, to prove an individual personality and identity, taking the feedback of CINTAA Profile, let's change Aishwarya Rai Bachchan physicality? We all blindfold ourselves, despite she was born with green-blue eyes let's her black eyes as CINTAA, provide so??

Whether it seems so dubious but let's do it, even Rose$keel, provide Shraddha Kapoor CINTAA source on quoting it is a DOB confirmed from the CINTAA website as specified in the link. CINTAA is an association of Cine artists in Mumbai which has illustrious members like Aishwarya bachan, Anil Kapoor etc. No more changes or deletions in Birthdate are allowed view the history for that.

Priyanka Chopra, CINTAA profile is presented as Priyanka Chopraa ---> http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/1201, despite the fact that she is Priyanka Chopra, let's change her name as Priyanka Chopra to Priyanka Chopraa as it is published in CINTAA Profile. Despite, illogical information about Bollywood Personalities but still CINTAA, IS THE MOST ACCURATE AND RELIABLE SOURCE TO PROVE A BOLLYWOOD PERSONALITY INFORMATION.

Please, kindly visit CINTAA WEBSITE, and view celebrities profiles, It is quite logical to leave her DOB section blank, until we get an appropriate source.

Smauritius 17:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

After 13 months, one user getting topic-banned, and one leaving Wikipedia voluntarily, this issue still doesn't seem to have been resolved. A large number of articles on classical Japanese poetry (particularly the areas of haiku and renga) cite sources by amateur Anglophone poets with apparently few or no qualifications in Japanese for statements about Japanese literary history. User:Icuc2 said that "there's just not that much" scholarship in the area, but I honestly couldn't disagree more; the article on Kobayashi Issa doesn't need a citation of an author who appears to only hold qualifications in English and works as an amateur haiku poet. I appreciate that he speaks Japanese and he translates classical haiku, but the same is true of me. And I at least have a BA in Japanese! But I'm not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article, and I don't think he is either, especially when his article in question only appeared in an online poetry magazine that once spelled it as "Narihara". If we can cite Simply Haiku in the Issa article, does that mean we have to mention the "Narihara" spelling in the Narihira article? If we have to mention the misspelling, are we then not allowed say it's a misspelling unless we can find another source that says that? Or can we just avoid using online poetry magazines as sources for pre-modern Japanese history? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would remove all citations to online-only poetry journals or websites. I mean, come on. Shii (tock) 18:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Haiku article is junk. If you have the motivation to rewrite it entirely, please do so. Shii (tock) 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

the claim "there's just not that much scholarship" in the area is patently false. but even if it was true, it would not be a reason to use non reliable scholarship! if there isnt reliable coverage of a subject we dont cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, I suspect when Icuc2 wrote what I quoted him/her as saying, the reference was to a lack of reliable scholarship of modern English haiku. But that subject actually has its own separate article. And my complaint has always been principally about modern poets (as opposed to historians, linguists, scholars...) being used as sources for historical claims. Poets being used as sources for their own poetry (assuming they meet GNG) is fine, but when someone who likely doesn't even speak Japanese is being cited as a source for claims about classical JLit...

I honestly think the haiku article is a lost cause (it's well-known enough to get random IP vandalism every few days, on top of the more troubling sourcing issue). But others just have one or two references, and the references are to online poetry journals. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better if everyone could come to terms with the fact that "reliable source" is merely an ideal, not something that ever completely exists in reality. All research, academic and otherwise, is done with the aim of approaching more complete knowledge, not as an record of such knowledge having been completely achieved. The idea that good articles are produced by identifying a reliable source and extracting information from it therefore seems to me misguided. To produce good articles Wikipedia editors should be able to evaluate the probable validity of any statement they choose to include. That evaluation cannot simply be passed off to the academic and publishing institutions responsible for validating the source--I think everyone nowadays knows that these institutions are hardly infallible. The source's qualifications and credentials are an important part of the evaluation--not a proof of correctness, but more like a recommendation. I would hope that someone with a PhD who publishes with a respected academic press has a better chance of being correct than an amateur scholar who publishes in an online journal, but I know many cases where this doesn't happen, and an increased probability of correctness is not a sufficient reason to justify including only sources of the first type and excluding all sources of the second type.

I think it unlikely that a badly written page like "Haiku" will be much improved by attacking and removing its unreliable sources. The problems have more to do with bad writing and skewed and incomplete overall coverage than flawed sources. And there are a lot of editors interested in the page, which will make rewriting a delicate matter, best handled by someone extremely tactful, i.e. not, ahem, certain editors who seem to have a knack for getting into arguments. It will be easier to improve less contentious pages (in any case your edits will be less likely to be noticed), but if you are dealing with material that is not actually wrong (as opposed to weakly sourced) wouldn't it would be better to focus on constructive edits rather than destructive ones?

Finally, I'd be grateful if you would point me to this great trove of reliable Kobayashi Issa scholarship to which you keep alluding. As far as I am aware there is only one actual book-length scholarly study in English, by Makoto Ueda. Icuc2 ( talk) 04:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If the main scholarship on Japanese poetry is in Japanese that is hardly surprising. I'm not sure why our articles on this topic should be controversial, but if English-language poets have a particular perspective, let's cover it, but not let it dominate articles on what is, after all, a Japanese literary form. If anyone is expert on Vietnamese poetry by any chance, please feel free to chip in there. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

About the only thing I can think of to say here is that I know that there are at least a few rather highly regarded lengthy reference works relating both to poetry and Japan, and that they would, logically, have some material on both haiku, and, maybe, like a lot of other reference sources, maybe have some content regarding what are among the "standard" reference sources and periodicals on the topic. I really don't want to seem to obligate myself to doing this myself, but I can try at least to find some, and report back maybe later this week with what I find, but if I don't I'm hoping someone else might be able to check on them? John Carter ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I need someone who reads Italian to help me assess the reliability of sources at the above article (on a boarderline fringe author)... Please note that I am not saying we should not use Italian language sources... we can. However, when we use Italian language sources, they need to be reliable. Since I can not personally read that language, I need the assistance of someone who does, to help me figure which of the the cited sources are reliable and which are not.

If this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know the right place. Blueboar ( talk) 18:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: If you don't get any responses here, I recommend posting notifications at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Yahoo! Voices [24] considered to be a reliable source? I know that articles on Associated Content (which was the old form of the website) only met the criteria if they were written by someone who is a respected authority on the topic; basically the same as a blog. However, the content submission guidelines are apparently stricter for the new version of the site. [25] I'm not sure how Assoicated Content worked, but everything that is submitted to Yahoo! Voices has to be reviewed by an editor, not everything is accepted, and writers whose articles are published by the site receive payment. This leads me to the opinion that articles on the site should be taken as reliable, even if the author hasn't been published anywhere else. However, I'm not sure how other editors feel about this, so I thought I should ask before using the site as a reference. -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this be treated the same as blogs and opinion articles: unless the author is a recognised expert on the topic they're writing about it's not a useful source, and even when experts contribute article they should probably be treated as statements of their opinion rather than facts. Nick-D ( talk) 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess what I'm wondering though, is whether being published by Yahoo! Voices should be enough to qualify someone as an "expert". Again, the website has fairly strict editorial control (Many articles that had been accepted by Associated Content were removed from Yahoo! Voices for not meeting the editors' standards) and all of the writers for the website receive payment, which technically means that they are doing professional, freelance work. I'm not saying that they should necessarily be viewed as "experts" to the extent that anything they then publish on say, their personal blog should be taken as a reliable source. But all of their articles on Yahoo! Voices were subjected to scrutiny, and then found to be accurate and of high quality, so I really do feel that these should be taken as reliable.

Specifically, I'm interested in using this album review [26] in the Reception section of Frames (Lee DeWyze album). Although the author of the review actually is a published author, his books are fictional and don't seem to have anything to do with music. [27] [28] [29] [30] That said, he has written 114 articles for Yahoo! Voices, most of which appear to be music reviews and all of which had to be individually reviewed and accepted, so he clearly has quite a bit of experience and skill in this area. -- Jpcase ( talk) 18:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The "review" process seems pretty basic: [31], and the submission guidelines don't include any requirement for writers to have expertise on what they're writing about [32] so I don't think that this would be a useful or reliable source. There's been lots of discussion on the various album/recording article projects about what constitute usable reviews over the years, so you could ask there, but my understanding is that only reviews written by professional reviewers and published by sources which professionally edit content are considered usable. Nick-D ( talk) 09:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think is "basic" about the review process? A professional editor reads submitted articles, determines their quality, clarity, and adherence to the website's Submission Guidelines and then decides to either publish or reject them. Would the review process be different for work submitted by a freelance writer to any other website? I suppose that the editors don't actually make any changes to the content, which you seem to be saying is to be expected from a quality source, but is there any real difference between them doing that and simply refusing to publish anything that doesn't meet their standards? The editors do provide feedback on rejected articles, so in a sense, if the writer chooses to implement the editor's ideas and resubmits the article, it's the same as if the editor had just made the changes in the first place. As for requiring writers to have expertise on the topic that they are writing about, the Submission Guidelines do say that they should "submit content on topics that [they're] passionate, knowledgeable, and insightful about." Sure, they aren't required to have previously written for a professional publication, but would that be required by any website, magazine, or newspaper? I can't imagine so, since how then would new writers ever get published?

Also included in the Submission Guidelines: Articles are generally expected be within a certain word count; Credible references are required for anything that isn't a clear fact; Specific formatting should be followed; Writers must give a "fair" perspective on their topic and not "rant, cheerlead, mislead, name-call, [or] gratuitously attack". -- Jpcase ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be looking for someone to agree with you rather than for a second opinion. As I noted above, I'd suggest asking the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or similar for their views. Nick-D ( talk) 06:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it doesn't seem like I'm interested in hearing your opinion. I really am and appreciate you having taken the time to discuss this with me. I'm willing to accept that this might not be a reliable source; I just don't understand why you think it isn't. As I asked, what makes the review process for Yahoo! Voices any less professional than that of other publications? As I see it, this is a professional organization that employs professional editors to determine whether or not to publish work submitted by freelance writers, who I think could also be called professionals on the basis that they receive payment. That definitely makes it much more reliable than a blog, and I feel that it probably meets Wikipedia's reliability criteria. However, I'm certainly not just "looking for someone to agree with me" (though I guess I can see how it might have seemed that way). If possible, I'd like to get the opinions of several editors on this, so that a consensus can be formed; whatever the majority decision would turn out to be, I would accept. And I'm still open to changing my mind on this, if you or someone else can explain why the website's review process isn't good enough or why being published by the website shouldn't qualify a writer as being more or less of an expert. -- Jpcase ( talk) 23:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is an eyewitness primary source suitable as a citation?

For what? There is no rule against using primary sources but they are often reliable only in a fairly narrow context. Barnabypage ( talk) 10:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it depends how its used and what its supporting. WP:PRIMARY gives some guidance on this. Hchc2009 ( talk) 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know if BBC Watch ( http://bbcwatch.org/) is indeed an unreliable source as claimed by Zero0000 in his partial revert on Herodium. Debresser ( talk) 11:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Start by reading the guidance at WP:BLOGS and asess its use against the criteria there. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 11:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a self-published source. Anyone can create a web site; that doesn't mean that the source is reliable. Self-published sources are not acceptable except in extremely limited cases. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so limited, actually. Also depends on whose site it is. But I see what you mean, yes. Debresser ( talk) 14:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

History article. The bar should be set much higher than this. Even the BBC itself is not generally reliable for history. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This would only be a reliable source if was written by an accepted expert in their field. This is a partisan source, see [33] and [34](an organisation monitoring the UK's Guardian newspaper. Dougweller ( talk) 08:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The link www.nowpublic.com/world/universe-sex-space-marks-new-era-mankind provides a very clear information for Vanna Bonta's article on The History Channel's documentary regarding 2suit. So, is there any chances that this particular link be added to the article for citation without unblocking the domain or any other links from nowpublic.com? Thank you,-- Manbender ( talk) 05:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am planning on including a piece from this primary source in this article exactly as appears below (in italic font). I understand I need a secondary source for that matter. My question is how reliable do we need the author of the secondary source be. For example, I found a secondary source in Farsi referencing that piece. The author of the secondary source who is a cleric won the book of the year award for this work [35] in a theocratic country that promotes religious Historiography [36] and perhaps demotes secular study. Given the the proposed text can be verified from the primary source am I good with this secondary source or do I need a better one?

Al-Shahrastani d. 1153 CE, documents in his book Al-Milal wa al-Nihal that a "troublesome theologian" called al-Naẓẓām (d. 231 AH) "increased his lying deception" and said: (( Umar kicked Fatimah's stomach on the day of allegiance until she miscarried and he yelled: "Burn her house and whoever is in it" and in it were Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn.))

Kazemita1 ( talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we can use JR Books Online. The presented books look good at first glance, and it is used a lot as a source on wikipedia. However, the site as a whole looks as if it is made by some white supremacists. And white supremacists aren't particularly known for being a reliable, neutral source. So I wonder if is it OK to use that site? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a book should be used depends on the book itself, not whether various websites have chosen to display. However, very few of these books would have been considered reliable sources when published and would have become obsolete. Some articles use them as primary sources, but there is little justification in using them. Your best bet is to avoid the site when searching for sources. TFD ( talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the very unsavoury stuff on that site, I'd not be inclined to trust it in any way. Exceptions would need to be argued very persuasively. Zero ^talk 00:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I came across the site when I was looking for an external link to a book of Maurice Samuel. I placed it, but I got doubts when I explored the site further. Did I do the right thing by inserting that link? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

[I'm commenting without having looked at the pdf] -- Others may correct me :) but my guess is that the book might be out-of-copyright in the USA but would surely be copyright elsewhere, since the author only died in 1972. For that reason, Wikipedia being international, we probably shouldn't link to this text, independently of the political orientation of the website. Andrew Dalby 08:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO allows linking to internet archives that do not violate copyright. I would not link to that website. However the book is available at Internet Archive, [37] which is a respected website. Also, you should add the link to the reference to the book in the list of published works, rather than the references section. TFD ( talk) 17:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)