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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A similar challenge has been made to the use of GenerationQ as a source. GenerationQ is an online magazine aimed at LGBT young adults, particularly young gay men. It covers news of particular interest to this community. In its favor, it enjoys a broad international readership. However, it is an online rather than a paper source, and some of its reporting has been used in a biographical article that's part of WikiProject LGBT Studies, but that the article's subject self-identifies as not being part of the LGBT community. The article specifically cites facts (and includes references) demonstrating that the subject of the article's business dealings are inconsistent with his public statements. Additionally, the facts stated in the article are supported by two primary sources written and posted online by the article's subject. Similar to the question of CounterPunch, an editor is challenging a reference to this source backed up by references to the two corroborating primary sources. How is the reliability of a source like this determined, and how is that applied when the article is a biography of a living person? Fundamentally, I want to know: is this a reliable source? -- Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to at least the magazine's website? GRBerry 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that... GenerationQ -- Ssbohio 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, parts of it clearly are not. It has a "Community" subsection of user posted content. Anything there is right out.

The organization is based in Australia. Their staff page is currently blank; this is not a good sign. Their page for prospective reporters indicates that writing positions are unpaid, and for those seeking exposure. This is also not a good sign. Frankly, I wouldn't use it for anything contentious given this data. BLP sourcing is supposed to be of the highest standards; and GenQ by itself does not appear to meet these standards.

It sounds like you don't think that the primary sources lack reliability, or at least you aren't asking that question. If the GenQ site is really only being used to support a synthesis of inconsistency, a viable solution might be to cite each source and leave the synthesis unstated. GRBerry 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources for this page are self-references or links to partners. Are this, this and this reliable enough to add to the article? Corvus cornix 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fla-keys one is a generic travel web site of the type that regularly gets removed as spam from tourist-destination related articles (one problem with this sort of source being that it's difficult to tell whether sites are listed as part of some sort of independent editorial process or whether they pay for their listing). The other two may be from more reliable publishers but give fairly trivial mentions as part of longer articles. I did find a news article from the Miami Herald, "A new lease for the arts in Key West", Jan. 23, 2007, that looks sufficiently reliable and nontrivial, altough it's not available online for free I think. — David Eppstein 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost none of the entries on this list have any citation to show that they have professed to being a Lutheran. The 3 sources listed:

• Famous Lutherans List at website of Faith Lutheran Church, Groton, CT.
• Famous Lutherans at NNDB.
• Famous living Lutherans from the ELCA site.

do not seem at all reliable. Any thoughts on what to do here? Kevin 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Go slow... The fact that someone is identified as a Lutheran is not all that harmful, but we do have policies about verification that we want to uphold. Place a {{fact}} tag on those entries that are not cited. Raise the issue on the talk page (including your concern about the reliability of the three sources that are used). Then wait... give people time to respond and find proper sources. If you get no reply by the end of (say) a month, then raise the issue again with warning that you might start deleting uncited material. In the mean time... see if you can find better sources yourself. The goal should be to try to keep the list, but to improve it with solid references. Finally, after due time you can delete those entries that are still uncited. Blueboar 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And I guess a further question I should have asked before, what about the reliability of the sources listed? I know NNDB has been discussed before as non-reliable, and the ELCA site states that they are not sure of the accuracy. Kevin 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place but in this article the World Sex Guide is used as a source... I'm not sure this is the right kind of source for this kind of article... Cperroquin 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added ^{unreliable source?} tags to those statements in Battle of Jenin for which I could not replace CAMERA with a journalistic reliable source. It seems clear to me both from WP:RS and past editing experience that partisan pressure groups are not generally used as reliable sources. According to the wikipedia page for CAMERA: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel [1] and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers [2], organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. [3] Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." No editors appear to be disputing their partisan nature; according to User:Isarig "You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources." (Note that I am not arguing with use of attributed POV statements from CAMERA expressing their analyses, rather I take issue with their use as a source for wikipedia-voice statements of fact like "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.^[1]")

On a related issue - and uninvolved editors feel free to refactor out this comment if it's clearly in the wrong place - is not the removal of such maintenance tags ( [4], [5]) without some approximation of consensus built on talk considered very bad practice if not outright disruptive editing? Eleland 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA's claims stated as "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.^[1]" are footnoted with the name and date of the publication where the quoted individual made the statement. Interested parties cam easily check the named reference and verify it says what is claimed. CAMERA itself denies it is partisan, and WP:RS does not disallow partisan sources - it only asks that they be used cautiously on BLPs. The claims sourced to CAMERA (as a secondary source) which you are objecting to are not 'contentious factual claims' at all - they are quotes of primary sources, with name & date of the primary source provided. Isarig 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant footnote is simply "19. ^{^ a b c d e} CAMERA". see ([ [6]]) Eleland 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "CAMERA" part of that is actualy a link to a specific CAMERA article, namely this one, where all the claims are duly described with the primary source, e.g.: "April 13, Erekat, on CNN", or 'April 10, Sha'ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse)" Isarig 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by involved editor - it doesn't matter what side a source is allegedly supporting as long as it's references and statements are reliable. for the same reason, i cannot remove The Guardian articles or the BBC despite their anti-israel bias (and countless errors). there is nothing beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify the claim that the source in unreliable. on top of this many of the "needs more reliable reference" statements have similar statements expressed on other references and up to now camera notes have been fairly easily verified. we are discussing reliability in report and there is no validated reason to suspect camera as more unreliable than the major news medias they are quoting or criticizing... to the contrary even. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editor - there may be times we use CAMERA for facts (about Israel sources - not about Palestinian sources as we've done in this case). But in general we'd have to treat them as extremely dubious because of their aggression and distortion. Here's a fairly random example of the latter, quibbling about words spoken (likely repeatedly) by Israel's most famous militarist. Moshe Dayan wasn't in the business of claiming land for Israel by buying it! PalestineRemembered 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source. Isarig 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that Moshe Dayan was going round lecturing students on the acquisition of land by purchase (which in any case only amounted to quite a small proportion of the land of Israel). Dayan was a war-hero with a black patch over one eye, that's why people wanted to here him speak. He was quite open about these things, he said to Rami Tal "in the period between 64 and 67 when there were a lot of incidents on the border between Israel and Syria about 80% of these incidents were started by Israel".

And nobody reading CAMERA's claims would think they were capable of being RS (though I don't doubt many of the individual facts are true, and in some cases, one might wish to quote them). And their "refutation" in this case is based on their insistence that Dayan only said that Israel was all built on places where Arabs had lived once at this particular lecture. Pilger quotes him saying it at his retirement, so CAMERA simply have no idea what he said, they're grabbing at straws. PalestineRemembered 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA did not correct a misquote, full stop. It restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it. Dayan, properly cited, remarks:'-In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.'

The paraphrase runs:'In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.'

This is highly dubious, if not indeed, an intentionally misleading gloss. For the paraphrase drops the crucial In a considerable number of places (meaning implicitly, '- in many other places what I am saying about buying the land from Arabs where our villages now are does not apply. I.e. that land was taken without purchase). Dayan, contrary to what CAMERA writes, is admitting that in many cases dispossession did occur (He was, admirably, more objective than CAMERA and is on record as admitting many ruses were employed to grab disputed land by pure force). One could name any number of reasons why this is bad reporting (who were the Arabs? The fellahin driven off the fields they had traditionally worked? Or absentee landlords in Beirut and Amman, who sold the lands to Jewish agencies, who then dispossessed the tenants, as was often the case?)

This then is not an example of 'Accuracy', it is a matter of unilaterally spinning information to one party's advantage. Were it to live up to its name 'Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America' it would have a huge amount of its work cut out just correcting the almost systematic way most Middle Eastern Countries neighbouring on Israel are also subject to misreporting. Hence its very name belies, and indeed misrepresents its partisan focus. I commend them for defending the cause of Israel, but they shouldn't pretend that this is an undertaking for a spirit of dignified neutrality on The Middle East. It is a mediatic lobby, which cherrypicks the news like Fox, and, I suggest, most major News Sources, and has an agenda, as we can see in its cleverly misleading paraphrase above, one as strong as Counterpunch's, or any other radical paper. Were it as honest as we are rightly called on to be in here in drafting wiki articles it would replace 'Middle East' with 'Israel' which it won't do, I think to its discredit. For there is nothing intrinsically wrong about a committee devoted to defending any one country's image, and pursuing an ideal of checking and combating perceived abuses in reportage on it. Many countries practice this. Nishidani 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - the CAMERA article, which as you conced restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it is 'spinning information to one party's advantage' because it omits the qualifier ("In a considerable number of places"), but the article they were critiquing, which compeltly omitted the conetxt of Dyan talking about buying land - that text is ok, and should not be critiqued? Isarig 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A point on syntactical implications that you appear to be unaware of. You wrote: 'Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source.'

You are saying that, 'no one is claiming . .tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate.'

In fact it was claimed, by CAMERA that the text they complained about was inaccurate. That was the reason for their just emendation of the truncated text. You meant, I presume 'accurate'?

(2) It was reliable in correcting a quote, wholly unreliable in explaining that quote, wilfully misrepresenting one of the meanings in Dayan's text. In restoring the quote, they then proceeded to distort its meaning. It's not difficult to check sources. It is quite difficult, I gather, to read them correctly, and CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote, and a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Nishidani 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your analysis and opinion of the CAMERA explanation, but please realize it is your personal POV. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and we do not engage in editor-generated analysis of sources. If the above quote was used in a WP article, I'd expect it to be presented as CAMERA's opinion, and if a RS commented on their explanation along the lines you have outlined, that could be presented as well. None of this has anything to do with CAMERA's status as a reliable source, certainly when the issues at hand are direct quotes, not explanations of them, cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As you wrote - "'CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote" - that's all that this dispuet is about.

Okay we are getting seriously sidetracked here, what are we talking about the Moshe Dayan quote for exactly? I mean PR is right, and anyone who knows the full context of this quote (where he talks about provoking border wars with Lebanon in order to steal farmland, etc) can see that, but this quote is not at all at issue in the article I was talking about. Eleland 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What you were talking about is the use of quotes by CAMERA, where the direct quote is cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As Nishidani points out, CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote,. Isarig 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 5 7 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at this reference - I don't believe the encyclopedia should ever be treating as an "RS" an article such as "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference .... despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". I've not deleted the references, but it is essential that we source this somewhere else. PalestineRemembered 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, this noticeboard should be used to solicit opinions from editors previously unaware of the concern. I see this is not precisely true in this case. Moving to the specific item of concern, it seems self-evident that CAMERA is an advocacy website, and should be used with caution. If the only source for certain quotes is CAMERA, it is reasonable to ask for substantiation of the quotes from an alternative source. Using only quotes available through a single article in an advocacy website leaves us open to the risk of unbalanced reporting, so that should be kept in mind. In this case, CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment to User:Hornplease, please look into this part of the article - [7] - and see where my previous comment above said reference fits in. btw, thank you for giving this issue a look. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that section is by and large not problematic; however, I think if a particularly outlandish claim by a Palestinian spokesman is sourced to a TV interview quoted by CAMERA, I can see why a dubious tag might apply. I certainly would wish to alert the average reader to the antecedents of the quote. Hornplease 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

continued talk with User:Hornplease - please note these bogus statements have been repeated on other references on that same subsection. i agree that we should strive for less POV sources, however, there is no indication to CAMERA beying more unreliable than the sources they cite; to the contrary even. anyways, i appreciate your input (hope other uninvolved editors will give one also). Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig I would ask you kindly not to cherrypick my words. I quite explicitly said that on this one quote, CAMERA correctly gave Dayan's words. It is reliable on this one specific quote. It is not reliable, to judge from the way it handles the quote, and generally quotes to a POV purpose. I.e. 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' CAMERA is partisan, not trustworthy in that scrupulous editorial oversight which RS thinks important as a criterion was lacking in the paraphrase, and not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand' (Middle East), since it is dedicated exclusively to promoting Israel's POV Nishidani 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A general comment. In war all sides lie (Walter Lippman 1924) to swing public opinion about them, and if you want to know what is going on in specific actions, months must pass if not years. Sometimes decades. To document minutely the day or day battle for the 'hearts and minds' of distant onlookers, with the profusion of understatements and exaggerations, may be a useful exercise, but it is not going to last long. In a few years, this trivia will be, by a proper historian, summed up more or less as Wildly exaggerated reports by Palestinian spokesmen of massive casualties, running into several hundreds of civilian deaths - competed with understatements by the Israeli government, for attention in the world's media. At the same time, Israel was sufficiently worried about the havoc caused by the assault to block an independent UN team from investigating in the aftermath to ascertain exactly what had occurred at Jenin. What is know is that the casualties were one-tenth of what the most exaggerating Palestinian report said they were, and these deaths,52, were evenly divided between innocent civilian bystanders and Palestinian fighters.

The drift of the passage, with its meticulous citation of outlandish reports, is to document the unreliability of Palestinians. There may be point in devoting some space to this with regard to Jenin. Anyone who reads what Amira Hass or Gideon Levy writes regularly in Haaretz in the aftermath of some missile strike or reprisal raid by the IDF, in which they visit the area, interview the families, and give intimate details of how the families of numerous civilian casualties saw events, with the usual IDF reports filtered to newspapers on the same events, will appreciate that the relevant facts are mainly edited out in the latter. The Palestinian dead rarely have an identity, are 'suspected' of terrorism, or otherwise ignored, and the whole event is summarized as a strike with an array of statistics framed in a narrative of generic provocations by terrorists and reprisal by a righteous army dedicated to 'purity of arms'. Any slipup is an unfortunate mishap. The central fact, that the land where most of these incidents occur is foreign territory under military occupation, and that Israel is obliged under International law to evacuate its illegal settlers, is ignored (As regards these settlements, the ICJ notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” ). As is the fact that:-

'4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory..' International Court of Justice ruling 2004 para.102). I.e. Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, in Israel's view, have no right of appeal to International Covenants protecting their economic, social and cultural rights' even when Israel itself, the Occupying Power, is a signatory to these covenants.

In all these issues then Israelis have the protection of law and the IDF: the Palestinians have neither, as an occupied people. If you say this of course, you are accused of having a POV.

So, until there is a real stable political settlement, all of these articles will continue to suffer from instrumental editing: we will have chronic 'incidents', innumerable pages created where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors will battle for the minds and the hearts of those unfortunates who think Wikipedia is a reliable source for the Middle East, pages subject to incessant edits, challenges of POV, revert wars, and subtle plays to adjust the language so that, in any one section, my side gets the subliminal assent which, in a tradeoff, your side got earlier etc. It is a huge waste of effort, and quite pathetic to watch. The only people whom a bystander can trust in this area is one who shows him/herself willing to correct POV from pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis with an equally firm hand, because he/she takes on an effort to look at the record as far as it can be objectively ascertained, and not at the powerful, often militant interests behind various, mostly trivial, accounts of that record. Nishidani 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your symapthy for the Palestinian cause. But this is not USNET nor a blog, and your long psot above has zero to do with the question of CAMERA's relaibility and credibility. Kindly keep politcal POV-pushingout of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sympathy for Israel's cause. No intention of blogging. My point is that you are never going to get a decent article on any Israeli-Palestinian issue by scouting through Internet resources culling material from newspapers, since such reportage is factitious, ephemeral, and the sources are almost invariably partisan.If we stuck to printed books by scholarly publishers, and official documents by independent bodies, most of this frigging about would disappear, and wiki would have a decent set of articles. The results so far are lengthy articles full of trivia, and huge threads of squabbling over what are, mostly, relatively simple issues.

I am, on another page, suffering a revert battle by people who will not explain to me why they consider the 2004 International Court of Justice decision POV. Why? Because they don't agree with the Court personally, and have a newspaper source by a journalist-politician who questioned it before the judgement was even passed down. I don't believe they are in bad faith. I think they are so accustomed to looking for sources in newspapers to justify their take on things, that they have forgotten the primary issue, which is a purely technical one, easily ascertained, from UN documentation and ICJ decisions. Unlike them, I make no pretence of not having a POV. What I do do, is try to keep it off the page, and stay open to queries by whoever suspects in the edits I do make that my decisions are affected by personal bias, and not by considerations of fidelity to the complete and relevant historical record. This is my last comment on the matter here. Nishidani 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record. This is off-topic, but illustrates a larger problem. 8 minutes after my posting the above, Isarig reverted Palestinian territories without apparently, unless he/she is a remarkable speed reader, reading the Talk page where a lengthy series of expositions justified my edits and those of Tiamut. He/she joins User:Humus sapiens and User:Tickle me who have over the past day reverted attempts to improve the page, each twice. Neither of the latter gave anything but a vague POV warning in the revert edits: when pressed, a very brief note by each was forthcoming, the first revealing the reverter's ignorance of niceties of English usage; the second was adequately answered, with missing RS requested, amply supplied. The page before my edits was bannered with 'neutrality debated'. That is the article all three have restored, preferring the obvious POV of that earlier page to our efforts to improve it.

I suppose this passing the baton is to avoid the 3RR rule. All three are not working on the page, but simply revert insistently, while refusing discussion. POV is evidenced not only by explicit declarations, but also, far more frequently, by this kind of behaviour, which lazily employs the POV charge to suppress unwelcome edits. Nishidani 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, what you're describing is a content dispute, and the danger to articles in the encyclopedia is something that cannot be addressed at the "Reliable Sources" page. (There is some suspicion that well-funded outside influence is at play). In theory, discussions held here can have a significantly beneficial long-term impact on the encyclopedia by reducing the influence of distorted, angry material such as published by CAMERA.

One of the regular watchers of this page (who might be able to help us resolve this RS business in a consistent fashion) has reminded us that article-involved editors shouldn't really be playing a part in this discussion. However, one of the very most experienced editors present may have led everyone else astray right at the beginning of this section, for reasons that are difficult to understand. It might be best if this discussion were left to try and get at least one part of the process back on track. PalestineRemembered 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from someone else

CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. It is of course reliable for giving its own opinions, and it is sufficiently notable that its opinions on developments are often newsworthy. But when its material is republished by a RS, then it can be indirectly quoted as , eg. NYTimes , based on... That does not seem to be the question here--the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? An interesting side issue seems to be whether it can be used as a source for the statements about people whose position it agrees with. I think in general not, as no such source can be trusted to report them fairly rather than reinterpret them in a more favorable light. DGG ( talk) 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how I feel. I did make an effort to find the originals, or more reliable sources which replicated the originals, and I replaced the CAMERA cites where I could. The "verify cred" tags only went on those quotes which I couldn't find. Interestingly, there are a lot of purported direct quotes on the CAMERA report which return only one Google hit - CAMERA. Check [8] , [9], [10]. Objectively, these materials should have been removed entirely, but I gave the benefit of the doubt - apparently a mistake on my part. Eleland 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
• There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)" [11]
• And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [12]
• There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)" [13]
• In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• CAMERA is currently cited 4 times in this article, and all the ^{unreliable source?} tags have been removed. PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - (1) number57 is VERY involvedin ME articles. (2) "Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found.", (2.1) from as many as 50! citations from that article page, we've managed to find replacements to almost all of them. (2.2) the quotes/statments that have not been replaced are all (best i'm aware) repeated by the same people on close dates and referenced by other sources. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As you all seem to work with references regularly, so I felt this would be an appropriate place to ask for someone to help me.

I've been adding references, but many are untidy. See DiGard_Motorsports#References to see what I'm talking about. Anyone willing to lend a hand? I especially am unsure what to do with things I found off of Google Books.

Also, does References go above or below External Links?

I'm primarily looking to see if anyone would be willing to help work on the ref coding. I can fairly defend the references used if anyone takes issue with the refs.

(crossposted at [14])

Guroadrunner 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the Google books one using {{ citation}}. Hope that helps as an example. I see that someone else already used that template for another reference of a different type. — David Eppstein 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the sources listed in question two here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC reliable? · jersyko talk 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overlawyered (redirect page to Walter Olson)
• Overlawyered.com

Will Beback is systematically eliminating links to Overlawyered, added by multiple editors, without discussion on talk pages, and against consensus. Though it is in the form of a blog, it qualifies as a WP:RS: it features writing by multiple writers (including Stuart Taylor and Michael Fumento) and is edited by the leading expert in the field, Walter Olson; it is regularly cited by books, [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ^{{and many others}} law reviews, newspaper articles, and magazines (including a number that just plagiarize us without citing). Even if it is considered a self-published source, it qualifies as a source under WP:SPS. (COI disclosure: I occasionally write for Overlawyered. I added an Overlawyered link to one page after consulting with other editors to the page.) I don't challenge all of the removals, but it seems improper to remove cites to the site when it is cited as an example of an opinion of leading legal reformers. THF 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP directly bars the use of blogs for biographies, except those written by the subject. The author of the postings in question is not Stuart Taylor, Michael Fumento, or Walter Olson. It is someone called Ted Frank, who is not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. If he is being advanced as an expert in his field then we need to have evidence of that. One editor who restored a few links asserted that a poor source is better than none. This directly contradicts our philosphy on reliable sources. If we can't find reliable sources for an assertion then it's better to leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank RS evidence: The American ^[20]; Business Week ^[21]; Wall Street Journal ^[22]; Forbes ^[23]; Washington Post ^[24]. Let me know if you need more. The Frank article was CSD'd as an attack page about a year after someone created it after it was vandalized to remove all useful information. THF 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The exception to RS allows for citing an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Have any of Ted Frank's opinions on the case been published in reliable sources? I don't see that author being attributed in the previous versions of the McDonalds citations, perhaps we say, "According to Ted Frank of the AEI..." that would clarify the context of the blog postings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank is cited on legal issues. When we cite to William Connolley's blog (which is cited to multiple times on Wikipedia), we don't ask if he's been cited on the specific blog topic, but whether he's generally reliable on environmental issues. THF 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to having Frank's opinions labelled as his own? Where the citations go to ostensibly objective information that wouldn't be necessary, but when we're talking about viewpoints I think it'd be informative to know the speaker. The issue is contentious, and Frank is unabashedly partisan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COOL and some other guidelines, I'm withdrawing from the conversation, and ask that you hash this out with CHL and other editors. THF 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better to leave unreliable assertions out. If you have a problem with the claims, remove the claims (and their sources). Removing the source but keeping the claim (as you've done) is just bizzare. A sourced claim is better than an unsourced claim. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two distinct issues: one whether Overlawyered is a reliable source in the general case. The answer to that appears to be no, especially given the lack of apparent editorial oversight. The next question is whether we can use Overlawyered as a link of convenience for some documents that are hosted there. The answer to that seems to be a clear yes. The final question is even when overlawyered is not necessarily reliable is its material notable(that is, can we on BLP say something like "According to _ at Overlawyered _" the answer to that seems to be yes given that the material is frequently cited by mainstream sources. JoshuaZ 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two points. For the third point I'd say the current exemption to using blogs applies to authors, not entire blogs. If the author has been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the topic in question then it's OK to use on that topic with caution, though it's still preferable to use inherently reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your analysis is on-target. Straight BLP claims are not appropriate, but as a source of opinion it is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, per Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reason_for_reverting_ban_on_self-published_external_links, that this discussion implies that Overlawyered (when posts are written by reliable-source bloggers) can be used as an external link in a biography article. I request reversion of Beback's deletions to EL. THF 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which propsoed links are to blog postings by "recognized authorities"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

90% of Overlawyered posts (and 100% of the ones before June 2003, when it was solely written by Olson) are by Olson or Frank. I don't have time to go through everything you deleted, and I don't know how many people added how many links that you removed. If I revert you, I'll be accused of a conflict of interest. So I'm politely asking you to self-revert edits you made based on a mistaken view of policy, and continued to make even as we were still discussing the issue and you knew the edits were contested. I know you removed the link (along with Olson's PointofLaw site) as an EL from tort reform, for example, where there weren't even BLP issues. THF 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe that the authors must be recognized authorities in the topic of the article, so unless Olson and Frank are known as experts on Ed Fagan, Ralph Nader, etc, we should use blog postings as external links. In what topics do you contend Olson and Frank are recognized authorities? Tort reform, of course. Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

These amateur anti-Scientology personal homepages keep recurring as references on Scientology-related articles. Some of them make some rather threatening-sounding statements that I find every bit as ominous as the "Religious Freedom Watch" lone-nut hate site (whose article was recently deleted). It seems clear to me that these kind of religious-partisan rant sites are no better than personal blogs, of no use to us as sources, nor trustworthy for courtesy links:

• Operation Clambake - One man (Andreas Heidal-Lund)'s personal site, as his FAQ clearly states. The site also, unprofessionally, urges people to spy on their local Church of Scientology - look at this. And don't forget this. Clambake's crudely written, misspelling-laden pages are used as sources on many articles, some hotly-POV-debated, like Space opera in Scientology scripture.

• Holysmoke.org - This amateurish site compiled by one man ("Shy David") consists mostly of unverifiable material like personal emails (like this page currently used as a reference on the Gold Base article!) and Usenet posts.

• Arnie Lerma's homepage - read his FAQ here in which everything is "me", "my website", his life story, etc. This is one guy's personal rant page, plain and simple. Pops up as references in articles such as Universal Life and Office of Special Affairs, and I've recently removed it from several other articles.

• Dave Touretzky's Page - Pretty much self-explanatory as a personal page, yet some editors often attempt to cite it as a reference. See Talk:Dianazene for more discussion.

• Why Are They Dead, Scientology? - More of the same. Primitive poorly-written rants and potential copyright violations. Improperly used as a source reference on many hotly-POV-debated articles like Lisa McPherson, Kenja Communication, Cults and governments, etc.

• Gerry Armstrong's page - Personal opinion sites don't get much more personal and opinionated than this. And yet it's cited as a reliable source on Office of Special Affairs and many more.

• Da Sloth's Home Page - ditto. Used in many articles, such as Fair Game (Scientology).

Furthermore, these sites are also seeded in a very spammy fashion across the External Links sections of almost the entirety of the Scientology articles.

The Anti-Scn editors will likely cry that I'm seeking to silence all criticism of Scientology. Far from it - I want lots and lots of criticism, but criticism with airtight sources, not these homepages of people ranting about their holy mission to "expose the global scam of Scientology". If these criticisms are so encyclopedic, we should be able to get all the dirt we need from reliable sources, not some angry conspiracy-theory personal webpage made by persons with evident grudges. User:AndroidCat has done a great job recently supplanting CoS articles with solid newspaper articles as sources, so let's follow his example and lose these childish "Scientology sucks" pages. wikipediatrix 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two bits to this. I recently made these edits [25] [26] to the David Miscavige article. I found that Lerma's site had altered the title of the article to sound much more sinister than it actually was. Right there, that seems to disqualify it as a reliable source. As someone else pointed out to me the source is the source, and not a website who is hosting the article to make a point. I would personally like to see less criticism in the Scn-related articles, but I know that's not going to happen. So, if there has to be criticism, then let it be well sourced from reliable sources, as well as make sure the article says what the source says (if you notice my edit, once I changed it to reflect what the article actually said, changed the tone of what was being said quite a bit). HubcapD 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Although the authors of these self-published web sites are occasionally quoted by the media and occasionally termed "expert" in that context, there is a difference between using their statements as reported by the press (i.e. by reliable sources) and considering their personal websites themselves as reliable sources. The authors of these "Scientology Sucks" web sites are, IMO, extremists, if, by "extremist", we simply mean someone that is as far from center or from NPOV as is possible. When an extremist makes a statement to the press we have a number of factors at work. 1) The extremist will tone down his rhetoric and limit himself to provable facts or sustainable opinions; 2) the reliable source should fact-check and only print those portions of the remarks that check out; and 3) the reliable source will also publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes a reliable source "reliable".
  
  For an example, look at this San Francisco Chronicle article, Scientology link to public schools, in which anti-Scientology "extremist" David Touretzky is referenced not an "expert" but as simply what he is, a computer science research professor that has a web site; a web site that, according to the SF Chronical, "includes some controversial material." This is my opinion but I see that "controversial" as a codeword for "biased", "not reliable", even "dubious". The SF Chronicle did not use Touretzky's attack site as a source. They were able to write quite a critical article without using these dubious personal sites as "sources". That is responsible publishing and the standard that we must maintain here.
  
  Self-published personal Scientology attack sites are under no constraints to 1) limit the rhetoric to provable fact or sustainable opinions; 2) do any fact-checking at all; or 3) publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes such sites not reliable. They are self-published. They are polemic. They are biased. They are unreliable. We do not need them. -- Justanother 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a clarification on whether internal information, like manuals, memos, etc pertaining to an organization, that is distributed only for use by members within the organization is considered "published" and hence reliable sources? I scoured through a few pages of reliability and its archives, and i didn't find anything specifically addressing that point. The Jackal God 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For an article about the organization (or its subsidiaries), such items would either be self published sources (see WP:SELFPUB for guidance on handling them) or, more likely, non-published private correspondence. Ask the question - can someone go find a copy of this source and verify that it says what the editor here said that it said? If they can, use WP:SPS guidance. If they can't, it is probably private correspondence. GRBerry 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to reliable sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well). Thank you. -- NYScholar 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:N a subject is notable if it has recieved non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. I was looking at the article on Claus Elming, a Danish football player and TV personality who has recieved significant non-trivial coverage in the Danish media. Ignoring for a moment that the reliable sources in this context are not used solely to satisfy WP:V what is the general concensus on the use of foreign language sources as reliable sources, especially when such sources are in a language only understood by a small minority of editors? Is there a generally agreed upon concensus on a threshold for how minor a language may be before such sources are disregarded? MartinDK 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Such sources are never "disregarded"... it is simply that equally reliable sources in English are given preference. A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter what language it is written in. Blueboar 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute I wish could be resolved one way or another soon. It might be my misunderstanding, but we need external input with convincing arguments. The case is currently an open RfC, but I wish this was settled soon. It's about a Food and Drug Administration document, found in the FBI files, now available from this FBI web page (it can be ordered, or consulted at the FBI headquarters). Also available for a few dollars at the paperlessarchives.com. That FDA document contains a note that a specific product can be used for iron-deficiency. There is no mention that it can be used for anything else. The FDA statement from that letter was used in an article as follow: "The tablets had in fact only been approved as a supplement to counteract iron-deficiency anemia.". If you want to comment on this issue, I rather you do it at the RfC of the talk page of the article in which the dispute is ongoing, this will save me to have to notify all the person involved to have their say here. Thank you. Raymond Hill 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please look at the referenced RfC for comments by both involved and uninvolved editors. Short story short, FOIA is NOT published. It is AVAILABLE. Not published. In the specific instance, the desired edit was not "sourced material". It was WP:OR based on an unpublished primary source (granting that the letter is legit). Big difference. But more important, the cited source of the letter (xenu.com) is not RS so we cannot use the letter. RS is published material, not FOIA material, or interviews you go and do, or pictures that you take, etc. I quote WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Emphasis as original. Or as WP:V puts it, I quote: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That specific letter has not been published in a reliable source. Nor has reference to that specific letter been made in a reliable published source. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that letter does not exist. Personally, I could care less and the letter adds little to what we already have from reliable sources. My concern is OR and poor sourcing, that is worth addressing here. -- Justanother 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Raymond Hill, but I don't want to weigh in on the actual dispute, so I won't be posting there. I will point out why the FOIA source seems valid to me. They are primary sources, and here is what some policies and guidelines say about them:

WP:OR says: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source...Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.... and most importantly Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.

WP:RS: The FBI is a RS, is someone saying they aren't?

WP:V: The FBI is a Verifiable source too since copies can be ordered from them. (There is almost no difference between asking someone to order docs from a gov't office and trying to get a book ordered that a local library doesn't have.)

Anynobody 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AN, you make my case for me. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. The primary source is an FDA letter. Supposedly, that letter is in the FBI's file on Hubbard and one can obtain it by ordering it from the government. But it is not PUBLISHED. Not by the FDA, not by the FBI, not by anyone. I can order a pastrami sandwich from my local deli but that doesn't make the pastrami sandwich "published". You order PUBLISHED books from your local library - you order UNPUBLISHED material by FOIA. Big difference. -- Justanother 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Justanother maybe the problem is a difference in definition of what it means to "publish" something.

Publish

To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

Ordering FOIA information is public distribution. Because the same info is available to anyone who wants it, it can be verified. The definition you seem to be insisting on is info from private publishers only, which seems unnecessarily limited since a reference like this currently used in the article about the Virginia class submarine would be invalid by your argument. After all the gov't didn't publish this like a regular book. Anynobody 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A dispute between me and Cyrus XIII about the NPOV of my contributions to Lords of Chaos (book) has escalated into an edit war. I can't see any substance in his accusations. Lords of Chaos has some - mildly put- controversial content. I disagree with this content, but I definitely think it has to be included in the article. In my opinion Cyrus XIII is referring to WP:NPOV and WP:EL in an attempt to keep this content out of Wikipedia, thus censoring the article. We are both experienced editors and I don't think that one of use is going to make the 'mistake' of braking the 3 revert rule. Zara1709 15:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this is quite old already, and probably this was the wrong noticeboard, there is something concerning the reliability of a source here: Is an article by Kevin Coogan a reliable source for the following information:

"The book itself [Lords of Chaos], however, is not a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term, in part because Moynihan co-wrote the book with Didrik Saderlind, a former music critic for a mainstream Norwegian paper who is now an editor at Playboy. Moreover, Feral House editor Adam Parfrey clearly wanted to publish a popular book on the strange universe of black metal rather than a political polemic."

I think it is rather important to state that Didrik Saderlind is not, unlike Michael Moynihan (journalist), the other author of the book, or Varg Vikernes, the main subject of it, an extreme right activist. There is no reason to delete that kind of information. Zara1709 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, [27], this is cited extensively in Rogerian argument. I noticed this site yesterday when an anon added links to several pages. We have 300+ links from articles. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as any other web hosting site: the content should be considered self-published, and used as a source only if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, I think. A relevant quote: " Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic for distribution." — David Eppstein 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've stated on Tom Harrison's talk page, I feel that this site differs from other web hosting sites...in that it has served to be truthful as many times that I have looked over it, meaning that I have not personally seen any inaccuracies with it...yet, and so there must be some sort of condition that they have in making sure who types there is typing the real deal. I feel that Wikipedia would be losing a great source of references in discouraging (or eliminating, for that matter) the use of this site as an independent reliable source. I really have not seen any objection on Wikipedia to the use of this site as an independent reliable source until now. Flyer22 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd treat it the same as links to another wiki. They're self-published, so I would not use it as the sole citation for a fact in an article. I'd avoid using it in BLP's. On the other hand, if the link is in an "External Links" section and the AC article simply happens to be a good, useful article, I'd keep it. I'm against removing links to AC simply on principle. Squidfryerchef 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, we aren't supposed to even use other Wikipedia articles as a source. We may refer readers to other articles of related content for related info, but since an article can change at any moment they are not appropriate for an actual reference. This site has the same problem, as David Eppstein pointed out:(emphasis mine) Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic... Essentially it's describing Wikipedia. Anynobody 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are not supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as a source on Wikipedia, of course, but I don't see associatedcontent.com as truly the same as Wikipedia. For one thing, there is no worry of vandalism to their articles or other editors inaccurately adding things to their already published articles. And as David Eppstein also pointed out, associatedcontent.com can be used as a source if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, except David Eppstein stated only. For me, I feel that it can go beyond that. What also separates it from Wikipedia is even if a Wikipedian has expertise in a certain field, that still does not stop Wikipedians from not being able to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Associated Content has actually been used a source in some good articles on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen of it so far, I cannot change my mind on the subject of its use. I still feel that it should and can be used as a reliable source quite often here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't given any reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT from treating it any differently than any other self-published source. — David Eppstein 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given other reasons besides WP:ILIKEIT. I don't even frequent there often, not out of personal interest, I mean, though I often and only see their articles accurately written (so far, that is). Frankly, I don't have a lot more to state on this subject. I feel that it's a waste to disregard that site, and I'm not up for stating the same thing over and over again on this matter, in different variations. Flyer22 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of the claim that George Washington was a Deist... without any source or reference to back the claim up. Also repeated deletion of Thomas Jefferson from the list of Episcopalians even though there is a source for this. Other material boarders on WP:SYNT and OR. This article needs serious help from neutral editors. Blueboar 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are institutions websites (Colleges, Universities, etc.) reliable sources to use for referencing articles. Like for example the Technological Institute of Piraeus? Link to the site: [28] and link to the information: [29] Can they be used in a wikipedia article as a reference or are they inadequate? ^{El Greco ( talk · contribs)} 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To give you a clear answer we would need more information. It depends on what why the websites are being cited ... They are certainly reliable for information regarding the college, university or organization - its courses, facutly, official policies, and stances on issues, etc. They might or might not be reliable as cites for other kinds of information, depending the specifics. Blueboar 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One of these links is for a thesis. If the thesis was published, it can be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for over 2 years now and it has re-surfaced again. The debate is whether this article should be included in the Bose article or not. If you check the talk page not only do I believe that this article does not qualify because it is blatantly POV but it fails the tests of verifiability and being a reliable source (detailed listings of this are on the talk page). But this can be summed up by this comment:

the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link [..] Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad. Rivertorch 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you help lay this issue to rest? -- UKPhoenix79 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is being used to support the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells deficient equipment. This occurs in a section which also contains the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells high-end equipment. In order to accurately portray the dispute, we must represent both viewpoints. We have worked hard to ensure that the section issues no judgment on the quality of the equipment itself, but merely provides an exposition of the dispute.

Our last discussion uncovered numerous articles in traditional newspapers that referred to the article in question as an encapsulation of the viewpoint it represents; it has become something of a classic and makes use of laboratory-measured frequency response data from Sound and Vision, a reputable audio review publication.

To use this source to support an assertion over the equipment itself would be a grave mistake, but there is no one advocating that. We merely wish to represent all significant viewpoints, and this article is a touchstone for one of those viewpoints. — ptk✰ fgs 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also support keeping this link in the article. While it's a personal site, the individual provides detailed rationale for his or her opinions. I would argue this intellexual.net review has more relevance and credibility than the non-specific assertion of "high-end" in Forbes Magazine (a magazine that depends on advertisers like Bose for its survival). Frankly, these days Bose products are not subjected to stringent critical review by vertical publications dedicated to audio and video. Bose doesn't compete in that market anymore. As an encyclopedia, we can let the reader draw their own conclusions about which sources they choose to embrace. Furthermore the quoted observation that the intellexual.net review deals with a discontinued product does not really matter. The article has many references other past events and products - why single this one out? Mattnad 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A self-published web site does not qualify as a reliable source, in my opinion. It makes it worse that the review has no author who is willing to take responsibility for it. Elsewhere on the web some people attribute these views to Richard Wang, who is the owner of the intellexual.net web site according to whois. The current Bose Corporation article includes plenty of criticism, and readers have their pick of many reliable sources for criticism, including the Wall Street Journal. The commenter who argued we have to 'represent both viewpoints' can only mean that we should reflect the diversity of opinions found in reliable sources. That doesn't give carte blanche for self-published sites. EdJohnston 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have NEVER said that we shouldn't cite a credible source, actually I REALLY want to find one. But I have not been able to find any. This website CLAIMS to use Sound and Visions audio equipment for the testings but I could claim the same and say whatever I wanted to. I also agree that the "high-end" sources are problematic and even in the talk history said that this just doesn't make sense. But from what the discussions came down was that Bose is "high-end" consumer grade audio equipment which seamed to made sense to everyone involved.

Now I put this in the talk page but I thought that I'd post it here to help with the discussion.

If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability:

• third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
• If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page.

Nor does it pass reliability:

• Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
• Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
• In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
• Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

I don't think that I really need to list this one point by point but check out the last one. Yes this is extremely valid with this persons notable anti-bose and blatant POV throughout the web page.

No other reliable site can be found with these claims only forums and most link back to this article. Hence all the debating for over 2 years on this issue is focused on the reliability, verifiability, and POV of this particular website. according to the Official Guidelines of Wikipedia this website fails every test...

This is an encyclopedia and I just don't see how it can be used here... -- UKPhoenix79 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric, and anyone else who has not edited the Bose article, in your opinion should the many quotes in there from reliable sources /outside their areas of expertise/ be regarded as aceptable sources? In particular Bose's PR would appear to claim that they make 'high end audio' gear (whatever that means), and this is often quoted in reviews of Bose gear by non-audio mags. It seems to me that quoting Pop Sci, Forbes, or a PC magazine, on that subject is like quoting Sound & Vision on Bose's finacial standing - just quote picking.

As to the site in question, raised by our voluble friend, we are attempting to link to an objective test, a graph of frequency response. This is the only objective measurement of a Bose system we've found so far. Greglocock 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you checked the archived talk page I have said that I thought all the "High-end" references were dubious so please realize that I agree with that statement. The only reason I have not removed them myself was the case for them to stay was it was from well respected sites like Forbes Magazine, Edmunds Inside line, Popular Science, PC Magazine and C|Net. Now it is VERY noticeable that NONE are Audio magazines but regular Consumer magazines. So it was decided to keep because it was stated as being High-End consumer Audio products. Even though I think this makes sense it is still... well... odd. Though if you ask regular people on the streets if Bose is High-End audio I'd say 9 out of 10 times you will hear a resounding yes.

Going to the second point Anybody can make a graph of anything out there and claim that they are using this or that to test on this or that product. It is actually very easy to mess with numbers & tests to make them come out whatever way you want. When it comes down to it this is a personal website stating questionable results in a anything but an objective manor (yes I do mean that in both senses). The fact that this is the only website on the net that claims such tings should tell you something also, and its not that Bose will sue them, because I'm sure that after +5 years of this site being on the net the would have done that by now if they wanted to.

I just don't see how this site will ever pass verifiability or ever be considered a reliable source. -- UKPhoenix79 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are my points logical? Any other comments? -- UKPhoenix79 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Summing up. UKPhoenix79 and EdJohnston oppose the link to intellexual.net. Mattnad, ptkfgs and Greglocock are in favor of keeping it. There was also some discussion of high-end versus low-end that I may not have fully understood. This thread might have got more participation if previous comments weren't quite so verbose. (It's better to link to policy than quote it verbatim in mass quantities). Greglocock addressed Eric but I don't know who Eric is, or what his position was. I seem to be the only person who hasn't edited the Bose article to enter a comment here at RS/N.

I don't actually see how the other editors' thinking can fit with WP:RS, which provides that self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. That implies that however much we might want to have intellexual.net's results, we arent allowed to use them. But we don't have to continue this discussion if there isn't a demand for it. EdJohnston 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I meant you, not "Eric". Greglocock 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mass word for word extractions of Wikipedias policies. I have found that after 2 years debating this and other topics that people don't always read the links posted stating policies. So I generally bring them into the discussion by posting them as stated. -- UKPhoenix79 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, but it's more a symptom than the problem. Its inclusion will no longer be an issue when the article achieves a more neutral tone. I mean, I like my ancient 301s, but I don't think they are contributing to world peace. Flowanda | Talk 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In your biography on Mick Gatto, it says he died on 17th August, 2007.

This is absolutely incorrect. I know for a fact he is still alive today. In fact, an associate of mine is having lunch with him today.

So can the information on him be fixed please.

This wasn`t the right spot to report this, but it seems you are quite correct that erroneous info was added to the Mick Gatto article. I have removed it.-- Slp1 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used these as sources a lot. My guess is that Wikipedia doesn't actually consider them reliable sources, though. Correct?-- P4k 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're writing about music, so that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published. The good alternatives are going to meet the RS standards -- independent editorial oversight, good history of fact checking, knowledgeable writers, etc. Another good sign to me would be being part of an association that requires certain editorial standards for membership. I looked up the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and here's a discussion of the 10 newspapers that applied for membership (only four made it): http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=oid%3A166087 . I've cited Creative Loafing before and felt comfortable it was a reliable source. Are you concerned that citing these pubs would weaken an article's chance of surviving an Afd or the edits would end up being challenged or removed? I noticed you cited the living daylights out of your Cosmic Disco article, and it barely survived Afd. To me, the alt sources were the strongest part; all the citations and a seemingly trivial mention in a Guardian travel article just made it look *way* too eager. I don't mean to offend you, just help -- I got the article's notability, but I think it got buried. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that worried about AfDs, I'm just wondering whether there's any point in using alt-weeklies as sources, or if it's just another way of mimicking an encyclopedia format for subjects that don't actually meet Wikipedia's rarely-enforced standards. I mean the canonical response in an AfD to "that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published" would be "if the subject isn't covered in reliable sources, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." Also I don't want to be introducing or perpetuating false information, which is a real possibility since I often work on subjects that I don't really know anything about. Thanks for that link, I guess it's good to see that most of the papers I've been using are members of that association. As far as cosmic disco goes, I certainly know how borderline that article is. I never would have created it myself, I just tried to save it from unjust speedy deletion and improve it as much as I could. In general I tend to cite whatever I possibly can for a couple of reasons, although it's true that making things look notable is one of them.-- P4k 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thanks for the thoughtful response.-- P4k 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As illustrated by this diff [30], User:Piotrus thinks that the chemist Witold Lawrynowicz (bio at [31]), is a reliable source for a statement phrased as a fact. At issue is the Lithuanian motivation for not joining forces with the Poles during the Polish-Soviet War (a featured article). Lawrynowicz's assertion is not trivial. Novickas 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement phrased as a fact? Lawrynowicz writes "Lithuania joined the Soviet side in the war against Poland. This decision was dictated by the desire to incorporate Vilno into Lithuania and fear of the Red Army standing on Lithuanian borders", and this is what our article states (Lithuania's decision to not join forces with the Poles was dictated by a desire to incorporate the city of Wilno (in Lithuanian, Vilnius) and nearby areas into Lithuania and, to a lesser extent, Soviet diplomatic pressure, backed by the threat of the Red Army stationed on Lithuania's borders). As for his reliablity, while his professional degrees are in chemistry, he has been quite active in the area of history: prepared a series of lectures on "Armored Forces in the War of 1939", " Armored Units of Polish Armed Forces in the West" and "Polish Armored Forces before 1939". Participated in the organization of two historical exhibitions ... Worked on exhibition preparation, commentaries to the documentary films and descriptions for the exhibits and photographs ... prepared and presented series of lectures for the Polish National Alliance in Canada on the most important issues in the history of Poland... He has written numerous articles (101) printed in Poland, Great Britain, Canada and the USA discussing Polish and European history... A member of the editorial board of "Hetman," a historical magazine issued by the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York. He has published articles, edited and translated, and also lectured on military history for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York... as well as in other periodicals. The site cited above contains the list of about 150 articles and 1 book, on subjects of history. I think his reliability is pretty high.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is TV Squad reliable? It's called a weblog, but it seems to be run more like an online newspaper. The TV Squad page says

"Eventually a core group of bloggers for the site was realized, with several other WIN bloggers contributing on an irregular basis. TV Squad currently has approximately 17 regularly contributing bloggers. As with most other WIN blogs, TV Squad has editorial lead bloggers. These lead bloggers are responsible for activating posts, managing bloggers, assigning features and working with outside media contacts."

Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No because a) they are self-published and the only self-published sources that qualify are from leading experts and b) we have no way of knowing that they check their facts. WP:V and WP:RS are actually quite clear on this - the disputes occur when people try to argue their way around the rules (or even worse claim that there aren't any actual rules to begin with). MartinDK 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They have an editor, and the "bloggers" are paid. Also, they do not allow any interaction between marketers and bloggers. Basically it's a newpaper, except it's online, and the reporters are called bloggers. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not buying it. The site specifically states that anything written is the opinion of the individual blogger and not the site it self. So I ask again: how do we know that they check their facts? MartinDK 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Google news recognizes them as a news source. - Peregrine Fisher 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They state that they don't control the opinions of their writers. I don't think newspapers are supposed to tell their reviewers what to say either. Do newspapers say a review is the opinion of the newspaper, or of the writer? I think it's the writer. As far as checking their facts, they have a supervising editor and and assistant editor. How do we know newspapers check their facts? It seems like we rely on the fact that they have an editorial staff. I don't frequent this page much, so maybe we have some good way of evaluating editorial staffs. That would be cool. Otherwise it seems like a paid editorial staff should be what we're looking for. TV Squad's parent company was started by Mark Cuban, and they're owned by AOL now, so it's serious business, not some fly by night website. - Peregrine Fisher 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go. A reliable source talking about it [32]. That should help us decide. - Peregrine Fisher 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked this question above and didn't get much of a response. I have researched it some more and I believe TV Squad is a reliable source for television information, but they use the word blog so I'd like help making a determination. They're a part of Weblogs, Inc., like Engadget. This National Business Review article says about Engadget "If that sounds like a magazine, it should. Although it looks like a blog and acts like a blog, Engadget is a webzine (web-based magazine) dressed up like a blog." It says of Weblogs, Inc., "the content areas are covered by people who treat content production as a job." Also, that "An expert writes alone or in conjunction with others about a "hot" topic (gadgets, say), links to outside material and solicits feedback from the readership." They describe the system as "artificially-viral" and as a "blog-like, content-specific, web-only publication." TV Squad is indexed by google news. According to the Weblogs, Inc. site, they're "bloggers" are paid, they have a team of editors, and have a clear separation between advertising and editors. Their also part of AOL now. Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor is contesting Variety, a trade paper for the Hollywood industry, as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film). While I am not arguing for the article to be kept, the editor does not believe that the information at the Variety article (seen here) is credible. Variety has been a completely acceptable resource per reliable source criteria, and I am having difficulty explaining to the editor that this is the case. His reason is that if it does not come directly from the studio, it does not count. I am completely positive that Variety is acceptable and have incorporated its information at Dragon Ball Z#Live-action film adaptation, but I'd like independent opinions to show the editor that Variety is acceptable. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet external sources are not everything, every media can have its weakness, and in the context of the Dragon ball movie there has been so many bogus reports, that just a website is not enough. Fox has never confirmed the Variety report, and considerig the mass of fake reports about the DB movie, there is not enough reliability in it. Folken de Fanel 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Folken's comment, Variety is not "just a website". It is a trade paper, and the article in question has been published offline. Certainly, there have been bogus reports about details of the Dragon Ball Z film (see such reports here), but there is no reason to doubt the credibility of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Folken has not made a case to dispute the two. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed the Hollywood Reporter, which contains actual quotes from Fox employees. Which is not the case in the Variety article, which is, in absence of any concrete element, not a reliable source. Folken de Fanel 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can an independent editor weigh in on the validity of Variety as a source of verifiable coverage about this project? By all counts, Variety is a published, third-party source, and its mention of the project ought to qualify. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Variety is about as solid a source as you can get for potential new movies. I think though, this is a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. Movies get announced, cancelled, reborn, etc all the time in Hollywood. I'm still waiting for the ADV live action Evangelion.... Kyaa the Catlord 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dkosopedia is in about two dozen articles where it should not be.

The site flunks WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" and "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." THF 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is so subjective as to be meaningless. Given that it's linked on every page of DailyKos suggests it has a lot of editors. As for providing information beyond what a FA would have, I looked at a few, and they might fit the bill, with staff listings and phone numbers, etc. FA status doesn't seem to guarantee uniform comprehensiveness. ← Ben^B4 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This wiki has no NPOV policy, or rather, has a POV policy that says The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take. I would consider it a partisan site, so I would be cautious about what articles it was an EL in, especially in BLP articles. - Dean Wormer 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Blumenthal wrote what certainly appears to be a fact piece in Salon.com. [33] [34] An editor called it an opinion piece and removed it. Is it reliable? ← Ben^B4 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is an opinion piece that is based on fact. Since Blumenthal is a noted journalist who specializes in politics, and Salon.com is a notable e-magazine, it certainly fits as a reliable source... but I would phrase any statements based on the piece with direct attribution, as in: "According to journalist Sidney Blumenthal..." Blueboar 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. An opinion cannot be asserted as fact, and needs to be attributed to the person that forwards it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what is being extracted from it. If you are using the article as a source for "X said Y on date t", then it probably does not need to be prefaced with "Blumenthal reports". Any interpretation ("X said Y, therefore B lied about WMD", for example) must be prefaced with Blumenthal's name. On a side note, the moment I saw this article I knew it would be up at RS/N before too long.re Hornplease 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not quitel so clear cut, Hornplease... For example, if there is debate over whether X actualy did say Y on date t, then what any reporter says on the matter is more opinion than fact. Better to attribute such, even when not strictly needed. Blueboar 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is disputed in reliable sources, of course. Otherwise I would be doubtful of the necessity. Hornplease 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch considered a Reliable Source?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering whether the Russell Blaylock article should mention that the three publications mentioned in the article as being associated with Dr. Blaylock are all listed as "unreliable" by QuackWatch. See discussion on the Talk page. NCdave 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else is hazarding any guesses, I'll try to answer my own question. I see that QuackWatch is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. So my tentative guess is "yes," QuackWatch is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Agreed? NCdave 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is more of a "yes... but". The wikipedia article on Quackwatch is very clear that it does not have any peer review, and you could argue that it falls under the category of "Self Published". However, the site has received enough attention and recognition by the medical community to move it into a category of reliability beyond most self published sites. Its opinions have become notable. My call... it can be used for statements of opinion (as in: "according to Dr. Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch, 'blah blah blah'<cite to quackwatch>"), but should not be relied on for statements of fact. Blueboar 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would second Blueboar's call. There is a definite POV associated with them, but they do have some legitimacy within the medical profession. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! NCdave 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a double post. It was already posted at Fringe Theory Notice Board however I believe the root of the problem is a lack of proper sources. See Admin Fringe Notice Board for more info or comments. -- FR Soliloquy 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FR Soliloquy, just to clarify something for you... neither this page nor the Fringe theories/Noticeboard page are Admin pages. They are simply advice pages, mostly monitored by regular editors who have worked on the related guideline/policy pages and want to help others. I have modified your comment to reflect this.

That does not answer your concern about the Water fuel cell page, however. Could you be more exact as to the problem you see? Blueboar 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Artikalflex has recently inserted new text, critical of William Wilberforce into the article, and backed it up with references to this essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf To most of the other editors on this article, this seems to have rather a polemic tone, and whilst the essay seems superficially well-referenced (including references to sources already used in our Wilberforce article) two major issues have already been identified which bring its overall status into doubt. There is are significant factual errors in identifying Paul Foot as the son (actually nephew) of Michael Foot who is claimed to be a former British Prime Minister (actually Leader of the Opposition). A large section of the essay is also devoted to Wilberforce's purported treatment of a supposed Agnes Bronte. The website from which these claims originate http://freespace.virgin.net/pr.og/agnes.html appears to be a fairly obvious spoof. Adam Hochschild is also widely quoted in the essay, however, an online article written by him, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml , whilst somewhat critical is far more balanced in tone, suggesting the possibility of selective quoting for this and other references used. Finally, the essay is to all intents and purposes self-published, the actual author is not clearly identified. Personally it appears to me that this source is far from reliable in our terms. Views? David Underdown 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment of the essay at Afrikanliberationdaylondon.com. While the essay is sourced, the host site is clearly a "Self-Published" site by our standards, and thus not reliable. Given that you have other sources that discuss some of the same material, I think you should go with those. Blueboar 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion may be somewhat moot since Artikalflex is no longer wishing to cite the essay. However, for multiple reasons, (including the inclusion of the Agnes Bronte story which suggests it is not well-researched) I would agree that the essay is not a reliable source of information, for Wikipedia purposes. -- Slp1 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Artikalflex

this is the section of text i want to enter

Abolition of Slavery

After the abolition of the slave trade, William Wilberforce was not immediately concerned with the abolition the Slavery. Britain heavily depended on the suffering of Africans to sustain their economy, the love of money generated from the Slave plantations continued to overshadow a collective sense of morality. During this time, even the Church of England’s morality was in limbo as Bishops were still allowed to purchase slaves and the Church still owned slave plantations. Wilberforce’s morality also came into question as he advocated that the whipping of slave should not stop, but instead, the slaves should only be whipped at night. ^[1]

Slave Plantation owners now became concerned with where they were going to get their new slaves from. Wilberforce had no objections to his colleagues who recommended that African people be bred like animals, as a substitute to boosting the African population in the lave Plantations. Thus subjecting, Africans to more trauma and rapes. ^[2]

Mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch an anti-slavery society in 1823, 16 years after the abolition of the slave trade. The formal name of the organization was the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery which was more commonly known as the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) in 1823. SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for at least 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’.

In the light of an increasing frequency of slave revolts and growing public contempt, in May 1830, SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery. ^[2]

these paragraphs are well referenced from the books

Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild 2005 p.314, Hart 2006 p.3, Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams 1944 p.182

David Underdown has been continually complaining about ...

Issue 1: reference to a polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf

Yes it is a polemic essay, but that has no bearing on the credibility of the passages which are referenced in books written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister.

Issue 2: fault finding in the polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf.

To add credibility to David Underdown mission he complains about some parts of the essay which i have not referenced at all, Wilberforce's relations to a prositute. David Underdown has concentrated his efforts on disproving something which i have not referenced. With an attitude like David Underdown we could all discredit the bible by saying it took longer than 7 days to create the world or the world is more than 20,000 years old. [David Underdown|David Underdown]] please refrain from using such a juvenile attitude.

Issue 3: references are week ie. http://www.sturgetown.com/sturge.html

David Underdown has not made any formal complaint about this reference.

Issue 4: "seems superficially well-referenced (including references to sources already used in our Wilberforce article)" by David Underdown

What makes my references superficial? I have not changed the context in which the references were written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister. Have you claimed ownership over the essay,? thats a bit polemic, anti-Wiki and undemocratic.

Issue 5: Use http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml as a reference, written by Adam Hochschild.

You have already used that article, i am happy for you and i hope no one forced you to use that article. i chose to use Adam Hochschild book as a reference instead. How can you have a problem with that in our democratic land of freedom?

Artikalflex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Stone is a vanity page StaticElectric 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is no page with that name.... irrelevant. But this would not be the place to complain about it. Blueboar 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a better place on the list of reporting pages. StaticElectric 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy deleted-- Slp1 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct ways to report this are to use the {{ db-bio}} template to tag it as a page about a non-notable person (if as in this case it really make absolutely no assertion of notability and is eligible for speedy deletion), WP:PROD to propose that the page be removed if it is not eligible for speedy deletion but not worth much discussion, or use the full WP:AFD process if the prod is contested. — David Eppstein 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My specific concern is with videos hosted on Youtube, but the same principle applies to any hosted source. I'm currently citing videos like these as sources about the filming of the Harry Potter movies. The actual video (whose copyright status on Youtube is very dubious!) is a documentary by Grenada television which, of itself, is a highly reliable source (exclusive access to backstage footage, interviews with cast, crew, directors, etc). It is clearly presented verbatim on Youtube and as such essentially Youtube merely acts as an archive. Is there any reason why Youtube being the host makes it an unreliable source? I know WP:SPS but this would seem not to be applicable since it's not really self published. Happy- melon 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say you can certainly cite to the original video (citation should be to the original as well... listing Granada as the "Publisher" or what ever)... so the question becomes, can you use the version hosted on Youtube as a "convenience link". That depends on the copywrite status. Blueboar 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the copyright status of the video is Youtube's problem, not ours. The only consideration is that if the video is not in copyright it is more likely to be removed, causing linkrot. Thankyou for the reassurance though. Happy- melon 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope... it is our problem as well. See: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Why not just cite the original video and not bother with the link to youtube. Avoids all problems Blueboar 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh.... well you learn something new every day, don't you! I'd better change my links (fortunately they're on a project subpage atm). Any suggestions as to which cite template to use? I had been using {{ cite web}} but that requires a URL. Happy- melon 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the templates... I prefer manual citations of the <ref>citation info</ref> form. Templates force you into a format that does not always fit. Blueboar 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I just get a second and third opinion on this. This webpage was being used a source in Jacques Lacan - specifically the criticism section. It was added by User:MarkAnthonyBoyle [35]. That webpage is an abstract for a book which hasn't been published - so as far as I can see this aint reliable in WP's terms. This page is also used - I consider this to be a self-published review and therefore not a reliable source. The third source I'm questioning is International Network of Freud Critics whose "intent is to broadcast relevant information about the fabrications, the lies, and the disinformation of the Freudians". That statement alone makes me dubious but I can find no peer-review or editorial systems on the site - it is also obviously partisan (but that seems no longer to be in violation of the WP:RS guideline). In summary I think these links fail WP:RS but I wanted to bring this to a wider forum for discussion. Any views?-- Cailil ^talk 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This does appear to be a self published source. If it is actually an abstract of a published work, then the published work should be cited, with the web page as a convenience link. Is this person a recognized expert with other publications in this area of expertise? Do his opinions reflect a significant viewpoint? That might make it usable, as long as third parties are not defamed. - Dean Wormer 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well as far as I can see there is no book. Filip Buekens has one book in dutch (Title translates roughly as "People are intentions") and he has a paper criticizing Lacan's use of metaphor but the content of this abstract is yet to be published as far as I can see.-- Cailil ^talk 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Astonishing. Yes I suppose I was borderline incivil, it was early in the morning when I woke up to find that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters had deleted criticism with tag lines such as <start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms">, <clean up rambing and personalistic rants> and <rm rant that is cited only to blogs> Sorry if I took his good natured chiding for something else. In the process of his editing he removed the following: (diff) (hist) . . Jacques Lacan‎; 20:19 . . (-436) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms" added by anon)

“In psychoanalitic practice charging a full fee for a 5-minute session (varying of the length of the sessions) is considered un-ethical because there are other ways to confront the client with sticking to the same material. In Lacan's biography written by Roudinesco it is told that during sessions Lacan sometimes got his hair cut and received pedicures “(p. 391) ^[3] .

This reference is a quote from Richard D. Chessick, M.D., Ph.D. (google scholar 212 articles) From a book review A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique by Bruce Fink professor of psychology at Duquesne University. The review was published online at The American Journal of Psychiatry, which claims “According to ISI’s Journal Citation Report, The American Journal of Psychiatry has an impact factor of 7.16, which ranks it 2nd among 87 journals in psychiatry. The Journal is 1st among psychiatric publications in total citations, with nearly 30,000 citations per year.”

. Jacques Lacan‎; 20:40 . . (-1,325) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (clean up rambing and personalistic rants) In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superficial erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand
Lost the following elucidation: “(e.g., confusing irrational numbers and imaginary numbers). Richard Webster is strongly critical of Lacan's ideas, invoking the phrase "the cult of Lacan." ^[4]”

Filip Buekens (Aalst, Belgium, °1959) is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Tilburg University. He studied linguistics and philosophy at the universities of Leuven (Belgium) and Cologne (Germany) and obtained his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1991 on the philosophy of language, mind and action of Donald Davidson, on whose work he published two monographs. His current research interests are the interface of semantics and pragmatics, truth-conditional semantics and Gricean reasoning about meaning. He (sometimes) defends a position known as minimalist semantics. He has also published on analytic metaphysics and formal ontologies in medicine, issues in the philosophy of action (attempts, deontic logic) and has written two books on the foundations of analytic philosophy and the nature of reference. He is currently working on a long-term project on the structure, content and value of truth and the metaphysical nature of experiences. Recently he undertook an excursion into psychoanalysis and its role in the history of postmodernist thought. His key publications include: Buekens, F. (1994), 'Externalism, Content, and Causal Histories', in Dialectica 1994 (48), p. 267-286; Buekens, F., W. Ceusters, G. De Moor (1997a), 'TSMI: a CEN/TC51 Standard for Time Specific Problems in Healthcare Informatics and Telematics', in International Journal of Medical Informatics 46 (1997), 87-101; Buekens, F. (1997b), 'A Decision Procedure for Von Wright's OBS-Calculus', in Logique et Analyse 149 (1995), 43-55; Buekens, F. (2001b), 'Essential Indexicality and the Irreducibility of Phenomenal Concepts', in Communication and Cognition 34, 75-97; Buekens, F. (2005b), 'Pourquoi Lacan est-il si obscur?' in M. Borch-Jacobson & J. Van Rillaer (eds.), Livre Noir de la Psychanalyse, Paris: les arenas, 2005, pp. 269-278 (also translated in Italian and Spanish and chinese) Buekens, F. (2005a), 'Compositionality, Abberrant Sentences and Unfamiliar Situations', in Edouard Machery, Markus Werning, and Gerhard Schurz (Eds.), The Compositionality of Meaning and Content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience. Series: Linguistics & Philosophy, 2, Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp. 83-103

Filip Buekens of Tilburg University has made several studies of Lacan's work and concluded "on the basis of a careful analysis of texts of Lacan, his followers (‘Orthodox Lacanians’) and his interpreters in France and elsewhere (‘Interpreters’), that what they claim and defend is based on fallacious arguments, equivocations, intellectual bluff-poker and a consistent abuse of concepts from other sciences. The result is an intellectual charade."[ [36]][ [37]]"Lacan is a philosophical charlatan, and not just because he tried to turn a pseudo-science (psychoanalysis) into a ‘science of the subject’."[ [38]].

Professor R.C. Tallis claims that he was a psychopath who, "listened to no truths other than those which confirmed his own hypotheses...he projected not only his own theories on madness in women but also his own fantasies and family obsessions". "His lunatic legacy also lives on in places remote from those in which he damaged his patients, colleagues, mistresses, wives, children, publishers, editors, and opponents—in departments of literature whose inmates are even now trying to, or pretending to, make sense of his utterly unfounded, gnomic teachings and inflicting them on baffled students."[ [39]]

RC Tallis, MA, MRCP, FRCP, F MedSci, DLitt, was Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 55 articles on pubmed (PubMed, available via the NCBI Entrez retrieval system, was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), located at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).) 13 citations on Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Guest speaker at The Royal College of Physicians,

Article is about 5400 words, do you think there may be room for some balance in the interests of NPOV? Or perhaps we should start a POV fork? MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • MarkAnthonyBoyle, nobody is casting aspersions on the qualifications of any of these scholars. The matter is simple. The sites you link to don't measure up to wikipedia's standard for what is a reliable source. If you can access Buekens article criticizing Lacan's use of metaphor then go ahead and use that - becuase these webpages are all self-published and therefore not reliable sources. I will remind you, now for the second time that wikipedia is not a soapbox - please re-read WP:TALK to see how to correctly use a talkpage. The above post was also added verbatim by MarkAnthonyBoyle to Talk:Jacques Lacan-- Cailil ^talk 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, I suggest you have a quick look at the post I put on User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters page. I simply do not understand why you consider criticism of Lacan or Freud from highly respected scholars in those fields to be soapboxing, other than that they hold a different view to yours. I think these short quotes are concise, and provide NPOV balance. MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark I'm glad you and Lulu are working together productively. Again the problems above are not the scholars or the criticism or their views. Comments like "Article is about 5400 words, do you think there may be room for some balance in the interests of NPOV? Or perhaps we should start a POV fork?" are not-constructive and are soapboxing. That said I do see that the issue has moved on and I hope that you and Lulu improve the article. I consider this issue to be resolved now-- Cailil ^talk 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on [40] where one admin Jossi is of the opinion that High court order cannot be considered as Neutral source of information and Newspaper article is not a verifiable source of information. Request input from other experienced wikipedia user's to give their input as if a High court order is considered Neutral WP:NPOV or not, also can a national newspaper article be used as a verifiable source of information ? Rushmi 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rushmi has grossly misrepresented the issue here. He states that he simply wants to know if a court order and a newspaper article can be used as sources. What he fails to disclose is that the newspaper article in question was ruled defamatory by a trial court, and that the court order has nothing to do with the article topic itself, but is about a jurisdictional/procedural issue about whether or not an individual can sue for defamation if a group they belong to has been defamed (and the higher court held "yes"). -- Renee 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My Question is same, we are not to discuss the neutrality of court judgement, is a court judgement a neutral WP:NPOV Reliable WP:RS or not ? Is wikipedia considered a place where neutrality of a court order is questioned ? Same goes with National newspaper article. Is an article published in a national newspaper article considered as varifiable and reliable source of information or not. Rushmi 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in the abstract, and not about this particular article... court judgments are considered Reliable Sources for statements of fact about what they say, but not for statements of broader interpretation of what the judgment means. Newspaper articles in general are certainly considered reliable sources, but whether a specific newpaper article is reliable depends on circumstances. As far as NPOV goes... sources don't have to be neutral, but any statements you wish to make in a wikipedia article that are based upon the sources them do have to written with NPOV in mind.

Now applying all of this to the article in question ... What seems to be the key here is whether all of this is actually relevant to the article topic. Remember that not every pov or fact needs to be included in a given article (see: WP:NPOV#Undue Weight). It actually sounds as if there is some OR going on... assuming that the court judgement and the newspaper article all relate directly to the topic of the article. Blueboar 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently, a feature article by Debbie Nathan appearing in Counterpunch was challenged as an unreliable source in a biographical article. The article is factual journalism, not editorial content, and the challenger has not stated specific concrete objections to the article, since there may be BLP issues. Nathan is a feature writer for New York Magazine, as well as a published author. I don't personally see the sourcing problem, but I respect the editor who's raising the objection, so I wanted to get the views of more editors. -- Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading CounterPunch, I'm not really sure if they're really a reliable source. They have an editorial staff of two people, with the intent to bring "stories that the corporate press never prints". Just my .02 though Corpx 06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of their articles, they write from the partisan fringe position that thinks the Democrats are insufficiently liberal. That fringe really exists, but it is very much a minority position. Using Counterpunch as a source is likely to suffer from WP:UNDUE problems if not handled carefully. As Corpx pointed out, they don't have a great depth of review in the editorial department, and the combination of lesser review, a muckraking attitude, and a strong political bias makes them somewhat suspect as a source. GRBerry 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is this an article where that bias towards the left makes a sufficient difference? I'm not that sure. Hornplease 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, CounterPoint published a feature story from Debbie Nathan, a mainstream journalist ( New York) and author. Her work has also appeared or been referenced in Slate, Gawker, and other publications. My view is that the distinction between a news article and editorial content is important in determining whether the source is reliable, and, in this case, Nathan's article is not advocating a political position, but covering her subject in more depth & with a more critical eye. It's a crime story, and none of those involved are "political people," for lack of a better term. The slant of the publication would be more important if we were referencing its editorials rather than its factual articles. -- Ssbohio 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder. Counterpunch is of course a muck-racking, if highly informed, minor netmag, but it has actually proved far more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post on the Iraqi war. It is for example perhaps the only Western newspaper to have a Western reporter in Iraq who doesn't rely on field informants, but risks his neck to travel all over the country and provide eye-witness accounts of local conditions. The NYTs and many others, as far as I know, have given up on this as too high a risk for their inhouse professionals. It specializes in publishing things that the major news outlets ignore. It is certainly a better source than Fox News, or any corporative media operation controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Both those middle-of-the-road centralist and unquestionably reliable sources, as defined by fame and print-run I suppose, had to backtrack, apologize, release staff writers, and generally readjust much of their editorializing when it came out that very little, if any of their reporting, proved to be reliable. Judith Miller got into hot water for proving to be a handy syphon for administration officials deliberately seeding false information on Saddam's arms. Most of the usually unquestioned 'reliable sources' in the newspaper world have terrible records both for accuracy and reliability in that extensive period. We still cite these as 'reliable sources' and worry the death over Counterpunch. I don't think it matters much where a comment appears, as long as the person quoted or writing has a very good track record as a serious and attentive analyst. I don't read many Counterpunch articles, but usually one a day is written by a very good inside source, or analyst with a proven track record and high academic or career standing, to warrant close reading. This is of course, and will remain, a minority view. Nishidani 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: In this case, the article appeared in the print version of Counterpunch, not the online version. Because the print version is sold by subscription, a lot of their "best" articles don't appear in the Web version at all. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the author of this piece, Debbie Nathan, has a very good reputation as a journalist and is something of an expert, having written a book on the same subject. -- Ssbohio 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did some further research... Debbie Nathan is particularly reputable on the topic of this article, child sexual abuse, having written a book on the subject that's been published by a major house. The book, Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, is well-regarded by reviewers such as Philip Jenkins, Prof. Robert A. Baker, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Women's Review of Books, The American Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Nation, and the Brisbane, Australia Sunday Mail. It is considered a seminal work on the topic. It is required reading in Prof. Cecil Greek's graduate seminar in the University of South Florida's college of criminology. I believe that Nathan is a bona fide specialist in this field. Considering the evidence, how does that affect her reliability as a source? Please let me know what you think of the critical and academic opinions of Nathan and her work on this topic. -- Ssbohio 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Nathan is a credible source, but not someone who is so reliable that the editorial practices of the publication don't need to be looked at as well. Yes, Nathan mitigates in favor of inclusion. Counterpunch mostly mitigates against. The compromise reached on the article (Which was Justin Berry, btw) seems to me sensible - include the information, but source it explicitly in the text to Counterpunch. In the case of more inflammatory or negative information, however, that position needs to be re-evaluated. As the policy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Phil Sandifer 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I would appreciate if some mods would look at and advise/vote per the reasons given by some posters for keeping the world public speaking championships... they seem partisan and nonsensical. cheers. JJJ999 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is canvassing, and this isn't really the proper place to ask about this... it isn't really a question about reliable sources, but about comments on an AfD. Blueboar 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Ars Technica a usable source for IT and technology related news? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars is the main source. I asked here but got no response, so wanted to be bold and cross-check. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 06:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the site is a mix of e-Zine (considered reliable) and a blog (not considered reliable). I looked to see if the site contained any sort of statement that would tell me the degree of editorial oversight that occurs. Unfortunately, I did not find such a statement (that does not mean they don't have oversight... it just means that we don't know if they do or not). Certainly we can not include the "readers comments" that go along with the articles... so the question centers on the articles themselves. Do the contributers have a reputation for accuracy in IT journalism? What is the reputation of the web site? These are all questions that have to be asked, and without knowing the answers I can not say if the site is reliable. It probably also depends on what you are trying to cite it for. Blueboar 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that they have a good reputation, as they are often cited. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a prolific reader of IT sites and holder of a BSc(Hons) in Computer Science I can say that many of Ars Technica's articles, particularly on CPU technology, have a higher than average quality in their class. By 'their class' I mean commercial non-academic sites, because you cannot, of course, compare an IT site, or a newspaper, or an encyclopedia, with academic sources. If the question is whether Ars Technica can be cited in Wikipedia (which is non-academic), my answer is a loud yes. Note that at least one Ars technica editor has had PhD training (albeit, IIRC, not in CS). NerdyNSK 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Final question... is someone objecting to using it? (if so, why?) If not, I would say be BOLD and use it. If someone objects later, you can always revisit the issue. Blueboar 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on a brief perusal of the site, it's my belief that we can use the content from the "news" and "articles" sections as reliable sources (as it appears those sections are all editorially reviewed), but not from the "journals" area (which hosts more informal blog-style posts from the writers). JavaTenor 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the US, so, I'm not terribly familiar with this publication. It's article Daily Mail, describes it as a tabloid, so, I think it's somewhat dubious. As do others. I'd really love to get some opinions, particularly, from other editors, more familiar with this publication, as to if the Daily Mail is a reliable source, that we can use at Man vs. Wild. Presently, it is being used as a reference. SQL^{( Query Me!)} 03:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious does not equate to unreliable. I would be inclined to double check anything cited to the Daily Mail, and see if I could find a better source... but the paper does fall on the reliable side of the line (just). Blueboar 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The things sourced from the Daily Mail for Man vs. Wild seem acceptable. The same basic story is being reported from several outlets. Someone already pointed this out on the Talk page of the article: The Daily Mail is one of many dozens of papers that have carried the stories. Even the NYT has carried it. This is not as difficult to decide as a report that Person X has used drugs or embezzled money, where we would be looking for ironclad editorial scrutiny, something more likely to be found at NYT than the Daily Mail. EdJohnston 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a minor debate going on within WP:PW about whether or not pwinsider.com, which, from the notice I got when I went to save this page the first time, is blacklisted currently, really is a reliable source or not. We aren't sure if this is a peer reviewed, neutral, and scholarly site or not. Some say that it amounts to a dirtsheet, others say that it is a reputable, secondary or third party source. I figured that it would be a good idea leave this up to the pros at this noticboard. Peace, The Hyb rid 05:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is blacklisted, I would say it is not considered a reliable source. Do we know why it was blacklisted? Blueboar 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting just means it was being spammed. In this case, I know little about the subject, but two things make me skeptical of its reliability. First, I'm just skeptical of any site that assaults me with that much advertising. Second, the stories of theirs I loaded are all repubs of stories that are posted elsewhere, and so I tend to suspect that we could just go to the original source and cite that instead. Phil Sandifer 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, this site IS the original source for the most part. That's why I believe it's a useful site. Mshake3 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Within past edits of the Henry K. Beecher article, there were allegations medical ethics abuses: namely CIA experimentation and continuation of Nazi research. These claims seem to be based upon two sources. There is an ongoing conversation between another editor and I on whether these fit WP:V criteria, and I was hoping if people could comment:

1. A German-language documentary: Koch, Egmont R.: Folterexperten-Die geheimen Methoden des CIA (English: Torture Experts - The Secret Methods of the CIA), TV-Documentary in German Televison SWR about secret CIA-prisons in post-war Germany, 9th July 2007, Showing original CIA-documents which have been released recently.
2. Presumably recently declassified CIA documents: Beecher, Henry K. Top Secret Control, (SD-34990). Harvard Medical School, Boston/Massachusetts for Colonel John R.Wood, Department of the Army, 10/21/1951, National Security Archives.
3. Of note, I could not find these declassified documents on several searches. However, the other editor ( Rfortner ( talk) has stated that these should be available upon request from the documentary producers, for which he has contact information for. Would this violate WP:NOR?

Djma12 ^{( talk)} 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

when citing non-English material, it is reasonable to provide an English transcription. It does not have to be a published one, because the veracity can be checked by comparing with the original. But unpublished documents in archives cannot be directly cited--however a reputable TV documentary is considered a RS, and if it refers to the documents, that can be stated. It is of course subject to contradiction or criticism from other sources--the way to go is to look for published comments on that program and insert those references also. DGG ( talk) 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please comment on the Archaeology section in the Ebionites article and the source document, Buried Angels, that supports that section. The source document claims to report on archaeological research published in an Italian journal in the chapter on Archaeology. I have concerns that Jacob Rabinowitz is more of an armchair commentator than a biblical scholar, since the "book" is self-published on the Web. I would like to get the broader perspective of editors that have not been working on the article.

1. Is Jacob Rabinowitz for real as a scholar or is he simply recycling the research of scholars?

2. Is the source sufficiently well researched that it supports what is claimed in the article?

3. Even if Rabinowitz is not a real scholar, is the reporting of research that is otherwise only available in Italian a valuable resource for the article?

4. There is no other published archaeological evidence claiming to support the existence of the Ebionites. Is this "fringe research"? Is Rabinowitz making "fringe claims" based on the research of others?

Thanks for looking into this. Ovadyah 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanity press, not reliable. ← Ben^B4 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a vanity press (sells teeshirts more than books)... Possibly reliable if directly attributed to Mr. Rabinowitz... but that depends on whether he is considered an expert on the subject or not. Blueboar 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the questions we need to resolve. Is he an expert or not. Ovadyah 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabinowitz is the owner of Invisible Books online publishing company, so this work is self-published. Ovadyah 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been able to determine that Rabinowitz has a Ph.D. from Brown University and is listed as an independent scholar. Here is a list of his prior publications: publications

Jacob Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz, Jacob) Catullus's Complete Poetic Works by Jacob Rabinowitz and Gaius Valerius Catullus Softcover, ISBN  0882142208 (0-88214-220-8) The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, Continuum Intl Pub Group, ISBN  0882141171 (0-88214-117-1) Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions by Jacob Rabinowitz Hardcover, Bloch Pub Co, ISBN  0819701734 (0-8197-0173-4) Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, A K Pr Distribution, ISBN  157027035X (1-57027-035-X) The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Early Kingdom Period by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, ISBN  1570270155 (1-57027-015-5)

He is described in several websites as a practicing neo-pagan. One website has examples of his original poetry:

Here are some poems by Jacob Rabinowitz, another Neo-Canaanite. I thought they were so powerful that i asked his permission to have them here.

Jake is the author of several interesting books including: The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology, The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Kingdom Period, and his great book on Hecate, The Rotting Goddess: the Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity The last two are published by Autonomedia.

Canaanite Poems by Jacob Rabinowitz

Does anyone have more opinions on his scholarship and the online book Buried Angels? Ovadyah 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further responses to the above question would be greatly appreciated. Also, it would be useful if there were any assertion of notability of his works, such as perhaps receiving substantive reviews. I shall look into that, at least in a beginning manner, this evening. John Carter 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious conversion and terrorism was an article that was deleted after an {{ afd}} a few months ago.

I am considering initiating a full deletion review, because I thought the {{ afd}} procedures followed did not conform to policy. I'll try to talk about the procedural flaws as little as possible here.

I asked for temporary content review and userification. The major complaint of the wikipedian who nominated the article was that the article was unreferenced. But they made this nomination after deleting all the references, and I thought at least some of those references were perfectly valid. And, after the nomination, they kept removing good-faith attempts to introduce new, valid references.

The first reference the artle referenced was published in the Toronto Star in 2004, entitled: "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". A link to the online version of this article was provided when the article was first written. It seems to have expired, or otherwise gone 404 by March of 2007. Here is my first question. If a reference cites the publication, the date, the page number, the title, and the byline, then does it remains just as valid a reference as when it was available online? Surely the article is just as authoritative when it is taken down from the newspaper's web-site? With the date, page number, title, etc, doesn't it remain verifiable? In this particular case we have the publication, title, date, but we don't have the page number. Is that all that is lacking to continue to use that reference?

There is another site that seems to have a copy of that article. If the site with the mirror has some kind of claim that the original copyright holder has given them permission to republish the material, it remains a valid reference? Correct? If so, which publication should one list as the publisher? New Yokr Times articles often remain freely available to non-subscribers only for about two weeks. But the New York Times bought the International Herald Tribune a few years ago. So, when we reference the copy of a New York Times article republished by the International Herald Tribune, do we list the NYT or the IHT as the publisher?

How much trust should we extended to republishers, that they formally acquired permission to republish material that has expired from the original publisher's web-site? The Toronto Star article I referred to is mirrored, in full, on the following sites:

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Rotten Tomatoes.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

The two sites mirror the first couple of hundred words.

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". altermedia.info.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". SITE Institute.

Presumably the last two didn't get permission, and think the first hundred words qualifies as "fair use"? The SITE quote actually contains enough material to substantiate that Dhiren Barot was accused of being a terrorist. But policy proscribes using it as a source, correct?

Thanks! Geo Swan 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some pages at the Toronto Star ( [41], [42]) indicate that if an article is reprinted on the web with permission, a particular little icon will appear, the HTML frame is maintained by the Star, a copyright notice appears, etc. The sites listed above don't include those things, so it would seem they didn't get formal permission. However, lots of other info on the guy and on the concept are out on the Web - [43], [44], [45]. Best wishes, Novickas 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. But, what about the question of whether the original reference to the Toronto Star article remains just as verifiable and authoritative after it is removed from the Toronto Star site? Geo Swan 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question was addressed in a Wikipedia Mediation Cabal case [46], and the judgement (issued November 2006) was "If the content is copyrighted and does not have permission to use, Wikipedia can not use it." Novickas 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to have a reference to a mainstream newspaper (such as the Toronto Star) without it being available online. It is not appropriate to 'link' to copyrighted versions that do not have permission, but with the full reference to the article in question, people can go to the library to verify the article if they wish (either on microfiche or via archives such as ProQuest.) The requirement is that citations be from "reliable, third-party published sources" and while it is helpful for verification purposes that they not are verifiable on-line this is not a requirement at all. Thus, to me the Toronto Star article is perfectly acceptable given that title, date, author, page number etc are cited. -- Slp1 19:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact based on Factiva archive search the article is from 2006. Here is the full reference from Factiva. "He embraced Islam, then terrorism; Briton, 34, confesses to murder plot-Conversion may have tempted Al Qaeda" by Sandro Contenta, Toronto Star 16 October 2006 The Toronto Star page A01. -- Slp1 20:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the excellent advice. Geo Swan 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Related -- Referencing the NYTimes

If articles remain verifiable and authoritative after they are no longer available online, so long as we can supply the page number, in addition to the title, publication, date and author, then I have decided I am going to do my best to record the page number of the articles I cite, when they are still online.

The New York Times lists the page numbers of the articles in the current day's issue here. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html

I created a page to track NYTimes citations I have used, or might use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/NYTimes_articles

It's always a good idea to write the most complete citation possible for the day when a link goes dead. FYI, you can usually find dead newspaper links on web.archive.org as well. Dean Wormer 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

1. Saving local copies of articles, on my computer, constitutes fair use?
2. However, if someone questions whether an article that is no longer online supported my summary of what it said, forwarding them my local copy would not constitute fair use. correct?
3. Would there be any value of looking to organize a team of people who tried to maintain a central repository, on the wikipedia, of references, including the page numbers, likely to be commonly used, from publications that expire articles quickly?

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't think that citing the pages numbers is required (though obviously desirable): WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include.... page number(s)." BTW that page also confirms that if an article has actually been printed one can drop the link if it goes dead. [47]
I myself find that citation templates at WP:CITET are very helpful since they encourage the discipline of the adding the citation specifics, so that everything is there in proper form should the link disappear.
On the subject of article reference repositories, do you know about the Resource Exchange Project and the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service? If articles disappear, the folks there should be able to help get the full references and even the articles themselves for people, so a reference bank shouldn't be necessary, I don't think! -- Slp1 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hte answers. So, when the page says drop the link, it means drop the URL? {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} don't like that though, as I recall...

No, I wasn't familiar with Resource Exchange Project and the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service.

Cheers! Geo Swan 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Times to End Charges on Web Site

The above link explains that the NYT is about to stop charging for access to their archives, so it will soon be much easier to link to these sources. Just take a deep breath and wait. It won't be long. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "drop link" means deleting a non-functioning url, and is okay assuming there is enough other info to allow the looking up the article by other means. {{cite web}} won't like it no url, for obvious reasons, but the other ones work fine without one.-- Slp1 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Before "dropping" a link, check with web.archive.org to see if there is an archived version, which there often is with newspaper websites. When the Times switches to free articles, I would guess that a lot of existing URLs will change, so we may have some cleanup to do. Dean Wormer 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Times is doing redirects from the old TimesSelect archive links to the new free versions of the articles, but I agree that it's probably cleaner if we change our links to better ones. No rush, though, unless we get an indication that they're planning to dump the redirects at some point. JavaTenor 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Any indication that other publications will follow? ...and thanks to all for the great info and links in this thread. Flowanda | Talk 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article Dave the Barbarian (character), a user named AKR619 has repeatedly added statements about an alleged relationship between two characters. Supposedly, there was a set of Disney Channel commercials featuring several characters (Lizzie McGuire, Kim Possible and Dave the Barbarian) in a romantic relationship that, according to AKR619, got Disney Channel into a problem with the FCC.

However, I can find no evidence of the incident, nor of the commercials. The statements are unsourced, but supposedly commercials can act as a source. However, I do not remember such commercials, nor can I find any information on them. The user refuses to post any discussion about the relationship, nor discussion of the commercials, nor links to the videos.

I tagged the statements as unsourced material, later removing it after my research came up empty. he then reverted my deletion. Later I deleted it again, posting that unsourced statements should be removed or sourced. His reply was that since it was a commercial, that counts as the source, and reverted my deletion again.

I made an RFC which yielded no reply.

The idea that Disney Channel would do such a thing like this as described seems more than unlikely to me, especially being mainly a children's channel. It also seems unlikely that such a commercial would not come up as a result of extensive internet search. I seek only the truth. ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically all they did was take scenes from the shows and edit them together so they 'worked' for the commercials. Ridiculously non-canon; at best trivia. HalfShadow 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Its up to the user adding info to WP to source it. Unless user:AKR619 can reference the info they're adding using a verifiable WP:RS then its unsourced and has to be removed. Even if this can be sourced it is just trivia like HalfShadow said-- Cailil ^talk 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is not anyone's responsibility to disprove unsourced statements. It is our responsibility to remove them. Verification of information is the responsibility of the editor wishing to include the material. Dean Wormer 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Related problem

The same user recently changed all of the spellings of the character Faffy to Faafy, a spelling that is (a) not used on Disney Channel, (b) not used on the Disney Channel site, (c) is not used in the Closed-Captioning for the show, and (d) returns 9 hits on google (most copies of this article) compared to several thousand for "Faffy". I do not have the time to undo all of these changes. Can someone help please? ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently, with the death of Myra Nicholson, the usage of the World's Oldest People Yahoo Group as a reliable source has risen. Nicholson's death was reported by an expert on the forum and the message was used as a citation on both the Recent Deaths page and Nicholson's own page for over two days until a newspaper report came to light. Robert Young, who runs the forum uses the following justification for his use of the source:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Robert Young is at least an expert enough to have had his page kept (see the deletion debate on the talk page) so his claim basis is that because he is an expert and because he moderates the messages and claims that actually get posted to the forum, the source should be counted under the above criteria. This debate does not just concern the occasional death of someone that is posted there before a news story hits. It is also used:

1. On Ruby Muhammad as the only source to cite the claim that she may have been born in 1907 rather than 1897.
2. On Surviving veterans of WWI (a featured list) as the only source to cite the existence of some of the veterans (Raymond Cambefort, the anonymous French veteran).
3. On many supercentenarian pages to make various claims (but usually not as the sole source).

As a neutral editor, one who could either way with this one. On the pro side, it does provide a lot of useful information that would be difficult, if not impossible to find elsewhere. The site is moderated by an acknowledge expert in the field, who screens every message before it is made available to the public. On the con side, there's concerns about original research (for example, the Ruby Muhammad claim is published nowhere else and is now being used by both Dead or Alive info and Genarians.com to call her age into question). Also, registration is required, which doesn't bar a source from being used, but makes it more difficult for people who don't want to spread their information around on the internet to access what may be the sole source for something.

I have alerted Robert Young about this discussion so that he can come here if he wishes to present his side of the debate. As I said, I don't have a particular opinion on this, but I'm not fond of the edit wars that erupt every time this is used as a source. Let's get an answer once and for all. Cheers, CP 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the comment about accessability to the source should be struck - I can't recall wikipedia caring about how difficult the source is to locate, only that it is verifiable through that source and that the source is 'reliable' meeting the criteria set out in

WP:BLP#Reliable_sources and so on.

• Also I don't have any problems with using posts from the yahoo group, as long as the posts don't constitute original research. What that means to me is that if no solid evidence can be provided then it should be mentioned as a citable claim, rather than a fact, and only then because he's an acknowledged expert. A pillar of wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth, it doesn't matter if articles are altered at a later date because better facts are available. RichyBoy 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll qualify that by saying that original research from an expert shouldn't mean date of death as that is likely to be verified within days anyway; it's more a case of establishing the validity of a claim of birth - I think it needs to be shown that a birth certificate is incorrect or highlighted that a census was missing a name. Not saying the people quoted didn't have those, but to avoid original research on those matters is must be demonstrated, considering that verification could be a long way off. RichyBoy 19:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I need several admins to clarify something so that there's no confusion over the issue, as there seems to be a few people abusing their admin duties. Where exactly in Wikipedia's TOS does it state (with no confusion) that a site which happens to contain pornographic images and/or links to pornographic websites is automatically deemed unreliable as a reference for content? TMZ.com owns the rights to the infamous "Kramer" video, they've watermarked it, and its used as a source on Wikipedia. A site that I'd like to use as a reference has legal fight videos, the site owns all rights to the videos and has also watermarked them with additional details. According to Alexa.com the site in question ranks in the top 5,000 most visited websites in the world. So where in Wikipedia's rules does it state that this site is unreliable as a reference whereas TMZ.com (a celebrity gossip site) is reliable? Playboy.com contains pornography, why can various wiki articles (including those not related to the magazine) use pages of that site as a reference if pornographic sites are thus "unreliable" in the eyes of Wikipedia? It seems that some contributors and admins are creating their own liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Can someone just show me a rule? KimboSlice 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an editor who had serious COI issues and tried to spam his site full of copyvios... he's been blocked indefinitely because of disruption. east. 718 at 01:22, September 25, 2007

This is very generic please be more descriptive about the particular issue at hand. One cannot make and informed decision (well an informed comment really, but it messes with the prose) without information :-) -- UKPhoenix79 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Alcoholics Anonymous article as a criticism that AA offers No Model of a recovered Person this article is given as a citation for the following.

Charlotte Kasl, Phd. Addiction Counsellor ,Author and Past Member of AA asserts. ' 'A search of approved addiction literature of A.A. and Al-Anon provided me with no definition of a healthy, mature "recovered" person. One is always an addict, dependent on groups, and always at the brink of relapse if he or she doesn't follow certain directives and trust external authority.' '

This looks like an opinion expressed by the author, not a result of a quantitative study of AA and Al-Anon literature. If it was, she gives no citation or method of the research. While the article is published what seems to be a reputable magazine, there is no evidence of peer-review for this particular article. As such, what appears to be just the authors opinion isn't relevant encyclopedic content. -- Craigtalbert 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NB, Periodicals are regularly used as a reliable source, even in featured articles. 82.19.66.37 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you call the following two maps reliable: Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920 claims names.png; Image:Border-Lithuania-Poland-1919-1939.svg? The first one cites some, but not all sources. The second one cites no sources, and a possible error has been raised on its discussion page. But both are also broadly correct, and helpful in related articles. Are they reliable or unreliable? Should they stay or be removed?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am at a complete standstill with another editor in the Nobel Prize article regarding reliable sources about whether or not the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize. Could someone please help and give feedback to this discussion? While I believe this is a topic that has a lot of misinformation on the web, it would be helpful if someone else could review this case. You may find it helpful to also read the intro to the Nobel Prize in Economics article. Some definitions of a Nobel Prize are included in the discussion, copied from the Nobel Foundation, another from M-W (listed in a different debate that includes the same editor), etc. There are also references to derived definitions listed in the discussion as well as definitions made up by individual editors. Clearly not all definitions can be correct as they contradict each other. –panda 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently an editor has added information to an article ( Jaclyn Reding) that I'd previously deleted due to the fact that I couldn't find any reliable sources. The information in question being her supposed maiden name. When asking him where he'd gotten the sources and if he could put them in the article he was slightly rude and claimed that he used Ancestry.com to find her parents through a deceased brother and ussearch.com to connect her to her husband. I am wondering what are the reliabilities of these sources? The author is vague on her own website not stating where she was born, what her husband's name is, or if she has any family at all. I hate to get into a conflict with an editor in the first place, but I'm concerned that this borders on original research. I don't want to remove the information without merit because that could escalate this situation into an edit war, which I'd like to avoid so if anybody could shed some light on these two places I'd appreciate it. -- ImmortalGoddezz 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. USSearch cannot be used either, as it would violate WP:NOR. If that information is not available in a secondary published source, we should not put it in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All right that makes sense. Thanks a lot! -- ImmortalGoddezz 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late on this one, but I would disagree. Some of Ancestry.com is user-generated, a great deal is reproductions of primary sources. For example, my name is David Mayall, I was born in England in 1969. If you look for me at Ancestry.com, you will find me. Not as user generated content, but as a transcription of the index of births (a primary source). It is impossible to say whether content from Ancestry is a reliable source without knowing which database it was extracted from. Mayalld 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

requesting comments regarding source's reliability

here - [48].

-- Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, it seems none of the references to The Washington Times actually link to the cited articles on the newspaper website, so the Times reliability isn't yet the issue. Flowanda | Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the article's publication and text have been validated so the first link is the one you should be looking at if you want to go over the entire article (p.s. from camera's quotes we've validated about 46 out of 50 so there's no reason to believe any of them is false). Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has, and I'm sure you're all sincere and diligent, but that doesn't mean the sources meet WP:RS or that the citations will survive once you're not around to protect them (i.e. if you believe that Wikipedia is around for the long haul and that its core policies will prevail). As a casual reader of this article--I'm totally clueless about the subject, btw--I'm not going to dig through all the discussion and the edit histories of the editors involved in this obviously volatile article to figure out who or what is verifiable and believable. Like the majority of readers, I'm going to read the article and if, for some reason, I look or click on the actual links in the citation and end up somewhere else beside the Washington Times, then chances are good the warning bells are going to go off, and I'm going to begin questioning all the facts and everybody's intent.

Do you see what I am getting at? This is not about individual editors or somebody's word, but about doing the hard work now to find rock-solid NPOV facts and sources that keep editors from arguing about this exact same issue 10 years from now, or constant fighting about including equally unverified sources and content. Short term, you may gain exception to use these sources and even list them as Washington Times articles; long term, well, the edits will go away unless they are soundly sourced and can be easily verified and updated as Wikipedia and online archiving improve. If you want this article -- and your edits/sources -- to live beyond you, then source the facts and references strictly to WP:RS, not to prevailing, temporary opinion or current tolerance. Flowanda | Talk 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article claims to be quoting the Washington Times in one of the instances of footnote 25, but the footnote itself cites someone else's web site. And other instances of that footnote don't mention the paper. If you want to source something to a newspaper, source it by stating the article title, newspaper name, and publication date, not by linking to somebody else's page purportedly quoting the paper. It may be ok to include a note saying that parts of the article are quoted on a web site, after the proper citation, but the proper citation needs to be there. As for material sourced in the same footnote to CAMERA but not sourcable to a major newspaper or similar: the WP article on CAMERA states that it takes a non-neutral pov, so its reliability seems dubious for claims beyond "one side of the dispute takes the position that..." — David Eppstein 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede is available without paying for it (preview) and this contains the key claim cited here. When numerous ( [49], [50], [51]) mirror sites have an apparently identical article - and their ideological biases are all over the place - I think it's safe to treat it as a legitimate source. This being said, Paul Martin ("Sayed Anwar") of the Washington Times was very publically, and very credibly, accused of repeated journalistic fraud on CBC Television, an accusation which has not been retracted or, to my knowledge, credibly disputed. That's the real issue. Eleland 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it...I see the problem you're trying to solve, but the citations seem misleading when they go somewhere else other than the website page that's listed...changing the citations to include the actual source and the reasons they're being used would help clarify their use. I also see other ways editors will probably challenge the sources-the sites you listed may have pulled the exact text from the article itself, but they might have all pulled it from altered sources...and if they're not considered reliable sources, there's still no way for readers to easily verify for themselves. And I noticed one of the sites you listed above listed a fair use for research notice at the bottom...do the sources cited in the article have permission/exception to publish the entire Times article on their sites? Flowanda | Talk 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Times article here in WP rings all kinds of alarm bells about this paper - the Rev. Sun Myung Moon founded it in 1982, still owns it, has pumped a $billion and more into it and said he wanted to make it "an instrument to save America and the world."

But there is a second concern so serious that it amounts to a conclusive reason not to use this particular reference (even if we'd accept the Washington Times for this very, very surprising claim). The re-posting of this article (or at least the one used) is on a race-hatred site. It carries a link to an article "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - immediately above this very story! We'd not tolerate sources picked up on David Irving's IHR web-site, and "papillonsartpalace" is substantially worse. PR ^talk 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source, but what about Times opinion column in a BLP (rather a BLC: biography of a living corporation)? I don't think fact checking or editorial oversight apply in those cases and thus I feel uneasy about relying on them as sources. If what they say is accurate, I think it should be easy to find something other than a columnist saying it, in my opinion. My concern is based on what I see at Overstock.com if someone would please take a look and weigh in.-- Wally Ball 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a factual claim made in an opinion column in the New York Times should be usable as a reference. It seems that bsalert.com was removed as a source, which is highly justifiable. But note that there seem to be many other sources with basically the same informatioin. The 'Sith Lord' remark now comes from several places, including the Wall Street Journal (found by googling for overstock.com and 'sith lord'). Apparently Patrick Byrne talked about the Sith Lord during a conference call with financial analysts that was being *recorded*! Truth is stranger than fiction. EdJohnston 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A recent editor on the Exetel page has been citing a number of Wikipedia policies in an effort to force through some of his edits and remove some of the references on the page. Having looked at the policies it seems that what he says does have some merit.

One of the sources used on the page is Boing Boing, a blog site. WP:SPS (cited by this editor) says that blogs are largely not acceptable as sources but may be in some circumstances. As far as I can see Boing Boing doesn't seem to satisfy the requirements for exemption. The editor in question claims that Boing Boing is acceptable because it "used to be a magazine, contains some of the more influential people in technology, and is labeled on Wikipedia as a "publishing entity"". [52] Try as I might I can't find anything to support this claim so my question is, is he right?

Another issue on the page is the use of references that don't directly mention the company. A source used to support a claim that Exetel has implemented a certain policy refers only to "another ISP" but doesn't mention Exetel. [53] The article does link to another article on another website but does that make the first a reliable source for the claim? I know the second is fine (that's the source I'd use) but I'm not sure if the first is OK to use.

Finally, can a forum post be a reliable source? The editor has, for some unexplained reason, got it in his mind that two policies of this ISP are linked and were implemented at the same time and will not take my word for it that one of the policies was implemented in March 2004 and the other was implemented in November 2006. I need to convince him of the facts so the two can be separated on the article's page and the only source I can find is a post from the company CEO on the highly moderated Whirlpool forums. [54] -- AussieLegend 12:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts are definitely not RS. Blogs are dubious in all cases - and in this case, there is undue weight being given to it. PR ^talk 10:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

not so much a matter of WP:RS but WP:UNDUE/ WP:NOTE . After a long and hairy dispute, Persecution of Heathens is now a disambiguation page. Concerning Religious discrimination against Neopagans, a rather short article in spite of detailed treatment of individual cases along the lines of "In 2007, a teacher at Shawlands Academy in Glasgow was denied time off with pay to attend Druid rites ( Pentacle Magazine: I Want Pagan Holidays)". This article has three sub-articles, one at Religious discrimination against Asatru, another at Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and a third at Discrimination against Hellenic neopaganism. In my opinion, this is compeltely unwarranted: these are religious minorities of the order of 0.2% where they are most numerous, and while they do face discrimination, they are not singled out according to their specific denomination. To me, this smells of lobbyist activism, not encyclopedic coverage. In this, I am in deadlock with Liftarn ( talk · contribs), who maintains that each pagan denomination and sub-denomination should get its own "discrimination" article. Third party input is welcome at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans. -- dab (𒁳) 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Different religions - different articles. It's as simple as that. // Liftarn

WP:NOTE would demand that each is established as an independent topic. We don't split Racial segregation in the United States into one article per race, do we? -- dab (𒁳) 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't merge antisemitism and islamophobia do we? // Liftarn

exactly. That's why I am posting this here for review per WP:NOTE: Does discrimination of Wiccans vs. Asatruers refer to separate phenomena in the same sense as Anti-Semitism vs. Islamophibia refers to separate phenomena? 3rd opinions are welcome. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You can propose merging the articles, or nominate one or more of them for deletion on the grounds that they are redundant. I take no position on the correct outcome because I haven't looked at the situation carefully, but that's the process you could follow. Make sure you have a good faith basis to propose those changes, and follow whatever consensus develops. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that nobody but Liftarn and me can be bothered to look into it, and our opinions of mergism are pretty much opposite. I don't know where else to shop for attention, so if nobody can be bothered to even look at this, I guess I'll just accept that this is irrelevant and stop worrying about it. I do not nominate them for deletion because I do not think they should be deleted, just merged. -- dab (𒁳) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All three articles ( Religious discrimination against Asatru, Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and Discrimination against Hellenic neopaganism) are head-lined the same "Religious discrimination against Neopagans" and appear (at a quick glance) to be identical. I'd say they were clearly unloved and ask for an AfD. PR ^talk 08:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS states a reliable source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but how do you prove this? Obviously the major news sources, like NPR, BBC, NYTimes and others are reliable, but would Canadian Content and Policy Review be considered reliable sources? Also, WikiNews is not considered to be a reliable source, is it? Thanks — Christopher Mann McKay ^talk 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Content's "About" page says "An overview of CCIM - Canadian Content is a unique company bringing forth news, entertainment, and knowledge right to your home computer or anywhere in the world you might be. Canadian Content's staff is a highly qualified group of individuals with more than 25 years combined experience in website design and editorial research. We pride ourselves on being Canada's first and foremost website to bring forth controversial topics as well as everything that matters most to Canadians." Avoid using it for anything "surprising", except in cases where it is quoting non-partisan individuals of some standing in society. PR ^talk 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy regarding reporting someone's birthday when there is conflicting information about it. I'm thinking specifically of an actor where there has been at least 2 or 3 different birth dates and/or birth years reported in IMDB, on fan sites, and elsewhere. Should the birthday not be reported or should the one that the majority of sites list be used? It's verifiable, even if it may conflict with info from other sites, and it doesn't seen any particular source is more reliable than another in this case. (IMDB has changed this actor's birth date a few times.) This actor hasn't been in an interview that I know of where they've revealed their birth date and they have no official website. –panda 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither fan sites or IMDB are generally considered reliable sources. You should go with the most "official" or reliable date reported. -- Haemo 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So if all of the sources are IMDB, fan sites, or gossip magazines, would it be best to just not include the birth day/year until a reliable source comes along? I'm not sure what would be considered a reliable source in this case. Would the actor's best friend's website be a reliable source? You would expect that their best friend would have the correct information. –panda 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Teach the controversy: describe in the text of the article the conflicting date information from all sufficiently reliable sources. — David Eppstein 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! –panda 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, because I'm sure this has been asked before, but isn't there a policy that says foreign language news stories cannot be considered reliable on the English wiki? I found an article which references a sensational news story, but all the links are in Dutch. Can I delete these references and request a citation? What is considered appropriate in this case? It's probable that that the news story was not covered by the English language press.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RSUE - official translations are preferred to editors performing their own translations of foreign language sources, but where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source: "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." So no you can't delete and request a citation. A foreign language newspaper is a reliable source if it meets the usual criteria for WP:RS. The article need to be checked for the accuracy of the translation though-- Cailil ^talk 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But how can the average English-speaking user hope to verify the "accuracy of the translation?" If no translator is available to give his/her thumbs up (and how would this approval not be original research?), do we just let the reference stand? Seems unwise.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a big problem. Policy clearly intends that there be translations available, and it continues with a caution against translations provided by involved parties. But on some topics, we find references (sometimes from hate-sites) inserted by edit-warring editors with no translation whatsoever provided. This situation encourages Bad scholarship to drive out Good.

However, in this case, this is a major European language, in the Latin alphabet, and I can understand it well enough to confirm at least some details. Furthermore, the story may be "surprising" but it's not "surprising" if you know what I mean! Find "Babel-Fish" and get an automatic translation if you're still not sure. PR ^talk 09:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? There are many speakers of non-English languages, you can use Babel templates or regional noticeboards and ask for verification that way.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article names two individuals as responsible for the crime. Thus it falls under WP:BLP, which I think demands better sourcing than what we have so far. Since the court inquiries in the Netherlands have only just started, I think a tamer version of this report would be a good choice until reliable sources are obtained that all of us can understand. EdJohnston 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically 1 (also see Talk:Conservapedia). Some users on the Talk page propose that RationalWiki be considered a reliable source on this subject, others disagree. Since this is (apparently) a contentious and politicised issue, I thought I'd see what a wider sampling of editors thought.

Please note that we want to know if RationalWiki is a reliable source for this subject, not whether they're right to criticise Conservapedia or not. I shouldn't have to point this out, but some people get very excited about certain topics. ;-) I'm also not seeking opinion about the general utility of RationalWiki as a reliable source, although feel free to comment on that subject if you want. -- _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal note: I think that RationalWiki having an entire namespace dedicated to Conservapedia, and the above page for "rolling reports of the strange, contradictory or humorous activity at Conservapedia" sounds like the sort of thing we don't want to use in our encyclopaedia. Kinda reminds me of Dirk Van de Moortel's "Immortal Fumbles" page, only with the added bonus of political tension. Far too polemical for my liking. -- _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's contentious about this? currently we have 1 editor who wants to add it, and 9 others who say "nope - policy says it is not a reliable source". Where's the disagreement? -- Fredrick day 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

By "contentious issue", I was referring to the article as a whole (it seems to attract a lot of political vandalism). I think I might've misread some of the comments on the talk as being in support of the addition, a more careful reading supports your count. Still, can't hurt if someone else wants to weigh in! -- _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikis, by their nature, are not considered reliable sources (you have no idea of the expertise of the authors, there is no peer review or editorial oversight, an article can change dramatically from what it was when cited, etc.) So, no... RationalWiki is not a reliable source for anything except an article on RationalWiki itself. The same is true for Conservapedia ... and even Wikipedia. No Wiki should ever be used as a source except in an article about that wiki. Blueboar 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Old newspaper reports (1985 ) are hosted by an anti subject of article site , these copies of mainly SF Chronicle papers and appear with an extreme of bias to me, these copies on the critical website then lead (by click on link) to to further derogatory comment blog and bulletin board posts all derogatory and personal opinion with no further refs , included is a court report by one plaintiff

here is an example the subject is Adi Da a not well known American spiritual teacher

here is a typical lightmind.com link the ( anti Da ) site ,which hosts the newspaper reports from 1985 click on the bottom links to see where they lead , would appreciate a non partisan opinion ( or 2 ) thanks very much

http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html -- 202.63.42.221 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the articles have been altered they should still be reliable. The SF Chronicle is the ultimate source, not the website hosting the articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've checked a newspaper archive ( ProQuest) and the version of the article there matches the version psoted at http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoid anything on a hate-site. We'd not link to David Irving or the Instituted for Historical Review, because his reputation for accuracy is poor, and he's associated himself with groups we suspect of hate. (David Irving has also been jailed for making a nuisance of himself, but few (none?) of his scholarly opponents consider that helpful). PR ^talk 09:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is the SF Chronicle. We don't need the courtesy link to the "lightmind.com" in order to use the Chronicle source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute re the reliability of Asma Barlas's book titled "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an (University of Texas Press, 2002). User:Arrow740 argues that "Barlas has no qualifications as a historian." [55]. This issue was discussed in details without reaching any consensus. Below, I provide the arguments made for reliability of this work:

This book was published by University of Texas press and has received the following reviews:

1.David Robinson in Muslim Societies in African History (Cambridge University Press) says: "For the role of women, start with Asma Barlas' Believing Women in Islam:..."

2. John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."

3.Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin reviewed the book saying: "The book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society. However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."

4. Paul Allen Williams, a professor of Philosophy and Religion in his review of this book says: "Barlas brings a mastery of both Muslim and Western scholarship to her subject, and the clarity and incisiveness of her arguments are a wonderful lesson in creative and principled debate about fundamental issues in Islam." _{Added from my comment at 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)}

Asma Barlas has contributed to several scholarly works like Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an (Cambridge University Press, 2006). She was named to the prestigious Spinoza Chair at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam".

Here is the relevant page from her book [56]. -- Aminz 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any dispute, there's been no discussion whatever in Talk at this article. The last edit was 6th July! PR ^talk 08:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is on Aisha talk page. Also here [57] -- Aminz 08:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is brazen forum-shopping. Read the discussion at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage. The key issue is that Aminz wants to use statements made by Barlas to cast doubt on statements by scholars of Islamic history about Islamic history, when Barlas has no qualifications as a historian of Islam. She is qualified in her field, but that field is not the field in question. Arrow740 08:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

She is a of course a scholar of Islam. In any case, you seem to claim that Barlas is lying when she says:"on the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate Ayesha's age based on details of ..." [58].

This is not the case because the reviewers of such publishing presses usually catch factual mistakes. Different authors may have different opinions in their interpretation of facts but not in reporting them. -- Aminz 09:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If any one takes an interest in this, I highly encourage them to read the thorough discussion of Barlas' lack of qualifications at the old talk page. The vague "Muslims who calculate" is also explicated. These "calculations" are meant to contradict Western scholars, mainsteam Muslim opinion, and explicit statements of history in Islamic holy texts. Arrow740 09:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To say that Barlas "has no qualifications as a historian" does not make any sense. Aside from what I said, Paul Allen Williams, a professor of Philosophy and Religion in his review of this book says: Barlas brings a mastery of both Muslim and Western scholarship to her subject, and the clarity and incisiveness of her arguments are a wonderful lesson in creative and principled debate about fundamental issues in Islam.-- Aminz 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

The fact that Barlas has written books on Islamic history published by reputable university presses like the Cambridge University Press and University of Texas Press, and that her work has received mainly positive reviews from historians of Islam, obviously means that her book is a reliable source on Islamic history. Despite all of this evidence, several users (including User:Arrow740 as mentioned above) at Talk:Aisha and Talk:Aisha's age at marriage removed Barlas' book from those articles based on personal opinions (like the example above) despite the fact that they themselves failed to cite any evidence to support their arguments at all. - Jagged 85 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a wikipolicy based objection here? Her work appears to meet the threshold for verifiability and reliability. I've looked at the talk page referred and the objections there focus on her academic degrees. Professionally she appears involved with as well writes regularly for peer-reviewed publications and teaching Islam. Do we have any evaluations of her from her peers that raise issue? -- Tigeroo 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing I have issue with here... there are no Wiki-policy based objections against her, nor are there any negative reviews against her from other scholars. The only reason it was removed is because several editors either ignored or disagreed with the scholarly reviews cited above, and they instead preferred to make up their own personal objections against her, mainly based on her being a feminist or lacking a degree in history, which is pretty irrelevant when real historians of Islam have already given her book strong positive reviews. They decided to remove any reference to her work from the article simply because they felt she is unqualified without ever citing any scholarly reviews to support their point of view, which I would consider to be both original research and a suppression of information. I'm not sure whether these users are acting in good faith or pushing for an agenda, but either way, the reasons they've given for removing any reference to her work from the Aisha (and previously Aisha's age at marriage) article are simply unacceptable. - Jagged 85 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which "real historians of Islam" would those be? Her lack of qualifications is a simple fact, and it shows in her writing. Her feminist political theories might be "groundbreaking" but her mention of "some Muslim calculations" cannot be taken seriously, for all the reasons presented during the extensive discussion we had about this months ago. Arrow740 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John Esposito is the editor of The Oxford History of Islam. David Robinson has written books on the history of Muslim societies published by the Cambridge University Press. Kirsten V. Walles works at the Department of History at the University of Texas. Paul Allen Williams has a PhD in the History of Religions. These reviewers are all historians, and some of them are specifically historians of Islam. Why haven't any of these historians picked up on these so-called errors that you claim "cannot be taken seriously"? We have plenty of authority from a variety of scholars to conclude that Asma Barlas is a reliable source for Islamic history. We already know about your original resarch on her, but on who's authority do you make the claim that she is not a reliable source for Islamic history? All the reasons presented by you and others against Barlas at both Talk:Aisha and Talk:Aisha's age at marriage are extremely faulty, because of the simple fact that you would rather rely on your own original research instead of published verifiable scholarly authorities. Such an approach is simply unencyclopedic and a breach of Wikipedia's policies. - Jagged 85 02:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are unfamiliar with arguing for the reliability of sources. The guidelines you are bolding refer to material presented in an article, not an argument about reliability. Hopefully that clears it up for you. About Barlas' book, it is not a book about history, but about a feminist re-interpretation of the Qur'an. The statements you have assembled cannot be construed as a blanket endorsement of all sentences in the book. Arrow740 03:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said that the book is not reliable for Islamic history? Again, that's you saying it. No one has yet presented a single historian or Islamic scholar who endorses this view. Just because a book does not primarily deal with history, that does not equate to historical statements in the book being false. Furthermore, Barlas is an Islamic scholar, and knowledge of early Islamic historical sources is a requirement for every Islamic scholar. If there was anything historically inaccurate, then the university press publishers (who have a reputation for fact-checking) and the peer-reviewers (whose job it is to scrutinize published material) would have picked up on it, and yet not even one of them said there are any historical inaccuracies in the book. Your arguments are based on personal reasoning and original interpretations rather than any scholarly authority, that's the problem. Jagged 85 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By your reasoning, you must find a (justifiably) reliable source explicitly stating that she is a reliable source for early Islamic history. Arrow740 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we already been through this several months ago? Beit Or 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Using edit warring to force something to an article can not settle an issue. -- Aminz 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this dispute, nor with one that happened "several months ago". But the fact that a source is published by University of Texas Press makes it reliable. WP:RS states (emphasis added)

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Since, "University of Texas Press" is a "university press", the book is a reliable source. Bless sins 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is saying the opposite. It says that usually if something is an RS it is published by respectable publishers. It does not say that if it is published by a respectable publisher then it is automatically an RS. Arrow740 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So, which verified RS is arguing that she is not a reliable source? It can't just be editors here since that would be original research. → AA ^{( talk)} — 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia editing guidelines. Arrow740 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for RS is peer-reviewed publications. She appears to be definitely printed in them on the said topic. There appears to be no policy based or non-OR evaluation of her work upon which to disinclude her works. Plenty appear to have been provided making a case for inclusion but none against beyond some editors opinion or characterization of her work.-- Tigeroo 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arrow740:

The historian Kirsten V. Walles, from the Department of History at the University of Texas, praised Asma Barlas' ability as a historian of Islam in her peer-review of Barlas' book:

"The book "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society. However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."

"As an historian, I read this book with the intention of being able to assign this to students who have a cursory or minimal knowledge of Islam and the role of women in Muslim society..."

"Part 1 of the book analyzes the primary texts (Qur'an, Tafsir, Ahadith) and main secondary sources (the Sunnah, Shari'ah, and the state) utilized by Muslims. Barlas delves into the historical foundations of these sources and analyzes the methodologies, which led to the transformation of these texts such that they conformed to the cultures of the time..."

"...The only question that is left to answer is, if we are to reread to obtain knowledge and to truly understand history, then who determines what is truth?"

Paul Allen Williams, who has a PhD in the History of Religions, also praised Barlas' ability as a historian of Islam in his peer-review of her work:

"In fact, she is able to bring the riches of literary criticism, feminist thought, scriptural studies, Islamic history, and the Qur’an itself into a coherent, if densely argued, text."

Unless you can find any peer-reviews that explictly criticize Barlas' ability as an Islamic historian, then there is no doubt in my mind that all of this evidence from scholarly peer-reviews clearly point to Asma Barlas indeed being a reliable source for the early history of Islam.

Jagged 85 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

About Barlas' book, it is not a book about history, but about a feminist re-interpretation of the Qur'an. The statements you have assembled cannot be construed as a blanket endorsement of all sentences in the book. The book is about "argument" and "methods" of interpretation, not history. Books written by the actual, mainstream, prominent historians of Islam are what we have included. Attempts by apologists unqualified in this specific area to muddy the waters should not be included; that is irresponsible. Arrow740 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying she is not a RS for the topic at hand. Can you cite a source that backs up what you are saying? She appears to be accepted by her peers with a distinguished career in the field, and that really is the treshold of her competence/ reliability.-- Tigeroo 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The book is about the history of women in Islam, and that is what she has been praised for, therefore she is qualified in that specific area of Islamic history. On the contrary, it is irresponsible to rely on one's own interpretions instead of the interpretations of historians. Jagged 85 23:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a reliable source, published by a legitimate scholar in a respected university press, and praised by some of the biggest names in the field. Much of the book is explicitly historical; you can't write about the history of Islamic exegesis without dealing with historical source-criticism. It's ludicrous to claim that the book does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Llajwa 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Smells like a sock of banned User:His excellency. Arrow740 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, what is your problem? Why are you so angry? Of course I'm not a sock puppet. You can see from my contributions that I have started editing pages recently but have added constructively to a lot different ones, based on my interests (which I doubt are the same of that banned user), or else reverting minor vandalism. This is my first comment on any debate about Islam, although I'm interested in it. Please assume good faith. Llajwa 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is dying down, but I'll put in my two cents since I was asked to. I don't object to using Barlas as a source. However, there is an obvious dearth of historians who believe what she believes about Aisha. I think it's just not a prominent enough minority view to be included, even if Barlas herself is reliable in her field. The majority opinion isn't just the product of Western historians, secularists, or anti-Muslims, it's found in Bukhari and al-Tabari.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Barlas isn't really taking sides, but is giving an overview of the debate. Since she is the only reliable source giving an overview of the debate and has clearly presented the minority view as a significant-minority view among Islamic scholars, it would be original research for us to assume otherwise. As a significant-minority view, it should be included in the article, as long as it is clearly described as a minority view and given less attention than the majority view. Jagged 85 00:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks for your input. You are advancing a theory. Can you please let us know the " falsification test" of your theory. Maybe this discussion helps us to even improve the relevant policy page. Thanks -- Aminz 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if Barlas is not taking a side herself, but only reporting on the debate, why not use whoever it is she is referring to as the source? Unless, of course, they are not reliable. It seems to me that if there were a real prominent historian who believed Aisha was older than 9, it ought to be reported. If they're reliable, they shouldn't be hard to find. But the fact that we're arguing so fiercely over this disputed source, indicates that there probably aren't any. If we were to report on people who believe Aisha was older, it should not be given undue weight in the section with the real historians who go by Tabari and Bukhari, etc. It should be covered in a section on the controversy, which would obviously also include material on those who use Aisha's age to criticize Muhammad.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of religious scholars in the article who support the idea of Aisha being older than nine, but these sources were previously removed on the grounds of being "religious partisian" sources, which I strongly disagree with especially when it comes to religious figures. I really don't see why a secular historian should be considered anymore reliable than a religious scholar when it comes to interpreting religous sources from their own religion. The Tabari and Bukhari themselves do contain a few contradictions regarding Aisha, hence why there is a debate over this issue among Islamic scholars in the first place, and some relgious scholars also refer to the Sira to support their point of view. In other words, there is at least some evidence for Aisha being older than nine, so it's not like their claims are completely baseless. However, it seems this debate could go on for a long time, so I've thought of a different suggestion that may hopefully resolve the issue at least for the mean time: to leave the Aisha article as it is but to simply have the section regarding her age pointing to the Criticism of Muhammad article for further details. Any comments? Jagged 85 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali was a religious figure, not a trained historian, and certainly not a reliable source for Aisha being older than 9 (why listen to him, and not, say, Jerry Vines or Jerry Falwell). I recall that the rest of the sources weren't much better. If any Muslim scholars, who are considered reliable, make the claim that Aisha was older than 9, then they should be included. But I haven't seen that presented here yet. As for your solution, it would be better to discuss it on the articles' pages.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I checked with the reference section of Barlas book but she has not mentioned the sources she has used. So, it remains unclear who she have had in mind.

Cuchullain, the earliest biographies of Aisha were written around one and a half century after her. Furthermore, she was the daughter of Abu bakr, the first Caliph (the start of Shia-Sunni split). The marriage of Aisha with Abu Bakr was supposed to strengthen the political ties between Muhammad and Abu bakr. She was an important figure in Shia/Sunni polemics. The early biographers never claimed of passing the true account, just passing on the what they've received orally. And as those Muslims point out there are inconsistencies among the records those biographers themselves have passed to us. If one agrees with one of them, he/she has to reject another one (or justify it with much difficulty). One has to reject one of those accounts passed by Tabari anyways. Which one is only a matter of choice.

I remain unconvinced that I have to prove that Barlas is correct to make her usable. I don't think this is the common practice in wikipedia. Having said that I agree with you that "If they're reliable, they shouldn't be hard to find". Please let me know why "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" is an unreliable source [59]? And why Understanding-islam.com a website belonging to Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research is unreliable? -- Aminz 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we seem to have strayed onto the content issue, I assume RS has been established? For a discussion of Mohammad Ali I suggest we open a new thread if it is an issue. Just a reminder, the treshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability of a claim by a RS. Notability goes hand in hand with undue weight, Wikipedia presumes all scholars carry their own set of biases and that truth can be subjective, especially when dealing with topics such as history. Ideally I suggest the characterization of content debate be taken back to the talk page and debate here be restricted to questions of the principle of the Author being an RS.-- Tigeroo 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, we should stick to the RS matter. But obviously various editors still object to using Barlas on this, for the reasons given. I don't, necessarily, my problem has always been with using it to promote this minority claim. This is, however, a content issue, not a reliability issue. Barlas' book is used elsewhere in the Aisha article, with no object from me. Others have named their objections here and elsewhere, I assume they still stand.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I opened this because of Arrow's view "Barlas has no qualifications as a historian". There is also an active discussion re Cuchullain's concern above. -- Aminz 10:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you'd really only have to prove it if someone disputes it, which several editors here have. Additionally, this subject is very touchy, and needs the best possible sources.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to prove it. Would you please take a look at my comment at 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Thanks in advance. -- Aminz 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cuchullain: Islamic scholars (including Muhammad Ali) are trained in early Islamic history and traditional Islamic sources like the Quran, Hadith, Sira, etc. Muhammad Ali was also the editor of an Islamic journal, so I don't see why he should be considered unreliable on the grounds of being a "religious partisan" source. The other Islamic scholars that were previously removed are also qualified in interpreting early Islamic history but were removed simply because several editors interpreted them as religious partisan sources. Jagged 85 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, an IP editor has been very aggressively questioning two sentences on Joe Szwaja, a low-traffic article that I want to get 3rd party review on. They are:

• "Szwaja has been called progressive in regards to certain issues, including gentrification, police accountability, sustainability, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem." ^[5]

He asserts that unless language indicating facts about the source is included, it is not valid.

And:

• Szwaja has assisted a host of community groups including the Seattle International Human Rights Coalition, as their founder; Common Ground Seattle[9], Initiative 937 to promote renewable energy in Washington state, Jobs With Justice, Community Alliance for Global Justice, and the Seattle Rainforest Action Network. ^[6]

He insists that each single community group here must be sourced, and that this questionnaire for the candidate is not a valid source. As it's a primary source for simple facts that aren't negative, I think it is fine. Could you please weigh in on these? The discussions are pretty circular to non-existent. • Lawrence Cohen 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "has been called" is vague and should be replaced by the name of the person doing the calling and then cited to a primary source. If a reliable news source has made this statement, you can replace "has been called" with "is". You can cite any official statement made by the subject, as long as you make clear that this is what he is saying about himself, and that the statement isn't coming from an independent source. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I've adjusted the latter statement about his participation to reflect he stated about half of them. About the other, Progressive bit, the IP editor changed the sentence to read,

"In a recent editorial, the anti-authoritarian alternative publication Eat the State called Joe progressive in regards to certain issues, including gentrification, police accountability, sustainability, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem.[5]"

Which reads as unduly harsh and negative in tone to my eyes, and excessive qualification. Would it be best to simply say, "Alternative publication Eat The State," rather than pre-qualify what sort of publication they are? • Lawrence Cohen 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are editorializing, I would delete the whole thing. You can use a source like that to get a direct quote from the subject, but their editorial is meaningless. I wouldn't use an editorial as a source, even from a much higher profile or mainstream publication. We don't really care what each and every publication thinks. We're here to report the facts. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed the passage sourced to the editorial. • Lawrence Cohen 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the other statement, "Szwaja says that" might be helpful to indicate that it's a primary source. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I've adjusted it for that. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lawrence, for taking this to a third party. I wasn't trying to be unfair to Mr. Szwaja, but like I explained before it's my understanding that editorials (which the "Eat the State" piece was) are not relevant for backing up statements like the one that was in dispute. Thanks for removing the contested parts of the page. Much appreciated. And thanks to Jehochman for helping to clarify. 75.92.166.214 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

There's quite a discussion raging on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus regarding the use of different sources on the main topic, namely the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I don't want to get too involved in the broader discussion, since it is getting quite ridiculous and my question here pertains to one single author, Joseph Schechtman, who is also at the source of an edit war on said article.

Here's the problem: Schechtman is considered by many to be a historian (he is quoted excessively in the anti-Palestinian crowd), and therefore, according to his proponents on Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, merits inclusion. Schechtman, however, has been outed as a fraud by the Author Erskine Childers (UN), much in the same way Joan Peters (who, interestingly enough, quotes Schechtman excessively) was unmasked by Norman Finkelstein. This was later acknowledged by the historian Stephen Glazer ^[7] and not refuted since.

So the question is, can a historian be considered a reliable source even after he/she has been outed as a fraud?

Cheers and thanks, Pedro Gonnet 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'can a historian be considered a reliable source even after he/she has been outed as a fraud?'

No. But the case of Schechtman is ambiguous. He cannot be cited as a source to consolidate POVs which have been effectively disproven (Childers 1961), but his book can be used for other documents, as indeed Benny Morris uses it, sparsely in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004) p.43 and n.11 p.61, to document Schechtman's analogy, within Zionist circles, justifying population transfer along the lines of the Muslim-Hindu transfer in 1947-8. Nishidani 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved editor - I became deeply suspicious of Schechtman as soon as I saw a statement from his book The Arab Refugee Problem in which he (apparently) says: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." That's a statement likely more unpleasant than anything David Irving ever said (or that we know he's said). It's also false, very clearly. On both counts, that should render him a totally unreliable source (except for "opinions of groups" that he was a member of, obviously). PR ^talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, that kind of material should not be quoted from Schechtman, since it is nonsense, and useless for an encyclopedia, being patently untrue (it fails to explain how Jews survived the diaspora in Arab countries etc), and is purely a piece of agitprop. Whoever uses that kind of prejudicial material is clearly not interested in writing quality articles, but in playing with the politics of disinformatsia. Nishidani 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartan pederasty and Pederasty in ancient Greece suffer from literal interpretation of historical primary, self-published sources which are known to be unreliable. For example, Claudius Aelianus's Varia Historia is used to claim that pederasty was legally mandated in ancient Sparta, but that work is "not perfectly trustworthy in details," and Aelianus's "agenda is always to inculcate culturally 'correct' Stoic opinions, perhaps so that his readers will not feel guilty."

I am tempted to tag all of the statements supported by primary historical source references with {{ Verify credibility}} and remove those such as Var. Hist. which are known to be inaccurate. However, I have recently been in heated debates about this subject, so it would be best if someone else took a fresh look at the problem. 1of3 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The following article is being used to reference an quote in the Battle of Jenin article to present "evidence" of an Israeli war crime, could I get some input on whether this source meets RS: [60]. The wikipedia article seems to make me think that it wouldn't due to the WP:REDFLAG that the statement it is presenting causes. Kyaa the Catlord 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of particular note, the Gush Shalom article here notes that it is an activist group with a clear agenda against the Israeli "efforts" in Palestine. Kyaa the Catlord 07:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Telegraph linking to the document, describing it as an "eyewitness account". Here is Human Rights Watch citing the article and noting that a Gush Shalom translation is available, effectively vouching for it. Here is Teddy Katz referring to the article in a UN document. Here is the actual journalist discussing the article on a nationally syndicated American radio show - or perhaps they hired a voice actor? Can't trust those left-wingers!

Really, now, I previously brought to this noticeboard some alleged quotations that only showed up once on Google and was shot down for it. We are currently using one quote on the basis that a single editor says he called the news agency and verified that yes, an article with that title was published on that day (but he doesn't know what it said.) Now you're telling me that this extremely well-corroborated piece isn't good enough? I think the operating principle here is not WP:REDFLAG but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Eleland 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your ability to AGF startles my mind. I'd like to point out that I did not remove PR's inclusion of this material, I just asked for an uninvolved opinion on it. End transmission. Kyaa the Catlord 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not remove it, certainly. You asked around if there were grounds for removal. I.e. you were minded to remove it, if there was backing for your intention. Your second post talks about an 'activist group' with a clear agenda. Nearly all established RS sources on Israeli-Palestine issues are 'activist' in the sense that they publish articles for and against Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. Eleland is correct. Uri Avnery has been in Palestine/Israel since 1933, fought in the 48 war, was elected to the Knesset, can be said to be an insider intimately knowledgeable about Israel's politics and policies and his organization has not, to my knowledge, a reputation for falsifying documents. Samuel Katz's opinions are cited as evidence, correctly, for certain establishmentarian views on the Palestinian territories. I edit them, knowing them to be completely erroneous in substance, but do not erase them. Nor should Avnery's Gush Shalom perspectives be hustled off for having an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani ( talk • contribs)

Look at the claim. A drunken, destitute former Israeli conscript claims that he drove drunk a piece of heavy machinery he did not know how to operate in an effort to lay waste to as many Palestinians as possible. This is simply linked to by reputable press agencies, not directly quoted, not swarmed by Christianne Ampour or any of the pro-Palestinian media. This exceptional claim does not have the sort of media coverage required by WP:REDLINK to meet the standards. Yes, I'd like to see it gone from the article, but rather than merely removing it myself, I came to the proper place to have sources checked against our RS standards. And I get gruff for it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better addressed by posting a Request for comment, as it is clearly a content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a translation of a piece of reportage published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper. Yediot Aharonot articles are cited all over Wikipedia. No one questions the reliability of it as a source. It fits all Wiki criteria. You take exception to the 'exceptional' claims made by the driver,i.e. you dispute the content. But the claims made don't have to be true, the source that prints them however has to be reliable. The only valid objection you might raise relates to possible errors in Gush Shalom's translation. I very much doubt that in a long article of that kind, you are going to encounter a systematic linguistic distortion of the claims made by the bulldozer driver. The source is Yediot Aharonot, not Gush Shalom. Nishidani 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My remarks about CAMERA above are equally applicable here, I think. If Gush Shalom is quoting a reliable source, then its best to go straight to the RS, confim it in context, and cite that. That being said, articles that are based in large part on the quotes selected by advocacy organisations of GS' type are, in my opinion, not the sort of thing we really want. Hornplease 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA is a hate-site, we'll reference the article "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" when we reference articles on "Jewish Duplicity". Gush-Shalom is an "activist site", but it's not a hate-site, it doesn't operate as a propaganda organ for anyone, it's unlikely to be funded by people who are protecting moneyed interests, it has no particular reason to cheat, it's been around a long time and there is no indication (that I'm aware of) that it does cheat. The problem with articles in Israeli newspapers it that, more than most, they don't keep their archives available for very long (and have been known to change articles eg when Peres called Jenin 2002 a "massacre"). PR ^talk 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a hate-site. In fact it's a reaction to real hate sites by Arab & Islamist propaganda against Israel. One of it's most notable features is the dispelling of the myth that Ariel Sharon claimed "We Jews run America" in 2001. Sadly, there are still people both in the Middle East and the west who believe that garbage. ---- DanTD 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Each of these books has been used extensively on wikipedia articles relating to the South Asian Subcontinent. There must be one standard on wikipedia weather these are acceptable as secondary and tertiary sources or not acceptable at all. The ensuing rule must be applicable on all articles in wikipedia thereafter . How is this going to be achieved? or is there already a wikipedia ruling on this .
Cheers
Intothefire 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is part of WP:NOR. Since the listed are primary sources either as ancient historians or historical works they are covered by WP:PSTS. Generally for interpreting, evaluating history secondary, tertiary sources should be the ones used because they are based on the consideration of multiple primary sources in concert.-- Tigeroo 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that in order to reduce conflict on articles relating to the history of the subcontinent a page is created listing books and sources categorized into Primary , Secondary and tertiary sources . We can draw in more contributors and build a larger consensus .This could then be developed into the guiding principle for citations on articles ? Tigeroo whats your take on that since you are a great one for citing rules ??

Cheers
Intothefire 02:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The sheer number of books would make that a massive project and one that could never be comprehensive. Secondly why duplicate the work that has already been done, how would this be different from the existing policy pages?-- Tigeroo 13:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is The Abusive Hosts Blocking List a reliable source? Does citing it violate WP:BLP?

I came here to complain about the same site. Here is their page on Barbara Schwarz, which is being used as a "reliable source" for her article: AHBL: Barbara Schwarz. The last paragraph is a disclaimer saying that they just repeat what other people have said, including Usenet posts -- which in Barbara's case are the main issue. Steve Dufour 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that their listing of her contains two parts; One explaining why she's listed and the second is a FAQ about who she is. We are not citing their FAQ, but instead the fact that she has been listed by them for her behavior related to usenet. Abusive Hosts Blocking List, more about them. Anynobody 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They might be a worthwhile organization. However I don't think they can be a source for information on a living person when they just invite people to post their opinions and don't take responsibility for them. Steve Dufour 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really consider reading what you're talking about, they do not ...just invite people to post their opinions and don't take responsibility for them. Once again, this is not what the reference is used for, but the FAQ you seem to be bothered by so much says: This page is a collection of resources and opinions others have posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw their own conclusions.

By not reading what they said carefully, you come off as either trying to quote them out of context or looking less than brilliant. Anynobody 08:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the page that is cited in the article. Usenet and other Internet postings are not good enough to be WP reliable sources about living persons. Steve Dufour 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that because they created a FAQ about Barbara Schwarz on the page which also discusses her reason for being listed with the AHBL they can't be used as a source?

We've been through the "USENET isn't a reliable source..." discussion several times, I'll refreash your memory. WP:RS says:Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons other than their author, (the usenet posts in question are by Barbara Schwarz and about her life) and refers us to WP:BLP#Reliable sources which says:Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise impossible-to-verify statements about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article Since the posts are by her, we are not violating that policy. Anynobody 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again. They say themselves that they are repeating things posted on Usenet and elsewhere on the Internet. There is no way to tell for sure who is posting the material. Steve Dufour 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi are Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org reliable sources? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Obviously biased websites reporting second hand information are not "reliable" sources unless the article is about them, and in the last case the can only be cited to provide information about the sites themselves. -- Craigtalbert 04:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Craigtalbert I understand what you mean by Antiwar.com, but what's wrong with Globalsecurity.org? Anynobody 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sites like Antiwar.com (should be) more than blogs and their dedication to accuracy may be good. Their opinions should not be used (unlike, say, an editorial in an RS). They should not be used as reference for "facts" (but then such information will be better presented elsewhere anyway). They should not be used for quotes in general but might be used to quote, eg named refugees, interviewed by named observers belonging to recognised bodies. They might be used to pass on the account of a 'real' but 'unknown' person talking about something they've experienced in a war-zone eg impressions of a refugee camp. But only if the report is rich in detail about the time spent there. PR ^talk 09:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dedicdation to accuracy?" I don't think so. Antiwar.com once tried to fabricate some 9/11 conspiracy theory, where it accused Israel of making some secret deal in Hollywood, California at the corner of two streets which don't intersect with one another. ---- DanTD 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the AR series of goverment publications would be rejected by Wikipedia editors as verifiable sources on reasons why the US Army acts or does not act?

The question relates to the naming of units in describing those units to non-military organizations that are not in a unit's chain of command. Upholding the history and traditions of regiments within the US Army force structure is covered by AR 600-82 (other sources appear to derive their rationale on this public domain publication). AR 220-1 describes status reporting of subordinate commands to higher levels, also citing AR 220-5 which provides that within the Army's reporting channels, the word "regiment" is an assumed part of the name of a regiment and is not used in an official designation, but on websites such as www.army.mil available for non-military users (such as Wikipedia editors), the usage is generally to name regiments with the word "Regiment" appended. This practice also extends to printed material made available for public consumption by regiments and not intended for use within the Army itself; it appears to be the practice used in our United States Army article as well.

The issue relates to an accepted matter for mediation. I am concerned that because of any connection I may have to the US Army, I may find myself banned by the government from remaining as an editor, should there be a result of Wikipedia mediation that disparages the use of active unit's oral traditions in favor of an interpretation of Wikipedia's full compliance with policies approved of by Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Foundation. It has come to my attention that at least one other popular website is now off-limits for use by persons connected to the US Army. My concerns extend to how the mediation results may be interpreted by Internet users in general in their determination of the Wikipedia as a reliable source of usable information. Hotfeba 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I understand your question. FWIW we have an article on Army Regulation 190-8.

IMO Army Regulations are reliable sources for whatever policies or procedures they lay out.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize for Economics has just been announced, and barely has the mike gone dead before various proud members of differing religions/ethnicities and nationalities are quarreling over whether various individuals are Jewish, Russian, Polish or American, or some suitable combination of those things and hyphens. (One of them is a fairly well-known atheist, but I don't see any atheists staking a claim here. No initiative.)

The reason I am posting here is simple: is this website a reliable source? It doesn't seem to meet any of the requirements, but I've already spent too much time on this question, and anti-semitism was implied at what must be record speed, so I'll be damned if I'm questioning it without backup. Relata refero 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say absolutely not, particularly for BLPs.-- Slp1 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say, No, it is not reliable. The site gives no indication of who is behind jinfo.org. Do we know anything more about the orgainization that hosts the website? Is it a personal website? Is there any fact checking or editorial oversight? Without this info we can not call it a reliable source. This is not to say that the individuals lised are, or are not, Jewish... only that this website can not be used to support such a statement. Blueboar 14:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewishinfo is a web site that being activated by members in the Jewish community of USA (hence the .org). any way, where there is uncertainty about the Jewishness of some one-they mention it, but they dont deal with the self identification issue-only with the ethnical origin (except for special cases like those of scientists which convert to Judaism-and they mention it as well). More, if one is only Jewish by his paternal or maternal side-they make it clear. One of the main questions about JewInfo being a reliable source is: Can any body give even one example, out of at least hundreds of names in their site, when they mentioned some one who is absolutely not Jewish as a Jew? I don’t think so. However, they did mentioned several people which there is a disagreement about their Jewish origins as Jews but they are always add a note, about the sources from which they based the Jewishness of this kind of indeviduals and make it clear whether the Jewishness in this case is clear and standing on direct evidence or on indirect evidence and from those notes one can easily understand that there is disagreement about the Jewishness.-- Gilisa 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally doubt that the website is a fair/reliable source for information, but that does not mean it is a reliable enough source for Wikipedia. The policies and procedures that determine reliability are in place here precisely to avoid using my subjective opinion as well as the impractical challenge (e.g. find me one that is wrong) you suggest. The issue of ethnicity vs religion is a topic for another page, and in any case the same question applies... why is religion/ethnicity an important characteristic about a person unless they choose to make it so in some way? But that too is a topic for another page. Slp1 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another wikipedian has made some assertion about reliable sources that I am quite skeptical of.

Short version. The DoD has released approximately 1366 memos containinng allegations against Guantanamo captives, and 673 transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals and their annual Administrative Review Board hearings. These 2039 documents contain allegations that were leveled against the captives.

This other wikipedian asserts that reporting that the DoD has leveled these allegations against the captives is a violation of {{ blp}}. He assert that these DoD documents cannot be considered reliable sources, If I understand his concerns, he believes that the allegations can't be covered in the wikipedia unless he is satisfied they are true -- even though the first line of WP:VER says it is concerned with verifiability, not truth.

This other wikipedian has even gone so far as to assert that merely referencing the DoD documents constitutes original research and a breach of WP:NPOV.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the US DoD (Department of Defense) is a reliable source with regard to the allegations leveled against the persons in question. To be fair though, the DoD has come under fire in terms of the accuracy or lack thereof regarding the allegations it has made. It has an incentive to make the allegations stick. I would suggest noting in the article something along the lines of "The United States Department of Defense has alleged that" blah blah, rather than a generic "Mr. XYZ has been accused of" blah blah or the even worse "Mr. XYZ is a" blah blah. Ngchen 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have phrased every reference to the allegations in a way similar to what you suggested. Geo Swan 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, they can't be viewed as a reliable source when they are not an independent source, and are the primary and only source. This is the core of WP:RS surely? From a personal and subjective viewpoint I'd never consider giving any government department a blanket reliability status. ---- WebHamster 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

official documents are sources for the material they contain. The DoD is a reliable source for the accusations it has issued. To what extent they are justified by the facts is of course another matter; I agree with Ngchen that clarifying the source will make this clear to any reader.

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is sometimes a matter of common sense. The situation of the captives at Guantanamo is a matter of legitimate world-wide public interest, and information about what actual accusation have been leveled against individuals there is legitimate content, and presenting it is not an example of blp. DGG ( talk) 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reliability is that accusations have been made not that what has been stated is accurate/reliable. This still leaves the matter of independence. In this matter the DoD is very definitely not independent, in fact it is downright biased. This goes against everything that WP:RS stands for. Regardless of worldwide interest. These individuals have not chosen to be public figures and as such they should be accorded the rights of any private living individual with an article on WP. But this is beyond the purview of this noticeboard. The fact of the matter is that the title of the article categorically states that they are terrorists and the only source is the DoD documents which are issued by the very people making the accusations. This scenario wouldn't be countenanced in any other circumstance. Government documents can only be considered to be a reliable source when they are independent from the contents of those documents, unless reporting on themselves per some of the above statements e.g. vote results etc. ---- WebHamster 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what would you propose in the case of a bio on someone who's been accused, verifiably, by a government agency of any stripe, with reliable newspapers writing about the government charges? Ngchen 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A bio, being somewhat different from a list entry, should have secondary sources using further additional sources and not just reporting the primary source. Basically using the equivalent of peer reviewing. If there are no additional sources to use then simply don't use the accusation. Period. ---- WebHamster 10:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Your proposed standard would make it impossible de facto to include anything negative about anybody. Like it or not, if someone is charged with a crime, the person being charged legitmately makes the newspapers. For balance of course, if unusual circumstances surrounded the charging and/or the person gets acquitted, that information is to be added as well. It is unrealistic to expect multiple independent agencies to confirm every accusation against everyone. Ngchen 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)