Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Muslim World Today

This website seems to me to be an SPS, yet editors are fighting over it at Israel and the apartheid analogy, so I bring it here for some non-involved comments. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is an SPS? WP:SPS describes individuals publishing their own work, and this is clearly something more than a personal website. I am not saying that definitely means it has a reputation for fact checking, but I am doubting that SPS is the correct way to discuss it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some of the content appears to be from the Associated Press, which would meet RS standards. That would suggest the site as a whole can't be rejected out of hand. There's no indication of editorial oversight that I can see. Some of the contributors seem credentialed. Could you give an example of what has been added to WP from this source, as well as a link to the particular page that is being used as a source? TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning editorial oversight an editor in chief is named who is at least not the same person as the journalists, so there is at least an indication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed not look an obvious case if WP:SPS, but in any case I would not use it as source based on its lack of reputation (and there should be enough more reputable sources be around). Also at least first glance I must say it reads a bit like an Israeli proxy posing as "muslim opinion". In short not WP:SPS, but I can't see any good reason to use it as a source and in the WP article in question there seems to POV battle going on, which is another reason to stick there to (highly) reputable/notable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a WP:SPS, it looks to be a questionable source for anything not clearly sourced elsewhere. It states that its editorial pages are sponsored by 'Council For Democracy And Tolerance', and the Council's 'Mission Statement' suggests that it has a clear purpose and agenda that is unlikely to meet required standards of neutrality. [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to be neutral but reliable, however "muslim world today" most likely is neither--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this site on any reliable source. I don't think it's reliable or even notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a "captive" publication, in the sense that its owners do write much or most of its original content, and use it to publish their personal opinions. I had to put on my wiki-sleuth hat to determine this, and I'm not going to "show my work" here because to do so would expose the rather non-public family members that operate this web-only (according to this article) publication to undue scrutiny in this rather public forum .

I'd be happy to disclose that to any neutral admin who'd like to see it, though, to any admin, that is, who doesn't have "a horse in the race" re Wikipedia's I/P wars. Just send me an e-mail request if you fit that description, or ask a wholly uninvolved admin to do so. I'll also mention that any editor who's willing to spend the time can also verify my results using whois, corporationwiki.com, public directories, and a normal search engine, although it'll probably take a while. Please don't post any specific results from that search, though, if you choose to repeat it.

Alright, then: Muslim World Today was started by Tashbih Sayyed, who was listed on the site as editor-in-chief until he passed away in May, 2007. He was also the publication's owner. It appears to be a small project, and its assets, such as they are, very clearly continue to be owned by Sayyed's family. The project seems to have been kept up since the father's death by his two kids, especially by a young woman who appears to be Tashbih's daughter, Supna Zaidi.

That's fine in itself, and commendable, of course, but the current main page for Muslim World Today (.com) also lists Supna Zaidi as the editor-in-chief, and she certainly writes a significant part of the content/articles for the website, as did her father while he was alive. This seems to violate the "Roman Wall" that's necessary in a reliable source, and to tread pretty harshly on the toes of our policy against self-published sources. Supna has written for the website for quite some time, and at length, it appears:

• Supna Zaidi, Muslim World Today, 12 April, 2008
• Supna Zaidi, Muslim World Today, 30 January, 2009. Scroll down for photo and article.
• Muslim World Today, partial archives Scroll down for articles by Supna Zaidi.

You can also verify that Supna's dad, Tashbih Sayeed, wrote much of the content for the publication before he died in 2007; see its archives for some examples. And the current, 26 March, 2011 edition, has both Supna and her dad's photo on the "cover" or main page of the website. The site continues to re-publish the father's old articles.

Some of the site's content appears with no byline at all, such as this denunciation on Muslim World Today from a few days ago of UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk's "Lies against Israel", as the site puts it. That seemed something of a red flag to me - so small an organization has no reason to do that - so I investigated further. It turns out that, under its own copyright, as if it were an article that Muslim World Today had written itself, the site copied this Zionist Organization of America press release verbatim, without attribution. That action alone prohibits us from taking the site as a reliable source. That's not something a publication can do and still support any claim to being a legitimate news outlet.

I have no way of knowing for sure, but the limited nature of the web site lead me to wonder whether other unattributed articles might be pro-Zionist press releases, as well, or be written by family members. There are some stories on the site from Associated Press writers, and I saw a copy of an article by Caroline Glick ( an outspoken advocate for Israeli policies who has urged Israelis to engage in "an information war" on their country's behalf ) of the Jerusalem Post. But I'm not sure that Muslim World Today is actually an AP affiliate or has any business relationship with the Jerusalem Post, at all, and I'm inclined to suspect that it does not.

As further evidence of a pro-Israel advocacy orientation of this publication, I note that in one of its articles entitled A Muslim in a Jewish Land, Tashbih Sayyed, its founder, owner, and then-editor-in-chief referred to Israel as the "Promised Land", which seems an odd thing for a Muslim to say, as does his additional assertion that

Media bias against Israel reminded me of the Nazi era German press that was recruited by Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels who picked up every hate-laden word against the Jews. Just like the German press who refused to print the truth about the gruesome atrocities in Europe's death camps - or claimed that it was all an exaggeration, the media today also ignores the Arab terrorism. I wanted to see if there was any truth in the media allegations that Israel was an apartheid state, undemocratic and discriminatory... I knew that a true Jewish State could not be undemocratic since democratic concepts were always a part of Jewish thinking and derived directly from the Torah. (emphasis mine)

Sayyed reiterates his "Promised Land" theme by closing the article with a statement about Israeli agriculture that seems pretty racist to me: "Israelis have proved beyond any doubt why God promised them this land – only they could keep it green." In that same article he wrote the truly remarkable statement, "The Israeli faith in democracy also explains their refusal to respond to Islamist terrorism in violent ways." I'm somewhat doubtful that international consensus would support the proposition that Israel is a pacifist nation that doesn't meet violence with violence.

Based on these statements, on his books, and on the propagandistic films he produced, and on other evidence I won't disclose here, it's my strong opinion that Sayyed was "Muslim" only in the sense of his ethnic background, and not in any religious sense at all. He was as fervent an apologist for Israel and as strong an opponent of the Palestinian cause as it's possible to be, and that was clearly the motivation for his life's work, including Muslim World Today.

You can also use search tools to verify that the (rather misleadingly named, imo) "Council for Democracy and Tolerance", also founded by Tashbih Sayyed, has the same street address as Muslim World Today. You can further verify that Supna Zaidi, the current editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today is an officer of that organization, and that a person with the same surname, who's also intimately connected with Muslim World Today, and who appears to be her sibling, is its Registered Agent. It doesn't appear to be an independently contolled organization at all, in other words. Further, the web site for Muslim World Today says it's "sponsored by" the "Council" and, more specifically, that its "editorial pages are sponsored by Council For Democracy And Tolerance". The Muslim World Today website also lists the Council's principles there, which state, in part:

Islamists have established themselves here in US to destroy our democratic system. By doing so they want to achieve their goals of establishing a Theocracy (Sharia or Islamic State). CDT is committed to expose this Extremist Islamist leadership in the United States of America. CDT is committed to challenge the statements, sermons and theories spread by Islamist clergy in the United States that is aimed at creating a hate-filled mind. ... CDT is committed to bring about a change in the radical, extremist and fundamentalist thinking of Muslims in the United States by using the newspaper, radio, television and internet as a worldwide campaign media tool. CDT condemns campaigns of Islamist leadership in the USA to incite violence, promote fundamentalism, and encourage extremism in order to undermine the freedoms in American society.

In just that same vein, Tashbih Sayyed, who started both "Council for Democracy and Tolerance" and Muslim World Today, wrote the following in an article for that publication entitled "Fourth of July - Is America Safe?" saying,

We must realize that the real war to defeat America is not being fought in South Asia, Central Asia or the Middle East, but right here in the United States of America. Our enemies have adopted our ways, our mannerisms, and our language. Understanding our commitment to our values, the enemies of Americanism have become "Americans". They are using our democracy and our freedoms to subvert the very Constitution that is the source of them.

Mr. Sayyed is also reported to have "called himself a Muslim Zionist." Based on what I've read, I have to say that I find this description inaccurate. He wasn't Muslim in any religious sense of the word at all. Based on what I've read, I think it can be reasonably inferred that his religious sympathies, at least, in addition to his political ones, of course, were decidedly Jewish.

Ms. Supna Zaidi is also listed on the Muslim World Today website as being "assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum". She has written on the website for Islamist Watch, that "Islamists are increasingly using lawful Islamism, or non-violent and legal strategies to spread Sharia, (Islamic law) in the West, encroaching on non-Muslim life everyday." The purpose of that organization, which also appears to be controlled by Ms. Zaidi or her family, is to oppose what it sees as that trend.

Hmm. I see I've made answering this question into more of a research project than I'd intended, and have written much more than I'd planned. There's almost enough for an article here, I think, or enough to contribute to multiple articles, anyway, e.g. Muslim World Today, Tashbih Sayyed, Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Middle East Forum. Anyone who has the time or inclination to use any of this for that purpose should feel free. ( We have a "this a minor edit" checkbox; I think I need one that says "this is a major edit" ;-)

Muslim World Today might have a debatably commendable goal in trying to keep extremist elements of Islam from what winning at what it calls "stealth jihad", i.e. from influencing Western society via lawful means in favor of radical Islam. But whether that's commendable or not, it's the captive publication of a pro-Israel advocacy group, not an independent news organization. As such, it's clearly not a reliable source for our purposes on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Common sense: The site appears to be RS for its fact reporting (as it appears to use AP etc.) - and the opinions of its editor-in-chief are rs for his or her opinions (just like opinions of any editor-in-chief are for any publication). Thus his opinions are not SPS, but are opinion, citable as such. Collect (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suggest that 'common sense' would imply that if they were getting 'facts' from AP, then we should find other sources that use AP too, and get the 'facts' from there. There can be no logical reason to do otherwise. As for 'opinions' on the site, one would have to demonstrate notability for such - the web is full of opinions, but we don't need to quote them all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow that grew quick while I was away...the page in particular which I am questioning is the one I linked to in the intro sentence. That piece was written by the editor- a complete non notable besides his non notable websites that publish his and a few others works. I did not see any AP work, but of course that would be an RS though it would be better to link from a better site that had the same article instead, no? here is what the source was backing.

@ Collect, I have tried to cite opinions from non-notable editors-in-chief before and had other editors delete them an non-RS, so I'm not sure that if someone starts a website, calls themself the chief editor, that their opinions are now allowed on wikipedia. Passionless -Talk 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In a word, Collect's assertion is nonsense. Reliable sources don't copy press releases verbatim from the web sites of partisan lobbying groups and present them as their own articles. Any AP story would have to appear in a genuine reliable source before it could be admitted here. And as I outlined above, the person listed as editor-in-chief is also very clearly related to the "owner in chief" of the website, a fact anyone can verify by using web search tools for 30 minutes. If Collect and his sister owned a web site, that wouldn't make his opinions notable or citable just because he gave himself the title "editor in chief" and copied some AP articles to it, nor would Wikipedia legitimize his site by referencing it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the site is an advocacy site. No need for us to opine about whether it is good or bad here, but just to keep in mind that it should be cited carefully if at all. (We do not blanket ban all opinionated sources, but we do have to be careful about them.) This is of course then not just an matter of WP:RS, but also WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the emerging consensus regarding this site. I personally don't feel comfortable with Wikipedia using highly partisan websites as sources that are run by a couple individuals. But is there a conclusion that can be drawn here, or a general principle that can be applied in future instances? Or a specific statement in a relevant guideline or policy that can help us in these instances? We tend to resort to "editorial oversight" but is there something specifically dealing with highly partisan mom-n-pop websites? Or could we propose adding to a guideline a point about the sort of "captive" website that OhioStandard characterizes? If this bears discussion, let's maybe move it to RSN Talk. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

AP is RS. However that this site has material from AP doesn't affect the reliability of material they have that isn't from AP. Material from AP would preferably be sourced directly from AP. --Dailycare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just learned that the founder of Muslim World Today and Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Tashbih Sayyed was, until his death, also a board member of Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch group, according to two subpages on that site. Jihad Watch publishes Pamela Geller (one of Spencer's bosom pals) extensively, which should tell you something: Spencer and Geller co-founded Stop Islamization of America, which both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have identified as a hate group. The SPLC hasn't formally named Jihad Watch itself as a hate group, that I could see, but if you search the SPLC site you'll get a pretty clear idea of their opinion of the group.

Muslim World Today appears to me to be nothing more than a skillful black propaganda site. Based on this and on other specific evidence that it wouldn't be appropriate to post here, it's my very strong opinion that the founder of Muslim World Today wasn't Muslim at all, his public assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. He wasn't, imo, what he liked to call himself, a "Muslim Zionist". He was, imo, just a Zionist. I am not using that word in any critical sense, please observe, but merely in a descriptive one.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WebWombat, DVD Bits, DVD.net

I would like inquire about the reliability of three separate websites for the purpose of utilizing their reviews of DVDs. DVD Bits seems the most promising, as they appear to have a professional staff [2]. WebWombat holds a possibility of being reliable, but I cannot find a place that lists their reviewers or explains the process (ie, if they are paid staff or user-submitted). Though I may just be missing the obvious. Lastly, DVD.net. I highly doubt their reliability, partially because they don't seem to mention anything beyond the staff's name and interests. But...They do have a staff, and the dated information may be due to the website having shut down a few years back [3]. Thanks in advance, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. It is indeed difficult to get a sense for whether these are reliable sources. On the face of it, there's nothing that shows clearly that these sites have a professional staff and editorial oversight. But I'm not familiar with the standards in this area of Wikipedia and the sorts of resources that are generally considered reliable. I was just looking at WP:FILM. Are you familiar with this wiki project? Maybe you could get some feedback on one of the Talk pages there regarding these sources, Or maybe you'll find guidance among the pages of this project. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Perhaps heading over to WP:Film would be a good decision. I'm used to using their standards, but it becomes difficult when bits of information (paid jobs, positions, reliability, etc.) don't appear to be available. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how one of these sources would be used? TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be for reception purposes only. For example, if I took the review of Tron: Legacy; it'd be something along the line of "Richard Gray, a reviewer for DVD Bits, praised the film for its [insert information here], though felt it suffered from [etc]." And nothing more. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, take note that DVD Bits does have editorial oversight. In fact, they have several positions beyond reviewer, and Gray has been featured in some reputable sources. This is unlike the other two, who seem to lack such information. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

is there some issue with this site? Has it been challenged on a Talk page? Aren't there other reviews in major media that could be used? (I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the situation, partly because I'm unfamiliar with this area. Thanks for sticking with this discussion.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I more or less want to make sure that the sites are usable, in case I eventually bring particular articles to a peer review or they become a GAN. I'd like to avoid a potential conflict when that time comes. I definitely would prefer larger outlets, but some DVDs never garnered much attention (especially for anime), and small sites like the ones listed are most of what's available. At this point, I feel inclined to drop WebWombat and DVD.net. However, DVD Bits still seems like a potential candidate. (Thanks for keeping with the discussion as well, especially when it's not a territory you are used to!) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps clarify the situation. It seems like it could be used. I posted at WP:Film Talk asking for some feedback[4]. Let's see what they say, since this sort of question occasionally comes up at RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think these sites qualify as reliable sources. WebWombat appears to be a search engine and doesn't say where the reviews come from, while DVD Net certainly doesn't comes across as a professionaly run site, and DVD Bits is possibly an enthusiast run site run by volunteers (in the "About us" section some of the profiles mention "daytime" jobs). Secondly, even if they were reliable, notability needs to be established for critical opinion pieces i.e. have their reviews been referenced in other publications? Are they listed at Rotten Tomatoes? Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, Betty. And thanks for pointing me toward Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. That's a very useful page that we can refer to in these discussions of RS for film. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BuzzFeed

I added content in an article today and had it reverted because a user claimed that the source was unreliable. The source that was used was BuzzFeed but if you look there is a number of editors that are there, and BuzzFeed is often mention in other reliable sources.[5][6] Truthsort (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an aggregator of content gathered from the Web, right? As such, it doesn't seem to be an appropriate source. If there's some information that an editor thinks could be used in Wikipedia, then perhaps the next step would be to consider whether the website where it originated is a reliable source. If so, then cite that. If there's some question, then post a query about the originating website here. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not an aggregator in that it is not entirley just linking to other news organizations. The content is more so about viral content and other things on the internet. The edit that I made that was reverted is this. Truthsort (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

there is probable a better source for it. I seem to remember that hitting the news sites a few days ago. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this blog was the original source.[7] It was written by Marshall Kirkpactrick, who, as Vice President of Content Development at ReadWriteWeb, appears to be a paid professional.[8] It possibly meets RS standards. Whether or not it's appropriate to add to the article is an issue that the involved editors will have to decide. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Still...its BuzzFeed. I'm sure if the content is good enough the information is on a reliable source. Candyo32 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reut Institute

A disagreement has emerged on the Talk page of the article Israel and the Apartheid Analogy about the citation of a research report by the Reut Institute in the article (see the sub-section "Reut Institute" on the Talk page). It is cited as one of several sources for the sentence in the main article, "Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to the Jewish state than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel." (This sentence is near the end of the sub-section "Differences in motivations" under the section title "Criticisms of the Apartheid Analogy," in the main article.) The citation of the Reut Institute article, "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitimization: Conceptual Framework, Version A" The Reut Institute, March 2010, p. 11, et passim, http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf, has been reverted several times on the grounds that the material that they produce "seems very modest in terms of quality," is of dubious relevancy as opinions, provides material solely to the Israeli government, and displays "Zionist advocacy." All of these assertions have been rebutted as untrue or, in the matter of Zionist advocacy, as not relevant to reliability as a source in subsequent discussion. Additional challenges to the Reut Institute report are that the Reut Institute is a think-tank, and that the report itself is a conference paper, and therefore, it is alleged, both or either of these mean that the report is of "marginal" reliability. These claims, too, have been disputed as relevant to "reliability." It is also claimed that the Reut Institute, in another publication, endorsed "breaking the law." This as well has been denied. The Reut Institute is according to its website a strictly independent and non-government-funded research institute staffed and monitored by academics and other experts, which, unlike ordinary think-tanks, aims not to present personally authored essays by individual experts, but rather to ascertain and summarize in research reports responsible opinion on topics important to Israeli society held by leading authorities of all sorts, including non-Israeli ones, politicians, academics and media commentators, presenting their views and making recommendations based on them to parliamentarians and government figures to aid in future government policies. The reports themselves are subjected to extensive editorial supervision by a board of academics and other experts. For this specific report, researchers canvassed 100 political leaders, academics, media figures, experts in international relations both in Israel and abroad, people supportive of Israel and those critical of it, of varying ethnic backgrounds and loyalties, taking years to compile the results into this report. The report compilers are themselves people holding advanced university degrees. See the above-cited report, on pages 4-9 of the PDF and elsewhere. For background on the Reut Institute, see http://reut-institute.org/en/Content.aspx?Page=About There is also a Wikipedia article on it, at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reut_Institute. The question put here at this noticeboard is: is the Reut Institute report "Building a Political Firewall Against Israel's Delegitiimization" etc., a reliable source for the purposes of this Wikipedia article? Thank you for your help and advice.Tempered (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to be a reliable source for their point of view. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree--and because it is being used for its point of view, the "Zionist" assertion is irrelevant as to reliability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few aspects to this, namely 1) is Reut a reliable source for its own point of view, and 2) if so, should the document be presented inside the ref tag as "The Israel-based Reut Institute discusses what it sees as delegitimization and demonization of Israel in this document", "The interaction of delegitimization, demonization, and double standards is analyzed at length, with bibliographical references, in (doc)", a third option being just to insert it as a source without elaborating as is usually done. The middle option was what was originally inserted into the article, which I feel endorses Reut's view rather than merely presents it. The reason Reut feels fishy in my view is that in an earlier version of the same document Reut endorsed "attacking" and "sabotaging" organizations that criticise Israel. This comes across as promotional (of Israel), and according to WP:IRS such sources can't be used to source information about third parties (in this case organizations that criticize Israel). According to WP:IRS promotional sources can't be used as sources even about themselves when the material is either unduly self-serving or involves claims about third parties. There is also the point that Reut was founded by an Israeli diplomat which feeds into the "is promotional" argument. So the questions are whether to use at all, and then whether to characterize inside the ref tag, and if so then how to characterize inside the ref tag. --Dailycare (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely don't see either the WP:BLP or WP:IRS problems in the sentence beginning "Some critics....state..." Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone raised BLP problems. Let's put it this way: in an article on Pepsi, would you be OK with citing a document from Coca-Cola by saying "Pepsi's harmful effects on health are analyzed in detail, with bibliographical references, in (doc)"? That's what's being proposed here. --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pepsi Coke analogy is wildly inappropriate. Articles like this one are oompendia of biased sources almost by definition--views of pro-Palestinian individuals and groups contrasted with Israelis and their defenders. Who would count as a neutral soource with no skin in the game? If we try to restrict articles like this to only "neutral" sources there would be nothing left--and anyway, as long as the views are from reliable sources and clearly attributed, source neutrality is not a Wikipedia requirement. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sources don't need to be neutral, however they can't be promotional or extremist. I take it your view on question 1 is "yes". Do you have an opinion on the other question? (what phrase, if anything, should be put in the ref tag) You mention attribution but could you elaborate on that? --Dailycare (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The vague charges of "promotional" would rule out many sources cited by advocates of the "apartheid analogy" in the article in question. Similarly, many of those pro-apartheid-advocacy sources could easily be called "extremist" by opponents if they wanted to. This does not disqualify them from citation. The Reut Institute, however, is not extremist, indeed it aims to summarize and represent the widest range of responsible opinion on the issues it deals with. That is its "brief," so to speak. In any case, its views in support of Israel in its defense against delegitimization are legitimate in themselves and should not be grounds for rejection of it as a reliable source of opinion in an article giving views on the subject of delegitimization. That would be a strange procedure indeed. Since the Reut Institute source is merely cited in an endnote to support a wider statement in the article that delegitimization is an issue, along with several other citations to other sources making the same claim, in my view there seems no valid reason for tags, reservations or qualifications to accompany its reference, nor any changes to the article sentence itself.Tempered (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the reference as it is currently handled. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jonathanwallace's points. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure. It seems to be a thinktank, and while its statements are reliable for its own positions, I can't see that its positions would usually be notable. And it doesn't seem to be a long-established and well-known thinktank either, compared to say the IPPR. I'm sure it can be useful for tracking down other sources or as a host of convenience, and could also be reliable if the author of a piece is an established expert. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a low-stakes thing as its just one of a string of references supporting an assertion that ""Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize and demonize Israel and Zionism..." I would let it live for that reason. It would be an entirely different discussion if this was a WP:REDFLAG situation in which an exceptional fact claim was sourced only to Reut. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Watch

Is it a reliable source? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since they are analysts of media, theoretically we shouldn't need to use them as we should be able to go right to the media they're analyzing. What statement are they being cited for? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I've recently started an article on famous (or infamous) Fatah commander Abu Ali Iyad. I want to eventually nominate it for GA status, but I need information regarding his role and participation in Fatah raids into Israel in 1966-67. I can't find anything online except pro-Fatah forums claiming he did lead attacks and there are some books provided by google that are giving me tidbits of info I can't really use. I have sources that say those attacks occurred, but they don't say who led them other than saying "Fatah terrorists/militants". The reason I want to know if PalMediaWatch is a reliable source (I wouldn't ever use it unless I had to btw) is because they are also providing information that says Abu Ali did participate in attacks on various Jewish towns in 1966 and they list those particular towns. Actually, they're just citing Palestinian Authority TV. They're accusing it of honoring "terrorist" Abu Ali Iyad. Here's the link: [9]. The info is towards the middle-end of the page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, they include a clip from the TV show in question, so the problem isn't the reliability of PMW per se; it's a. are they translating the Arabic correctly? (this should be easy to verify) and b. is PA TV a reliable source? (not as easy) Unless they have a reputation for doctoring tapes, which doesn't seem to be the case. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not aware of any tape doctoring either, but anyway, in this case they just seem to be commemorating Abu Ali Iyad and listing his accomplishments. If anything I could write "Fatah claims/says/etc..." or "Palestinians claim..." I'd rather just state it outright without attribution though. What do you think? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the Arabic translation checks out from what I heard. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The source would be Palestinian Authority TV, which I take it is a news station under the control of the PA (not of Fatah). It needs attributing to the news station. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to state that in the text or could we attribute the info to the TV station in the reference? Not really a big deal I guess, I just don't want it to seem like it's only the PA who credits Abu Ali Iyad as the one who led the attacks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith that given it is the only source, the statements should be attributed to the station in the text. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

emptywheel.firedoglake.com

Is http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/10/will-the-chamber-continue-wits-hbgary-work-now-that-theyve-been-hacked/ a reliable source for the claim in Anti-union organizations in the United States : During the first week of February, 2011, the Internet-based group Anonymous released e-mails which appear to show that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through their law firm, Hunton & Williams, contracted with three technology firms, including HBGary, Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies, to spy on and discredit unions and progressive groups. In a directly related claim is http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201112/6951/Themis-Looking-at-the-aftermath-of-the-HBGary-Federal-scandal?page=1 a reliable source for the claim : Palintir received startup funds from the CIA in 2005.[23] Release of the emails appears to have caused the parties to abort the attacks.? Collect (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Emptywheel is a blog and is barred under WP:SPS which says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Techherald may be reliable; it appears to have permanent editorial and reporting staff, some of whom are paid, and per the "About us" link to have newspaper-like aspirations to provide investigative reporting. The first source should be deleted, and the more careful approach would be to look for more clearly reliable sources for the assertions in the second. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if it meets rs, but you should use MSM, such as this article in the washington Post. TFD (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

emptywheel.firedoglake.com is clearly a blog and does not qualify as a WP:RS. www.thetechherald.com does state that it has some paid staff; however, it is a very small operation, uses volunteers to generate content, and is quite new (founded in 2008). It is marginal at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts

I've got an editor, User:Warmcocoa, at Ancient astronauts, seeking to cite seeming anything in order to make it a appear as if reliable scientists support the fringe pseudoscientific argument the page documents. Their cites include so far:

• IMDB
• psychologists IMDB
• authors Amazon
• doctor researchers IMDB
• Legendary Tmes
• Wikipedia itself

I dont consider any of these reliable and have tried to explain to them that they are not. I've reached 2RR with them, and they have gone to 3rr to reinsert their stuff. Are any of these cites reliable? And how should I proceed now that they are clearly determined to edit war to keep their fringe POV in the article? Heiro 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it, I doubt that the links given could be used to cite anything significant. I'll take a look at the article though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, they seem to have quited down for now. But as you can see from this left on another users talk yesterday after he reverted them, and then their little spree today leaving me with this at my talk, they will likely be back. Any one willing to watchlist and help would be welcomed.Heiro 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be 'policed' by irrational skeptics that have such a strong opinion against it nor should it be policed by 'lunatics' but by someone who understands the subject and can provide reliable sources.

The truth is there are scientists working on this theory, and I think Heiro being a skeptic, which is fine, doesn't like to see that there are authoritive people working on this theory. I may have provided unreliable references as I am new to wikipedia, but where should I get the reliable sources? I am in contact with various scientists working on the matter, an email won't do.

Also regarding the comment about IMDb I see many pages on wikipedia that cite IMDb pages for references. And Legendary Times is a respected magazine made by A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association - see here. Which is a team of archeologist and scientists dedicated to finding reliable evidence and are at the forefront of astronaut theorists. Another important point is that the page says 'according to certain authors' well there is no reference to that, there is no reference that there are only authors working on the matter.

Wikipedia is meant to be a place of reliable information and I people like Heiro are corrupting it. Rather than showing me better sources I can go to get the references (as I am new to Wikipedia editing) he insults me and interrupts other Wikipedia users.--Warmcocoa (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided more reliable sources here which clearly show Dr Michio Kaku supporting the theory, and has reliable references. --Warmcocoa (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied to you on the Talk page explaining that you would need to cite statements by these individuals in reliable sources saying they believe ancient astronauts existed. The fact that certain consented to be interviewed for a television show or are cited in a table of contents for a fringe publication is not good enough. To say that Dr. Kaku believes ancient astronauts visited earth you need to show us a really solid source. Please check out WP:REDFLAG which says that 'Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems they have the grave misapprehension that everyone in the credits supports the main points of a film. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The user reverted everyone else multiple times after receiving these answers here and on the talk page and was blocked for 48 hours. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Die Presse article on "King & King"

I was looking for non-U.S. controversy over the book King & King, and I found this story, which says that the book prompted Lithuania's Law for the Protection of Minors (a law which restricts information about homosexuality), among other things. (My German is not amazing, so I'm having trouble figuring out what the article says about Rimantas Dagys.) I know Die Presse would generally be considered a reliable source, but I can't find information on this anywhere else. Should it be considered reliable, and the information added? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks very reliable to me. The new law forbids "public dissemination to minors of provocative information about homosexuality". Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of anywhere else I could look to confirm this? It seems to me like if the book was influential in the passage of the law, I should be able to find Lithuanian news on it, but I can't. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not found anything further than Die Presse. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR and verifiability

Is an article available only through JSTOR sufficiently verifiable to meet WP:V and WP:PAYWALL? See [10] and Christian_terrorism#cite_note-gilmour-2 - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement that everyone have free access, Simon. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have concerns that what is being sourced is not actually supported by the reference provided - you may ask one of the Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR to take a look for you. This are individuals who have been kind enough to share there access with us.Moxy (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just checked, the source checks out. The doi is wrong though; I removed it. NW (Talk) 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NW, could you tell us what the source says? Does Gilmour cite anything in support of his claim, or is it just a bare assertion? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bare assertion. If you or anyone else want access to the source, send me an email and I'll respond shortly. NW (Talk) 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Simon, I didn't realize you didn't have access; I thought your use of the source was being questioned. I'm glad NW is helping you with that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It was both--I didn't have access and I wasn't sure whether JSTOR was good as a source. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century

Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century Cornell University Press. December 8, 2005. ISBN 978-0801472732 page 88 by Benjamin A. Valentino a reliable source for the following edit.

"Benjamin A. Valentino has put a death toll of between 45,000 and 80,000 between 1954 - 1975 due to VC terrorism."

[11] Link to page on G books. For those who may not be able to see it it is a table called terrorist mass killings in the 20th century. And the section says, NLF (Viet Cong) terrorism Communist 45,000 - 80,000 deaths. Tentontunic (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oversimplification - should be NORN not RSN. The issue is how VC terrorism is classified by terrorism experts. Experts such as the one Tentontunic uses for the article, C. J. M. Drake, distinguish between terrorism employed to obtain communist revolution and terrorism employed to achieve national independence or separation. Valentino clearly places the VC in the latter category. "In addition to strategic bombing and siege warfare, powerful sub-state insurgent groups have sometimes used coercive mass killing to terrorize their enemies, typically colonial governments and their loyalists among the native population.,,, Algerian resistance groups relied heavily on this strategy during their war for independence from France.... Communist guerillas in Vietnam also utilized mass terror in their fight for liberation against France and the United States." (p. 86)[12] Wikipedia should not be used to revive the long-abandoned Cold War myth that the Vietnam war was fought against global Communist Terrorism. TFD (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am heartened to learn that you WP:KNOW that "communist terrorism" was a "cold war myth." Unfortunately, Wikipedia has this nasty policy that editors ought not insist on what they know, but only use "reliable sources". I have now Googled "cold war myth" and "communist terrorism." Zero results. (usually almost any combination of words will get one result.) Ah well -- nmaybe you read it in a book? Zero hits. Suppose I lose all the quotation marks -- that should get a lot of hits! [13] is the one which seems closest to your position -- but it says current terrorism is mainly religious, and the reduction in communist terrorism is attributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist ideology. Which rather implies that what you "know" is precisely in line with what Josh Billings said. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, Google books search for vietnam+"cold war"+myth returns 10,400 hits. In any case, stick to the point. We are not discussing whether to explain that this was a myth, but rather to include it at all. By the way, could you please stop linking to your essay WP:KNOW. Yes I have read it. TFD (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with what you posted. And I responded precisely to what you posted. It is a bit more difficult for me to respond to a moving target which is what you are doing here. You made a claim as to what you know. I pointed out that what you know, ain't so. And I will link to the Wikipedia essay until you show you understand the essay. Google Australia + "Cold war" + myth gets nearly three thousand book hits. Proving absolutely nothing. There are still zero book hits for "cold war" myth "communist terrorism" remotely related to your claim as to what you know. Collect (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, the user who believed the source was wrong has realized his error and removed the FV tags. Thanks to all who commented. Tentontunic (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case the text adequately reflects what the source says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

filmreference.com

• - http://www.filmreference.com/film/3/Mary-Hart.html

Hi, is this site a good enough reference to use for personal details such as date of birth. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well is it owned by these guys [14] who seem to run a lot of sites. I see no evidence of editorial control on either filmreference or the owners page. I would say no to this as a source, especially for a BLP. Tentontunic (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The lack of an "About" or other informational link from the top page giving any description of staff, mission, approach, etc. makes it impossible to evaluate, so agree it is probably not reliable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree its a weak source indeed to claim specific personal details especially in regard to living people, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, FilmReference.com is "Not a reliable source for article use; use only for research purposes". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No indication of serious editorial oversight or that it meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Thames Discovery Programme's "FrogBlog"

I need a second (or third, or fourth) opinion: Would the The Thames Discovery Programme's "FrogBlog" (http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/about/) qualify as a RS under WP:NEWSBLOG? At first glance, I'd tend to say "yes" because it seems like a more-or-less official publication of this long-standing group. (They also write very well, not that that matters.) BUT, it doesn't really meet the letter of the criteria set out in the policy.

It was suggested (an Edit Semi-Protected request) that some prehistory of London be added from information gleaned from this site (http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/frog-blog/london-s-oldest-find-discovered-at-vauxhall) and from British Archeology's (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba46/ba46news.html).

I'm inclined to grant the request but really wanted another pair of eyes to look it over. Anyone?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The FrogBlog page says "Every FROG member can contribute to the TDP website through blogs and photos of their activities through the FROG Blog." What are the qualifications to become a member, and what kind of editorial oversight is there on the blog? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am also wondering what it is about the blog that led to this request. This type of announcement should be possible to source from many sources, like the British Archaeology one mentioned above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to know what particular information is being referenced. On the face of it, it seems like a better source could be found. (Not to derail the discussion, but ... since we're discussing archaeology blogs, I've often wondered whether one could use the blog by John Hawks, a leading paleoanthropologist. He will often examine recent research in detail, including citations, as in this post from a number of days ago.[15]) TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Timidguy: WP:SPS permits the use of self published material by experts who have been previously published on a topic by reliable third party sources (just not on BLP's). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, folks! I ran across this while processing Edit-SemiProtected requests. I wasn't going to re-write (or re-cite) the stuff for the requester; I was making sure the sourcing was up to standards before sticking it in. Then a family pet died and I was otherwise occupied. Sorry! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Italian news magazine 'Oggi' a reliable source within Wikipedia rules?

Oggi is the largest selling news magazine in Italy with a circulation of 521,000 and an estimated audience reach of 3,460,000. It has existed for 60 years. Source: http://www.rcspubblicita.it/mezzien/index.jsp;jsessionid=6E82808E57976D0D9CC1BA50B4DB26F9?page=/mezzien/master/descrizione.jsp?id=88*doc=t

Is this a reliable source within Wikipedia's rules?

Most or all popular newspapers will be useful sources for at least some purposes, but not all purposes. So please explain what it would be used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An article in Oggi states that one of the witnesses in the Amanda Knox case has a history of mental illness and has spent time in mental hospital. The article also states she is almost deaf. This information is confirmed by investigator Paul Ciolino who interviewed the witness and two of her relatives. His statements to that effect are on video at the West Seattle Herald's website.

Obviously this information is highly relevant to the case since the witness claimed to have heard a scream followed by people running, neither of which were heard by anyone else at the time she claimed to hear them. I think it should be included in the article with the relevant attributions to allow readers to make up their own minds about the reliability of the witness and maintain NPOV. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi seems to be a reliable source for this information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems obvious but nice to have this opinion. PietroLegno (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I dispute that this tabloid magazine is a reliable source for a WP:BLP issue. It seems to be on a par with Hello or the National Enquirer. It doesn't seem like the sort of source we need for such a serious claim. --John (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes it "seem" like the National Enquirer?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe like People, according to this. Incidentally, it seems to have a very low profile for such a high circulation magazine. I wrote a stub, as we didn't have an article on it, which is also a telling data point. All in all, no evidence that this is a reliable source. --John (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it has a wide circulation, reports on news, and has an editorial process. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't have an article on English WP seeing as it is an Italian-only magazine. If I could read Italian, I'd see what this [16] says about it.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oggi is somewhat tabloid, rather akin to the mail in the UK, and although it does have a level of reliability I would like to see BLP stuff sourced to something firmer. Currently, having one tabloid source raising this as relevant is concerning; enough for me to reject the mental health stuff outright, and to leave me concerned over the rest. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest if Oggi is akin to the Mail, it should not be considered reliable for extraordinary claims as mental illness. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that opinion remain if it is featured on other newspapers' websites (like the West Seattle Herald)?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• To get this in perspective, The Times is a tabloid. As far as UK newspapers go, The Times is generally considered a reliable source. So condemning an Italian mainstream news magazine because it is published in tabloid format (like The Times) is based on prejudice, not reason. I think that the fair approach is to use the information from Oggi with have a disclaimer such as "It is claimed that.." and have a citation. It would be useful to put a quotation from Oggi in Italian with English translation in the footnote; that way people can judge for themselves.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The Times is (or was) printed in tabloid format, but even under Murdoch is not a Tabloid. The word has several meanings, with the actual size being one of the less relevant in general conversation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment sounds just like Humpty Dumpty; words mean whatever you choose them to mean; neither more nor less. I do not agree with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, words mean whatever the participants in the communication choose them to mean. I think you fall for the Etymological fallacy. Do you eat an entree as the first course of a meal? Do you think someone who is antisemitic dislikes Arabs? "Tabloid" does denote a paper size, but it changed its meaning to now also, and more commonly, denote a kind of low-brow, sensationalistic newspaper, because many of them were originally printed in tabloid format. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the US, people associate the term with the latter meaning. I don't think that there is any prejudice at hand, just frustration with the language barrier and not knowing the culture well enough to know where the publication stands in their rank & file. If it is treated as a serious source to them then I believe we should accept it as one as well. Does the Italian Wiki use this as a common source?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeh that is an problematic language barrier. To be clear by "Tabloid" I mean the tone/focus/content and not the format. The Times is currently printed in tabloid form, it was previously a broadsheet (hell, I remember when the switched :D). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I google-translated the Italian WP article on Oggi above and it doesn't mention it being like a tabloid at all - it purports to be a news magazine. Of course, you can't trust WP for anything :)LedRush (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Vojsava Tripalda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We need help regarding 27 sources presented at talk page.

Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Sources_on_Serbian_origin

Is there any of the sources there that really should not be used? Any advice will be highly appreciated. -WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are old enough to be of questionable reliability, and we should not rely on tertiary sources such other encyclopedias for any controversial information, esp. if they do not give sources for the information. Works from modern historians are much preferred in general. Also, snippets mentioned in passing in reliable sources on unrelated topics are not the best sources to use. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you write to me which sources can be used, as we have 27 sources there. Only several are encyclopedias and etc. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WhiteWriter, but I have to say that I don't think that's really a reasonable request. I looked at your table, and I think it was helpful that you compiled it, but (as you know) we're all volunteers here, and if a person doesn't have a specific interest in an article already, it's not likely that he'd want to put in the tremendous amount of time you're requesting to research this. But if any two or three sources are especially under dispute at the article, I think it would be appropriate to ask here for opinions, especially if you base any arguments you make on our reliable sources policy and it's obvious that you've already researched the question thoroughly yourself. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Well, except for Nuujinn, of course. Extraordinary generosity is one of his many super powers.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) (outdented for sane formatting) Please understand that I'm just another editor, so what I can give you is my personal opinion. I'm not a historian, nor am I trained as such. Also, please understand that I think these kinds of discussions regarding ethnicity are overdone. That being said, I would suggest that none of them are worth using.

• 2, 3, 4, 7, 16 are tertiary sources inappropriate for anything but a broad overview.

• 26 are apparently not written by historians, but rather journalists and the like, who well may not be trained in historical research.

• 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 26 I would not use because I believe they violate WP:SYNTH.

• 1 I am unsure about because the quotation is not in context.

• 5, 8, 22 because "being of X-ian descent" or "born of an X-ian" not necessarily mean the same as "being X-ian". I am largely of Scottish descent, but not a Scot.

• 9 is problematic, as the author is presenting Horvat's views, and I don't know how reliable Horvat would be. Also, the author is an "independent researcher", and the purported journal the "Western Balkans Security Observer". Looks to be of low quality to me.

• 10, 12 the link doesn't reveal anything that can be used as a source, the snippet views generally do not provide enough context to allow use, in my opinion, and the links I followed did not support the assertion attributed to them.

• 15 historical histories are generally not considered secondary sources, but rather primary. Use of such as sources directly, rather than through the eyes of a trained historian, is very ill advised.

• 18, the link is wrong.

• 24, the link is to a review of Schmitt's book--Schmitt appears at first blush to be a promising source, don't use the magazine, use his book as the source.

• 25, the remark is in passing, and it is unclear as to whether the author is making a statement or attributing the statement to others.

Now, the crux of the issue to me is that if these are the best sources we have for this person, can we justify the article as anything but a stub? Surely there are better sources than this if the subject is truly notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks up to the sky for this!! I needed something like this very, very much! Yes, we have big problem with this. See this version. Some editors want this version back, as sources from that are "ok". But i among the others disagreed. We dont even have the links, and sourcs are almost the same... What do you say, how we can find out origin or nationality of this person.... This is majority of sources that are available online... Are sources in this version ok, or also not? What would you do? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing them Nuujinn, since they have all been refuted too many times but 3 users keep trying to add them in order to continue this ethnicity dispute. As for WW's disagreement the Noli biography is the most comprehensive biography in English of Gjergj Kastrioti and The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli, George Castrioti Scanderbeg, so the verdict is on that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Zjarri, stop with misinformations regarding sources. Once more, and really last time. Also, this is question about sources regarding Voisava, and not about Skanderbeg. Also, none of the links you presented here was included in article, while all of the authors presented was highly and openly pro-Albanian authors, including Fan Noli, who was 14th Prime minister of Albania. So, you may understand why i cannot really trust their neutrality. Nuujinn, tell me your opinion regarding the rest of sources, and your proposition for this. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

tfwiki.net as an external link

Not sure if this is the right place for an reliable "external links" question. There has been some talk in the Transformers Wikipedia project about having tfwiki.net as an external link for fictional character articles. I had beileved that as a fan wiki wasn't allowed as an external link, but others have argued it's stable and reliable (they point to links to wookiepedia as an example). I also noticed that many of the editors adding links to tfiki are the editors and moderators of the tfwiki.net, so that's another problem. Even if it is a legitimate external link, can the editors/mods of the tfwiki be adding links to their own work here? Mathewignash (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like WP:ELMAYBE section 4 might be relevant: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so are the collective user of this web site to be considered "knowledgeable" by wikipedia on this subject, and what about the second concern, of them adding links to their own works. Mathewignash (talk)

Seems like if there's consensus at the project, and given the section of EL cited above, this could be added. If the tfwiki editors are spamming Wikipedia with links in a number of articles, that's not allowed. But if it's just this instance, it doesn't seem to run afoul of WP:LINKSPAM. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Seattlepi.com

There is some discussion over whether content written by Candace Dempsey on Seattle Pi Reader Blogs is reliable or not. On first glance this the website of a newspaper, and I know our usual agreement is that "blogs" belonging to newspapers have some degree of reliability.

However in this case I think there are two areas of concern that impact on reliability.

The first is that Dempsey's posts (example) carry the disclaimer:

Editor's note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate.

To me this indicates a lack of editorial ovversight, which makes means this should actually be treated as a normal blog rather than a "newspapers blog".

Dempsey does not appear to be an employee or freelancer of Seattle Pi, so is not subject to any editorial oversight etc. Her website suggests the blog has been featured in various reliable sources (which lends it a little weight) but then talks about it being "hosted" by Seattle Pi. Again, I think this means we have to treat it as a blog?

As a writer on this issue Dempsey may be "reliable", or at least significant to use her opinion (properly attributed), but can we consider her blog a reliable source or not? Or is a secondary source needed?

FWIW I don't feel it passes muster as a WP:RS for very much other than her opinions, and secondary sources would be prefferred --Errant ^(chat!) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. The quote shows that it is effectively a self-published source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

-

That disclaimer, which is the first I have ever seen on a newspaper or major internet news source, pretty much separates those blogs from the "editorial control" standards which are required for blogs to pass muster for reliability. FWIW, the P-I itself, although no longer a printed newspaper, qualifies as a reliable source, but anything for which they preemptively deny responsibility, doesn't work. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey does work for the SeatllePI and does regularly have articles featured there, if this changes anyone's opinion on the subject.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Also, she has written a book on this subject and is considered an expert on it.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That would allow her SPS work to be used in a non-BLP article. But that's not the case here - WP:BLPSPS says no self-published sources unless published by the subject. How does this not fall afoul of that? Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

UN Women: Women do 66% of the World's Work

On the feminist movement page, an editor has written:

According to UN Women,"Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property."

and provided the citation: "Facts & Figures on Women, Poverty & Economics, Report published by UN Women", which links to the webpage [17]. See talk page [18].

While at first it may seem counterintuitive to say that UN Women is not a reliable source for this claim, please bear with me.

I have spent many hours (at least 10) looking for the original source/ research which shows that "women do 66% of the world's work". However, I could not find any such research. It appears to be an unverified claim. If anyone else can find it, please do tell.

Why I feel that UN Women is not a reliable source to make this statement that "women do 66% of the world's work":

-UN Women has not conducted any research which provides statistical evidence that this is true.

-It does not cite anyone else's research which shows that women do 66% of the world's work.

-It provides as a citation for its claim, a UNICEF webpage, which states that "While it is estimated that women perform two-thirds of the world’s work, they only earn one tenth of the income, and own less than one per cent of the world’s property."

-The UNICEF page UN Women links to does not provide any source at all for its claim.

-The UNICEF page says that "it is estimated that..." but it does not say by whom. (Is this not an example of "weasel words"[19]?)

-While UNICEF says "it is estimated that..." the UN Women page does not say that, but states it as a fact.

-Note the subtle difference between 66% and "two thirds".

-There is no author of the webpage in question.

-As further evidence of UN Women's shoddy workmanship on this statement, the UNICEF webpage which it cites does not support the "50% of food" statement.

I should also mention that the citation on the Feminist Movement page says that this is a "report", but actually it is a webpage.

I do not deny that UN Women may be a reliable source for other issues and concerns related to gender. For example, if they were to state that "women do more work than men", that would be more reasonable (and in fact there is research which shows this). However, UN Women is not qualified to make the statement that "women do 66% of the world's work", because they have no expertise to make claims about women's work as a percentage of the whole, on a global scale.

The wikipedia policy states that: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I am arguing that in this context, UN Women is not a reliable source.

Further, there is a strong social reason not to include this statement, as it could lead to bias and prejudice against men. It could easily lead to attitudes that men are lazy, for example. It could lead to discrimination against men in employment decisions. I feel that unless this claim is verified by research, it should not be included in the wikipedia page on "the Feminist Movement".

This refs your showing use here are old enough that you should be able to find this in other places (meaning they should be widely published if reliable). If " other reliable published sources" do not include the information that has been found in only "ONE" location (web page, news paper, book etc - that information is—by definition—not reliable enough to include - as per (undue weight). That said the ref look well sourced and is by a well respected ogranization. I will be honest it sounds a bit off this numbers - but the UN does do well with there stats, so i think its going to be a hard one to dismiss.Moxy (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess one could argue that for facts like this that if there is no sign of a detailed study, then maybe that is a sign there is none, and that therefore WP should avoid reporting too much about it, however (a) I would question that if a Wikipedian can not find the sources after 10 hours that this means there is no such source and (b) not only is this a good strong source, but it is attributed, which reduces the controversy anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the unreliability claims. Which is more reliable from the Wikipedia perspective, the questioner's assertions about the reliability of "the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women" who cite figures from the UNICEF source [20] or the United Nations sources themselves ? The UN are surely a reliable source for their own statements attributed to them in Wikipedia articles. Can someone demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the figures are contradicted by other reliable sources that could be added to the article or can the questioner suggest sources that are more reliable than the United Nations for this information ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The large problem is the definition of "work" as the UN defines a man working as only "productive work" (an unemployed man does zero work) while most women are credited with at least 12 hours of work a day including "housework." I recall the old parable which ends with "so all of the work is done just by me and thee, and lately it seems thee has not been doing thy fair share." It is similar to the statistic that a wife is worth $200,000 a year for the work she does (100 hours as doctor at $500/hr, etc.) ... while economists suggest that the value of a person's work is what another person would reasonably pay for the job done. In short - the statistic is a gemacht one entirely. Collect (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Our rule on use of statistical data says, " Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care....sound secondary sources will comment on the impact of the questioning strategy and the sample questioned and this should be referred to in the article." See also WP:REDFLAG; this is an assertion that "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...", thus "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources". Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking this issue seriously as the editors on the Feminist Movement page just dismissed what I said and then refused to comment further. They further struck out my addition when I tried to add that "UN Women does not provide any primary/empirical evidence to support this statement." @ Moxy- it is true that this statistic has been recycled endlessly, but there have been cases in the past where false statistics have been widely printed, only later to have been revealed to be false. I was just reading about a statistic where a few women's groups were claiming that 150,000 women died per year from anorexia, but it was later revealed to be only 100 (I can provide a link if you are interested). @Andrew Lancaster, I agree that the fact that I cannot find it does not mean there is no empirical study, but usually when there is an empirical study to back up the claim, the original source usually comes up quite quickly. Further, I wrote to about 10 different organizations that had posted this information (including 2 UN agencies), but none of them ever replied. I do think that professionally, if an organization wants to make such claims which could so negatively impact one gender, they should be able to back up their claim when requested. @Sean Hoyland- actually the data are directly contradicted by the data in the UN HDR 04 study, which is the only data I could find that even comes close to addressing men and women's labor globally. I realize that by wikipedia standards I am not allowed to do even basic mathematical computations, but if you look at that source [21], on page 233, you will see data for minutes of men's and women's labor. Even in the worst countries (i.e. most unequal), women's labor accounts for only 54.5% of a total 100% (617 minutes/total 1132 minutes=54.5%). Also Catherine Hakim has conducted research showing that, in Europe at least, men and women work virtually identical amounts (I can provide a link if you wish.) Please note: 54.5% is a long way from 66%. "Can the user suggest data which is more reliable?" Yes. UNDP's HDR 04 report. @Jonathan Wallace- Can you please be more clear about which way you are arguing? Are you saying it is not a reliable source? Finally, I want to address that the UN is such a reliable source. This is a problem, that people put the UN on a pedestal, and think that it is this unassailable source, but I have worked for two different UN agencies, and I can assure you that they are not as great as you think. I know that you probably think that is irrelevant, but I think its important to check your assumptions about the UN. Finally, I know a few people who work at UN Women, so hopefully I can contact them and get a clear response from them (as opposed to just ignoring my e mails). I look forward to any more comments.64.25.27.130 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sean Hoyland- the link you provided to UNICEF goes to a page that does not exist. What is your point in providing the link to UN Women's webpage? Are you trying to impress us with their webpage? Don't get me wrong- I have nothing against UN Women, but I don't think it is beyond a UN agency to put something on their website which is an unverified claim. 64.25.27.130 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think its not reliable. Statistical pronouncements such as this one should not be used for their underlying truth, unless the speaker also discloses a source of the information which can be evaluated.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, another editor suggested I get a user account. So here it is. I'm the same person who previously posted the reliable source request on this noticeboard. And by the way, this was not an April Fool's joke.Liberation3 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I brought this discussion back from the archived page because I don't consider it to be solved. ANy more comments please? Or could anyone advice to a new user, how to proceed from here?Liberation3 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

news.medill.northwestern.edu

Medill at Northwestern University is a journalism school that also publishes reports by undergraduates. In one of those reports, the writer J. Freeman asserts that LarouchePAC might have copied the look of barackobama.com. Wikipedia reports that as: "A 2009 report says that the LPAC website, Larouchpac.com, appeared to have deliberately copied the look of the barackobama.com website, though the contents were entirely different." Is the website of Medill journalism school a RS? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The source in question is a publication of Medill School of Journalism. "About the Medill Washington Program"

The Washington Program's reporting has been recognized professionally by numerous awards, including prizes from the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Press Foundation and Investigative Reporters and Editors. Medill Washington students are fully credentialed working journalists getting real-world experience, a hallmark of the Medill School. ...the Washington experience has helped launch hundreds of successful careers in print, online and video journalism.

Here is the article in question: Amid protests from the right, seniors in Virginia try to be heard on health care. It is being used in Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement#Length and other issues.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue, in my mind, is not whether this student newspaper is a reliable source, but whether it is reliable for this particular information. Personally, I feel uncomfortable when a one-sentence, speculative, passing comment in a source is used in Wikipedia. If the writer were an expert, and if this speculation were based on an extended analysis, and if it was a crucial issue, then I'd say yes. But in this case, I'd vote no. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's actually part of a multi-paragraph analysis of the website, so it does seem like an extended analysis and not like a passing comment. Whether it's a crucial issue or not doesn't seem relevant to the source's reliability. Nor does it require special expertise to observe that one website has the same "layout, design and color scheme" as another.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)