Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 124

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126→Archive 130

ABBYY Compreno

Resolved

Could someone please give opinions on the quality and reliability of sources used here. Details are included into the linked discussion. I've addressed several guys listed here asking them to confirm the sources. But only one of them replied so far very shortly. Thank you in advance. -- Nazar (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an RS problems here. The problems I see according to your discussion are those of WP:WEIGHT, and I think you are bumping up against WP:CRYSTAL as well. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden Article: Inclusion of CDF Dialogue for Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén

As a brief overview of Ryden, she is a controversial figure in and out of religious circles. I would like to get some opinions for the inclusion of some text for the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén in the Vassula Ryden article, and more importantly what people think of the 4 references that I would like to use to backup the text in question.

Proposed Text and References

From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Ryden's answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings. As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments”. He also advised that the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops regarding the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organized by Mrs. Ryden.[1][2][3][4]

References Description

I will proceed to explain the details of the references in their numerical order:

Source 1) Hvidt (see reference #1) was a primary witness to the 2000-2004 dialogue which concluded in an interview with Joseph Ratzinger (now pope Benedict), in which Ryden and Hvidt were present. Niels Christian Hvidt obtained his doctoral degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University and made observations that were published in a part of his book, with Oxford University Press as the publisher. The book, under the direction of Fr. Prof. Elmar Salmann of the Pontifical Institute of Sant’Anselmo, is Hvidt’s doctoral dissertation, which investigates the issue of Christian Prophecy WP:3PARTY. This also makes it compliant with WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:IRS Scholarship

Here is a quote from the book (page 119, first paragraph) that I am basing most of my text on:

From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Vassula Ryde´n and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Vassula’s answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.374 As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a letter to a number of bishops’ conferences that Vassula Ryde´n through the published answers had supplied ‘‘useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments.’’ The Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Ryde´n in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.

Source 2) This source contains Josheph Ratzinger's 2004 letter in its entirety, also mentioned in Hvidts text

Source 3) Part two of this 2007 letter by William Levada confirms that the dialogue took place (see point 2). This reference is already being used in the article as a source for Levada's 2007 letter.

Source 4) This source is from a Swiss magazine. Ryden has lived in Switzerland for a considerable number of years, hence a lot of the publications regarding her are based in Switzerland, French and other foreign based sources. The last paragraph in the entire article reconfirms the issuing of the Josheph Ratzinger letter, dated July 10, 2004.

The original text is as follows:

La publication de ce dialogue a été annoncée dans une lettre datée du 10 juillet 2004, signée du cardinal Ratzinger en personne, adressée à plusieurs Présidents de Conférences épiscopales catholiques qui avaient exprimé leur souci concernant Vassula et ses écrits. Sa Sainteté leur expliquait dans son courrier que la position de la CDF est modifiée envers Vassula et ses écrits. Le Cardinal désire que chacun lise les questions posées par la CDF à Vassula et les réponses qu’elle leur a apportées.

The translated text Google Translate from French to English results in:

The publication of this dialogue was announced in a letter dated July 10, 2004, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in person, addressed to several Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences who expressed concern about Vassula and her writings. His Holiness explained to them in his letter that the position of the CDF is amended to Vassula and her writings. Cardinal wants everyone to read the questions posed by the CDF to Vassula and the responses it has made ​​them.

Note that I am only intending to use the first part of the aforementioned text which mentions the July 10, 2004 letter.

Discussion by involved editors bringing their dispute to WP:RS/N

This discussion is closed, involved editors should discuss this at their article talk page. This is effectively a Wall of text attack on RS/N's processes. If you are involved in this dispute, do not further comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to know if the 4 combined aforementioned sources (considering they are cross referencing each other) would be good enough to include my proposed text, at least until I can find more publications (I know they are out there) which confirm the dialogue took place. Opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Arkatakor (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the rejection of the sources is here: Talk:Vassula_Ryden#cdf-tlig.org_website. Note that another Vassula related single purpose account (WP:SPA) has already initated dispute resolution on this topic so this section only serves to fork the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
IRWolfie-: With respect, I am looking for other opinions than the people who have participated in that conversation, including yourself. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, here is the other similar thread: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Vassula_Ryden_discussion, hence this RSN post unnecessary divides attention. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was unaware of that post, since I was not mentioned in that dispute. You would also do well to take note that my proposed text and references differ substantially from that of Sasanack. In response to your attempt to cloud my reputation before people even read my inquiry, you would do well to take note that I have justified my SPA status to you a week back, to which you have not responded, yet you responded to this noticeboard within minutes with your SPA comment which I had already clarified a week back. Also your comment "this RSN post unnecessary divides attention" seems to indicate that you do not want other opinions to be heard regarding my proposed sources. I do not think its too much to ask for you to let this RSN query follow its course and allow others to come up with their own feedback, simply based on what I have posted here (prior to our discussion), without being clouded by your opinion or mine in the dispute. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
None of the four sources is acceptable. Hvidt is not independent. Ratzinger and Levada are primary sources. Stella Maris is a far cry from reliable on matters like this, as they have no credible expertise in interpreting Vatican documents and no reputation for factchecking and accuracy. Furthermore, none of the sources support the information you wish to add, which appears to be pure OR and synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned to IRWolfie- I am looking for other opinions than the people who have participated in that conversation, including yourself. Also I would advise that you stop trying remove the dispute tag. Currently there at least 2 ongoing disputes being made with regard to this article, as mentioned by IRWolfie- Arkatakor (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hvidt can't be considered an independent objective source regarding Ryden considering that he proclaims on his own self published web page that he repeatedly lobbied Church Officials on her behalf, arranged meetings for her, took photos of her, did his thesis paper on her, feels it's his "duty" to disseminate information about her, etc. etc. etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And nonetheless his book (source 1 in this topic) meets wikipedia criteria for reliable sources with flying colors, a point which you completely refused to acknowledge. RE: "did his thesis paper on her", as I already mentioned to you, in point 3 of my comment dated 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC), Rydén is mentioned only as one of the examples of prophecy within a chapter dedicated to historical examples of prophecy, which constitutes only one dimension of the larger framework of the book’s content.

The fact that you overlooked that point (among probably all the others in that post) clearly demonstrates that you seem unable or unwilling to register the information I have been trying to bring across to you.

For this reason I decided to cease discussing this topic with you any further and instead make a post here, to get a totally independent and objective view from someone who has not been involved in the discussion. Arkatakor (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You might recall that I told you on the Talk page that Hvidt's personal opinions properly attributed might conceivably be used in the Supporters section of the article, e.g. "Hvidt says" that "medical reports confirm cures of grave illnesses in her presence", etc. but that his admitted status as a Ryden supporter means we should not use him as an authoritative source, and we could never use him as source to speak on behalf of the Vatican or interpret their position re Ryden. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You might also recall that I have said 3 or more times in this topic already, that I am not interested in your opinion or that of anyone else who has been involved in the Vassula Ryden dispute. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commentary and discussion by uninvolved editors

Comment - User Arkatakor asked me, an uninvolved editor, to comment on this (because I also commented on the DRN page). It would be nice to have some other source for the 2000-2004 dialogs, especially a Vatican source. For example, the 1995 Vatican pronouncement is on the Vatican website here ... does the Vatican have something comparable for the 2000-2004 dialogs? Also: The sources above indicate that Ryden included some of the 2000-2004 dialogs in subsequent editions of her books. It is appropriate for the article to summarize the content of her books; and the post-2004 amendment which included some of this dialog could be mentioned in the article. That is permitted under the principle that a primary source or fringe source can be used as a citation for describing the content/view of the source itself. Thus, Ryden's book could be used to present her view of this purported dialog. But the article could not word it in such a way to suggest that the dialog conclusively happened ... it must simply say that Ryden claims the dialog happened, and that she amended her books in the year 200X to include blah, blah. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling. Oxford University Press (OUP) published a research monograph on theology. Hvidt is widely recognised in the field of contemporary religosity (a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Miracles from CUP), he is cited favourably in Politics, religion & ideology ( 10.1080/21567689.2012.659487 ) regarding modern catholic religosity. OUP is a scholarly publisher of theology and religious studies, CUP is a scholarly publisher of theology and religious studies, Politics, religion & ideology is a scholarly journal of studies of religion. Hvidt academic work appears to be standard to me, the quote from the text looks standard. The actual use of this may be misweighted though, it looks like a short sentence fact regarding interfaith theological dialogue.
  • The two letters are external links at best. There is no indication of why any weight should bear on open circulars, or why the opinions of involved parties should be included in wikipedia's voice when we've got an OUP publication. I would frankly consider these primary sources due to the direct involvement of the senior religious administrators in question.
  • Swiss journalists are not experts in the structure of internal Catholic disciplinary limitations against external texts, Hvidt already supplies a scholarly account. There is no reason to consider use of this source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


  • Regarding Hvidt. As quoted from Oxford University Press, "Oxford University Press publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.". It appears that Hvidt is also an Associate Professor of Theology at the University of Southern Denmark. He also taught for 4 years at the Gregorian University in Rome. As well, he's been a "visiting scholar" listed at the faculty of theology at the university of Notre Dame. He has extensive publication in journals, books, magazines, and newspaper articles, all dealing with theology. I cannot find a single reason why this source would not be RS for its claims. I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.
  • I do not find ewtn.com to be RS. (reasons available if necessary, but it seems pretty obvious)
  • I do not find parvis.ch to be RS. (obvious reasons there too, also it's unnecessary as stated by Fifelfoo above) -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on Commentary and discussion by uninvolved editors

Some users cannot understand that a closed discussion is closed, and not to be reopened, even in another section. Reopening such a closed discussion amounts to disruption. Given the above disruption of RS/N process, further disruption is not required. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fifelfoo: Thank you for closing the "Discussion by involved editors bringing their dispute to WP:RS/N" discussion. I had no intentions of bringing the dispute to this RSN and was on the verge of reporting the users who participated in it for harassment. Your comment on Hvidt's work conforms with the comments I made to justify its usage in the Vassula Ryden talk page.

Noleander: I will wait to see if you have any further input based on Fifelfoo's emphasis on the quality of Hvidts work before I comment any further. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hvidt, Niels Christian (2007). Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition. Oxford ]Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. pp. 111–119. ISBN 0-19-531447-6.
  2. ^ Ratzinger, Joseph: Letter to Presidents of Bishops Conferences (10 July 2004)
  3. ^ Levada, William. "Letter to Presidents of [certain] Bishops Conferences (10 July 2004)".
  4. ^ "Vassula Rydén, prophet of unity since 25 years" (PDF). Stella Maris. Parvis. January 2011. Retrieved 3 June 2012.

Arabic source on BLP

An Arabic-language source is being used to support a contentious claim on Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber. The article's come up at WP:BLP/N; I've done some cleanup as have others. I know foreign-language sources are permitted. Because I do not understand Arabic, however, I cannot verify the following:

  1. Is this a strong reliable source?
  2. If it is, does is accurately support the claims as written [1] in the article?

Especially with the second part of that claim, I'm not sure that it does based on googletranslate, but that doesn't mean a great deal as it isn't much help with Asian languages. The source is possibly called Sharq newspaper. Thanks. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could use Google translate to identify the parts of the website which might provide some information related to editorial oversight and other issues you think are important vis-à-vis establishing reliable source status, and then use Wikipedia:Translators available to have it competently translated. Then it could undergo an informed discussion here. __meco (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've tried Google translate again and unfortunately I didn't find much detail at all. I found the website lists more than one contact address and also learnt several Arabic newspaper names include the word 'sharq'. Online English-language sources that mention this source are sparse & not esp. reliable, but it 'seems' to be called al-Sharq, and is 'possibly' a Saudi daily launched early this year which focuses mainly on domestic and regional news. Few listed Arabic–English translators are active; I've now asked the one that is if he'd join in here. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NONENG advises non machine translation, however a non-english source being used to support a contentious claim needs extra attention per WP:REDFLAG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have given it a once-over, and scoured the related media, English and Arabic, for third-party references to it; as of this time, I do not believe al-Sharq (which is a very new Saudi newspaper) can support the claims as written in the above diff. (Note, I can read it, but not with absolute certainty, as I learned Qur'anic and Egyptian Arabi [that is, the tone of the site is decidedly "colloquial", or my Arabic is far worse than I believed]: but I can read it well enough to know it does not meet anything other than "common-knowledge" verification at the present time.) It appears somewhat reliable, although I've not done much more than read a few articles off of the front page, but a combination of the fact that the Saudi media is not known for its rigorous fact-checking (and is often for outlandish claims), and that the newspaper, as far as I can tell, is under a year old, does not give it "extraordinary source for extraordinary claim" notability, although, in the future, it may become a very reliable source. (Note, that for extraordinary claims touching on Arabic, Persian, Jewish, Western, contoversial, or Islamic persons or ideas, in general, most of the Arabic-language media is unreliable most of the time, esp. for WP:REDFLAG). However, in this case, I have found no redflags nor any ludicrous information, but base my current decision based on the small presence and age of the newspaper itself. My knowledge of Saudi culture is a bit old, but from what I can see as well, that paper is very close to an opposition paper (especially on gender issues), if not one outright (which it seems not to be, as it doesn't blast the government); so it may be that the House of Saud has finally liberalized? (I think not!). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 22:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Translators available#Arabic-to-English might be of some help. - SudoGhost 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) that's where he got me, but the list is woefully under-populated. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 22:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I missed that it was already linked above, looks like it's time for some sleep. - SudoGhost 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment that the BLP claims are extraordinary, and that without further guidance regarding what the newspaper is and if it has an editorial policy exceeding the standard Saudi policy; I think the claim is too great to hang on a standard Saudi newspaper. I would be pleased to find if a one year old Saudi newspaper was reversing the trends of Saudi journalism, but until the editorial standard of the supposed newspaper is demonstrated, I think the extraordinary nature of the claim against a Living Person means we need to not include this content supported against this source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Arabic media for third-party references to it particularly, St John C. A 'decidedly "colloquial" tone' is typical of a tabloid, which is unsuitable per WP:BLPSOURCES. Lack of evidence for a strong reputation for fact-checking or editorial oversight is a further key problem. I gather Al Jaber is controversial among some, for his strong western ties if nothing else. Given you say most Arabic-language media is unreliable for extraordinary claims about controversial Arabic figures, that's another reason to be cautious. Certainly it's an extraordinary claim. The final comments you made suggest the paper is far from mainstream press. As WP:REDFLAG holds exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources, and that extra caution is needed when an apparently important claim is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, this goes against using it. I also noticed very recent press sources linked from his official site including Forbes made no comment about his 'personal liberty', which somewhat contradicts the claim. I think based on the comments here, for which I'm grateful, the appropriate course of action is to not include these claims supported with that source. Thanks to all. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

magicnook.com and magictricks.com

These are used in a number of articles as a source for biographies, see [2] and [3]. Any comments? Neither one of them feels reliable to me. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that they are made in good faith - and the sites are commercial. However, that does not mean they are defined by Wikipedia o be "reliable sources". Allow it for really non-contentious stuff <g>, but nothing else. Collect (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Collect, by policy they are not RS, however, magictricks.com does list a bibliography that they draw from, which could be used, a quick glance through their list shows RS sources. I wouldn't use them for anything contentious. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

E-books as references

Resolved

I cannot find any guideline or policy that speaks to this issue so I assume we treat each one on a simple case by case basis. My question is, how do we determine if an e-book is a reliable source, not self published (someone paid to have it published) or self published by an unnotable figure etc. Is this just a matter of looking very close at each use, determining the credentials of the author and their mainstream notablility, the publishing company (determining if they allow pay-for-publishing) and the overall notability of the publication? Are there any specific criteria i may look to in even an essay form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We handle e-books the same way we handle printed books. So, yes, we look at all of those things. To help determine whether a book is self-published, we created List of self-publishing companies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks that helped a great deal!--Amadscientist (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Vanity and self-publishers tend to advertise this fact fairly heavily on their websites. It is why a citation should always include a publisher. If the publisher and the author are identical (with some exceptions for corporately authored objects, such as published government reports, etc) then chances are, the work is self-published. If you have any doubts regarding a work feel free to bring it to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a disagreement on the reliability of sources in Operation Sharp and Smooth. The discussion does unfortunately not take place on the talk page but here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jokkmokks-Goran_reported_by_User:Shrike_.28Result:_No_violation.29

And here:

User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Explanation_required

AnkhMorpork (talk) is of the opinion that I’m using unreliable sources. He mentions two specific cases. One case concerns an Arabic newspaper article (from al-Mustaqbal). I have frankly no idea why he believes it to be unreliable.

The other case may be more interesting to hear other views on. It concerns the initial Israel Defence Forces (IDF) statement about the Baalbek raid, supporting this content:

According to the IDF ten "terrorists" were killed and five captured during a "precise surgical raid", that claimed no IDF or civilian casualties.

This is the original link to the IDF home page:

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55483.EN

Unfortunately, this link is now dead, but I found the statement reproduced here:

http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=788256&Date=8/3/2006

AnkhMorpork seems to be of the impression that this link expresses the "views" of the United Jerusalem Foundation, rather than that of the IDF. It does not. The United Jerusalem Foundation is a pro-Israeli organization that among other things republishes thousands of articles relevant to Israel, including statements from the IDF. They usually provide links to the original files. I have never come across a case where they have faked or tampered with documents. It would be very surprising if they did so with an official Israeli statement.

Furthermore, all of the facts and the quotes that I use in the Wikipedia article are also found in these two reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0907.pdf (p. 124 and 129)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/007/2006/en/4a9b367a-d3ff-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde180072006en.pdf (p.14)

I prefer however to link to the United Jerusalem page since it contains the complete IDF statement. I have tried several times to recover it through the Wayback Machine. They seem to have kept a copy of the page from 2007:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070815000000*/http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55483.EN

When I try to access it I get the following message:

"Bummer. The machine that serves this file is down. We're working on it."

If somebody has any other idea how to retrieve the original link I am grateful for suggestions.

Assuming we cannot retrieve the original IDF statement, what is the best way to handle this problem? Should we make an explicit remark in the footnote that the original link is dead? Should we keep the United Jerusalem link or switch to the HRW / Amnesty links? Or use both?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply a full citation for the al-Mustaqbal article. We are unable to discuss unnamed, undated, unauthored sources which lack a page number. If there is a link to the article in question, please also supply it.
Please indicate the specific claims proposed to be supported by each source. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I was reluctant to bring this up because, as I wrote above, I have no idea why the source is questioned, apart from being in in Arabic, which few of English Wikipedia readers understand. On the other hand the Baalbek raid took place in Lebanon, where the official language is Arabic.
The source mainly covers this content:

An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting.

The source also covers (confirmed by another source) the names list of abducted civilian Lebanese: Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#Civilians_kidnapped_to_Israel.5B8.5D.5B22.5D
The article can be found here:
http://www.almustaqbal.com/storiesv4.aspx?storyid=190040
Both the “Interior Security Forces”, who carried out the investigation, and Al-Mustaqbal (newspaper), who reported about it, are affiliated with the Hariri clan and thus independent of warring parties.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I have formatted the two items under-discussion below in a way that more conveniently assists RS/N editors
Short answer: You follow the instructions at WP:DEADREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • and possibly at:
  • To support the following statement:
  • "According to the IDF ten "terrorists" were killed and five captured during a "precise surgical raid", that claimed no IDF or civilian casualties."
The IDF is still serving something much like the data you indicated via this file. The search required was (google:) "Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek" site:idf.il. Given the trivial nature of the document, I am going to note it here as a citation, [Staff] (20060803 13:03) "Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek: " [Israeli Defence Forces' statement] ¶"Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek…" "IDF and IAF special forces yesterday raided a Hezbollah headquarters located in a hospital in Baal-bek, Lebanon. Ten Hezbollah terrorists were killed on the mission and five more captured. There were no IDF or civilian casualties." which varies in a number of ways from text at United Jerusalem. Apart from the apparent copyright violation at United Jerusalem there is no indication of an editorial or more importantly archival policy. The waybackmachine seems to have failed to archive IDF content due tothe structure of the IDF's page serving. Given that the content being sourced against the unnamed link above is matched in every degree by [Staff] (20060803 13:03) "Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek" [Israeli Defence Forces' statement] ¶"Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek…" except for the matter of the strike being surgical, I don't see why [Staff] (20060803 13:03) "Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek " [Israeli Defence Forces' statement] ¶"Special Forces Raid in Baal-bek…" can't support this claim if slightly modified. Note the dead link (which shouldn't affect reliability in general if we can confirm that it once existed and matches the claim substantially, especially for trivial claims such as this, it appears that a longer story was published by the IDF on this point), rely on the other reliable sources in addition, and add a citation to the text file. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

[Staff] (20060803) "تقرير أمني يقدّم المعلومات الرسميةعن إنزال بعلبك" [Security report provides official information on the landing of Baalbek] al-Mustaqbal

For other editors, to supply the deficits in Jokkmokks-Goran's ability to cite sources as requested, the al-Mustaqbal article is:

Is used to support the following claim, "An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting." plus a list of names.

I'm having difficulty seeing this source supporting the claim, given that the source clearly claims that 13 people were wounded in the fighting?—please check the correspondence of the sources with their claims. I don't see any problem with the reliability of this newspaper, it is the organ of a responsible parliamentary political party with an obvious editorial policy, and the particular article is clearly reporting and attributing material garnered from a government report. Any one suggesting this article for this use needs to revisit verifiability and reliability policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The article clearly names the 16 fatalities (two of them being identified as belonging to Hezbollah), the 13 wounded and the 6 abducted (1 released before leaving Lebanon), as is evident even from Google Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almustaqbal.com%2Fstoriesv4.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D190040
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
So why is it being used to support this claim in the article, "An official report by the Lebanese Interior Security Forces (ISF) confirm these numbers, although the names do not always match those supplied by HRW. Two of the victims were identified as belonging to Hezbollah but the Communist party members were not mentioned in the report. The report also contained the names of the 14 Lebanese wounded in the fighting."? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The preceding sentence reads : "According to the investigation by Human Rights Watch 16 Lebanese residents were killed in the raid, of whom four were deemed combatants and a further two civilian members of Hezbollah or the Communist party." The Lebanese investigation thus confirm the HRW number of fatalities (16) and the number of Hezbollah combatants (2) but not the two Communist combatants. The report also names 14 injured - the 13 named people at the end of the article and Mohammad Nasrallah (14 years), who was thrown out of an helicopter and thus sustained injuries (according to the report).Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
al-Mustaqbal clearly indicates the people who they believe were injured as a result of the raid, and they number them 13. Mohammad Nasrallah was very clearly not indicated by al-Mustaqbal as being injured as a result of the raid. You are drawing an inference that is not supported by the text—original research. Do not do this. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can deem this as original research. I'm just reading what the article says:
"…as they [the Israeli soldiers] left, Mohammad Nasrallah (14 years) was left behind after being thrown from the helicopter at the outskirts of the town of Nahla, which led to him sustaining injuries…"
"…13 individuals were injured and they were: Hassan Husayn Nasif, Ali Abdallah Sa’id, Muhamad Husayn Salhab, Ali Ahmad Murtada, Bashir Abdel-Salam al-Masri, Muhammad Husayn Shuqayr, Muhammad Mahdi, Asour Ali Muhiddin, Nour Muhammad Saloum, Hani Muhammad Sulh, Talal Shibli, Quboul and Mustafa Shibli."
Muhammad Nasrallah was clearly injured and his name is not included in the list of 13 names at the end of the article. That adds up to 14 different named injured individuals mentioned in the article. How can this constitute original research?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I also have trouble with the math based on that source, and the conclusion you are drawing for the same reason as Fiflefoo. I understand how you get there, but it is not supported by the source, and using the source for it is original research. The article is very clear, going so far as naming each name. The person who fell from the helicopter was not injured during the fighting, therefore was not listed as a casualty of battle. Therefore, claiming he is, is OR. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to make a fuss about this. But the source is very clear. According to the report, the boy was abducted from his home (together with 5 relatives or neighbors) by Israeli special forces, marched to a nearby town and thrown out (he did not fall out) of the helicopter and was injured in the fall. The source does not state that these injuries were sustained outside the fighting and that he therefore is not listed as a casualty of war. The only thing that differentiates him from the other injured is that he was first abducted and was therefore included in this group.
By the way, this version of events is not supported by the Human Rights Watch report and I therefore decided not to use it in the article. It is only a question of whether the article should write that this report names 13 or 14 wounded Lebanese. Maybe "more than a dozen" would do the trick? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That would be a discussion for your article talk page to decide. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I provide a reliable source to append my peculiar wikipedia citation? The article we posted covers a newly built Mosque in Tijuana Mexico.

Our religious organization recently built a Mosque in Mexico, and we put a Wiki citation to chronicle its development and existence, especially as it is the only Mosque located in Baja California. Is this or the content outside of Wiki guidelines? Cite: Masyid al Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.184.136.253 (talk • contribs)

Three Irish wordpress sources

I have a query whether these websites would be considered reliable in the context of providing information on Irish politics.

The Cedarloungerevolution is a blog which contains an online archive containing a number of documents from a number of historical and current left ing groups. IEL is an archive of election literature. It also contains infromation on past local election results in Ireland. The final website is run by Dr Adrian Kavanagh of NUI Maynooth.

If these websites are unreliable can anyone give an explanation as to why so? UNATCOReviewer (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

These *may* qualify for an expert exemption under WP:SRS, but can you point out on each of these sites where it says that he maintains control over them, and that he is responsible for the content, and agrees that it is correct to the best of his knowledge, or that he will fix any errors reported (or if there is somewhere to report errors even)? Is he vouching for the authenticity of the documents or information he's providing? I was unable to find any such assertions. Also, it's very difficult to give any site (particularly any with user-input forums) a blanket yes/no to anything, context is too important, it would need to be asked if they were reliable in relation to specific edits for the clearest answers here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We do not require sources to claim that they are "responsible for the content". Every newspaper website I've checked has a boilerplate disclaimer saying that they're not. An enormous number of technical and scientific sources say the same. And if it's just an archive of someone else's work, then such a disclaimer would be entirely appropriate, since the poster isn't actually the source of the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
However, in the case of SPS exceptions, the poster can be the source. Newspapers add that boilerplate to prevent lawsuits only, they also have editorial mechanisms (fact checkers, editors, etc) in place specifically to make sure that if errors do occur, there is a way to correct them. That is all I meant by "responsible for the content". A newspaper won't publish anything just because *someone* said "this is true, you should publish it". In that sense, they are responsible for the content. An SPS from an expert would/should have a similar control policy listed. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
While they don't have to be "responsible for the content", they still should be third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there anything that demonstrates that these blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - SudoGhost 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com looks like a valid archive. It is almost entirely primary sources though, primary sources that are still within copyright (even if the archive is for educational purposes). I would suggest that judicious external links be used, or that the quotation guidelines in WP:HISTRS be used. So rarely, and only when secondary sources justify the use of a specific primary source. And only then by quotation. (Beautiful archive though.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Frederic Gracia

reliable source

here some tag for trying not deleted Frederic Gracia page I place here some reliable references found and added within a ten-day grace period, for this article may be not deleted.


here is the 1st page when you look for Frederic Gracia on GOOGLE FR

Google searches are not reliable to establish artistic notability as google searches are not authored or edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

here the 2nd one for Frederic Gracia on GOOGLE FR

Google searches are not reliable to establish artistic notability as google searches are not authored or edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

here is the 4th page on google .fr

Google searches are not reliable to establish artistic notability as google searches are not authored or edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

here a tag toward a Frederic Gracia's biographie

Self-published source, clearly promotional. I feel very very strongly that this is a bad source given the levels of extreme hyperbole. Possibly reliable only for the prizes received. I am highly reluctant to accept this for the establishment of notability given its self-promotional tone and lack of editorial review of the facts contained within. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

here a tag toward a press blog 1st page

http://gracia-presse.blogspot.fr/ is not a press archive, and there is no reason to believe that it has archived the news articles intact, complete and intact. Actual articles may or may not be reliable, but they'd need to be specifically raised with a full citation of the item under consideration. This link is almost certainly a copyvio. Not reliable, not useable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

here a tag 2nd page

http://gracia-presse.blogspot.fr/ is not a press archive, and there is no reason to believe that it has archived the news articles intact, complete and intact. Actual articles may or may not be reliable, but they'd need to be specifically raised with a full citation of the item under consideration. This link is almost certainly a copyvio. Not reliable, not useable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

my official website

my 2nd website

here the page of wikipedia .fr for Frederic Gracia

fr.wikipedia.org is an encyclopaedia derived from user contributions. It is not reliable and does not establish notability. Moreover, just because other stuff exists elsewhere doesn't mean en.wikipedia will accept that content. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As per WP:SOURCE, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:OSE. Wikipedia is not a source for articles in Wikipedia, in any language. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

goutte

press

presse 2

street art book

page presse

page presse2

page presse 3

There is enough independent reporting of Gracia's work to make him notable in Wikipedia terms. The problem is rather that the editor concerned (Garcia or a friend) has so fundamentally misunderstood the way Wikipedia works that a meeting of minds may not be possible before the deadline. He needs to stop crying and find a mentor. Are there mentors? How does one find them? I'll say this on the article tak page as well -- it isn't really a reliable sources matter. Andrew Dalby 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't do mentoring, we only do source reliability here. (Notice how we picked the low hanging fruit, the easy observations of SPS, or inappropriate archives of media content). I don't know where the mentors hang out. Normally by the time something hits RS/N it is a problem with underlying encyclopaedic conduct or deeply disputed points, rather than newbie errors. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for criticism of The Zeitgeist Movement?

Is this piece in Tablet magazine a reliable source for support of the 'Criticism' section of our article titled The Zeitgeist Movement? (And the 'Criticism' section of the related articles Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward [hereafter called 'the Zeitgeist movies'].)

I apologize for the posting below being long. The only reason for that is that the piece in Tablet magazine is very long, and has many problems.

I think there are two sets of issues:

(a) General problems with Tablet magazine, and

(b) Specific problems with the particular piece in Tablet, authored by Michelle Goldberg.

(a) This is the About Us of Tablet. This is the Home page of Nextbook Inc. This is the Staff page of Nextbook Inc.

As you can see, none of these pages contain clear info on whether Tablet has a reliable publication process. For example, the only staff persons mentioned are an executive director, editorial director and a creative director. But there is no info on how many people, if any, are directly engaged in, say, checking facts and accuracy, analyzing legal issues, and closely scrutinizing the writing. And there is no info on the source of the funding.

(b) Regarding the specific article in Tablet by Michelle Goldberg: In the sequel, I believe I provide proof that the article may contain lies, concealment of inconvenient truths, and distortions and twists of other truths.

Goldberg's Tablet pieces expresses a negative POV about The Zeitgeist Movement. She states anywhere from common criticism that is supported by our set of reliable sources (for example, allegations that the Zeitgeist movement advocates utopianism, communism, an un-realistic global socio-economic system, etc), but Goldberg's Tablet piece focuses mostly on extremely negative, paranoia-based, fear-mongering-based, hate-mongering-based criticisms of The Zeitgeist Movement (and the three Zeitgeist movies), criticisms that are not supported, nor even mentioned, by any of the reliable sources that support our article: the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, Globes (an Israeli financial newspaper), TheMarker (another Israeli financial newspaper), and TheMarker Television (Israel). (The Zeitgeist movement was also interviewed 5 times on RT Television, where it was also [mildly] criticized.) Goldberg has commodified Tablet readers' natural hatred and fear of anti-semitism, and is apparently attempting to financially profit from that fear and hatred, by using the Zeitgeist movement as a coat-rack.

If the Zeitgeist movement and its 3 films were (reasonably, not to mention widely) believed to be anti-Jewish within the (Hebrew-speaking, or English-speaking, or global) Jewish community, would it not be reasonable to assume that, at the very least, the two Israeli papers and the Israeli TV interview would characterize the movie as anti-Jewish? After all, the lede of our article on Israel states: "Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state."

Literally thousands of articles have been written in hundreds of highly reliable sources around the globe over the last 6 years accusing Wall Street (and global) bankers of malfeasance. If Michelle Goldberg's analysis is a reliable source, then the authors of all these articles in reliable sources are anti-semites and Nazis. And so are all the participants in Occupy Wall Street, and the thousands of members of the Zeitgeist movement who are Jewish, including the members of the Israeli chapter of the movement.

Furthermore, in all our reliable sources, members of the Zeitgeist movement were given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond to criticism, and all these sources printed the movement's responses to critical allegations. Again, the Tablet stands out as an extreme exception: there is no indication in the Tablet piece that Goldberg provided the movement with a reasonable opportunity to respond to her allegations, or that she reviewed the many tens of hours of videos posted on the movement's official website, to find counter-arguments to balance her biased accusations.

Thank you. user:IjonTichyIjonTichy

  • The claim being supported is, "The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized as being anti-Jewish. In 2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of what they characterized as their implicit anti-Semitism." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your reasoning in a) is faulty. Tablet displays all the signs of a normal edited work. Michelle Goldberg's opinion isn't weighty in relation to internet phenomena, social protest movements, or economics—she's a journalist at best; she lacks any of the field significance that would lend her opinion weight. However, the article is mostly straight reporting and covered by the obvious fact checking apparatus that Tablet employs. I don't see how half the article is weight-worthy in relation to the subject of the article in question, but that is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue—and the claim in question is a terse encyclopaedic summary of the issues raised as fact. Your reasoning in b) is not an issue countenanced at RS/N—we deal with source reliability in terms of demonstrable editorial control, not in terms of abstract "truth." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:TLDR, and totally unnecessarily. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Fifelfoo. Sorry about the wall of text. Goldberg's article is very long, and has many problems, and this is the only reason my post is long.
I don't have a problem with the second half of the claim. That is, I don't have a problem with "In 2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of what they characterized as their implicit anti-Semitism." This particular claim is supported by a posting on the website of the Australian chapter of the Zeitgeist movement. I only have a question regarding the claim "The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized as being anti-Jewish," supported by Goldberg's piece in Tablet.
And at least one editor of The Zeitgeist Movement have recently indicated that Goldberg's piece "should be more completely summarized" in the 'Criticism' section of article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that Goldberg's compilation has the character of an op-ed piece. Goldberg lacks the scholarly capacity to critique new social movements. Weighting critique—ie summarising more completely—based on its presence in Goldberg's article is inappropriate weighting as Goldberg lacks the capacity to bear that weight. Find scholarly or professional critiques of Zeitgeist as a new social movement. I'd suggest that sociologists, social historians, movement political scientists, political philosophers, and highly placed (Zizek or better) pundits are your appropriate pool for drawing reliable and weightable critiques. If those critiques substantially match Goldberg's (that Zeitgeist is primarily critiquable for anti-semitism), then summarise out of Goldberg for fact if required. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What if there are no scholarly works to use as sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that Goldberg lacks the capacity to bear weight for the critique of social movements. If there are no appropriate critiques, then wait for the reliable sources in reality to change, and do not include inappropriate critiques. (My suggestion would be to publish in Interface: a journal for and about social movements where the journal and its refereeing procedure would lend any critique suitable weight). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Chip Berlet has written a bit about it, but I suspect most social science researchers don't much care. That being so, the article should be cut way down to match it's limited coverage by mainstream sources, and many of the internal links promoting it be removed. But that's a topic for elsewhere. For now, I think Goldberg is a reliable source for what's cited to her. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on their About page, they have editorial oversight and are staffed by professionals with degrees in journalism, and their articles have been republished by multiple times by at least one other reliable source. For example: Good Samaritans. I would say that it's reliable. While scholarly sources may be more desirable, often times with fringe theories, such sources don't exist and we should use the best that are available. If in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I accept Tablet is reliable. But reliability is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion. The Tablet article's extreme accusations are not supported by any of our other reliable sources, including the NYT, Huff Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, and three Israeli sources. Thus, the Tablet piece represents not only a minority view of TZM, but an extremely small minority view. Per WP policies, significant minority views should be at least mentioned, without giving them undue weight; but extremely small minority views that are not supported, nor even mentioned, in other reliable sources, should generally not be included in WP articles.
Until this issue is discussed and resolved in full, any and all claims in the article supported by the Tablet piece have to be tagged with "undue weight" tags, at the very least. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked one of the participants in this dispute for edit warring, and then started nosing about to see what it is all about. I haven't and won't be editing the article, however. I agree with everybody that the Tablet article is a reliable source, but also concur with Fifelfoo and others that high quality, scholarly articles about the movement are best. I've just found this scholarly article] which talks about the Zeitgeit Movement thus "The second [illustration of conspirituality] is weighted towards conspiracy theory. It was taken from the Zeitgeist Movement, a web site promoting global activism connected to Zeitgeist the Movie, a 2007 web movie. Zeitgeist alleges, among other things, that organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job. The producers claim that the movie has been viewed 100 million times." I can send copies of this article to anybody who sends me an email through WP mail. Here is another source which will likely require a German speaker: the article is the one by Björn Milbradt in the online peer-reviewed journal "Conflict & communication online". The (English) introduction says that the article "offers reasons why 'fixed' definitions of anti-Semitism are in some ways inadequate. "Anti-Semitism after Auschwitz" is basically characterized by its vagueness and the need to work with allusions rather than with manifest resentments. In 'Zeitgeist' this is accomplished by providing viewers with a description of an alleged international conspiracy and some indications of whom the filmmakers hold responsible for it. 'Zeitgeist' can be interpreted as a document that systematically develops the grassroots of an actualized manifest anti-Semitism." These articles might prove helpful to editors, perhaps. --Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Björn Milbradt's Björn Milbradt "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand ‚Zeitgeist'] is a great find Slp1, as is Ward and Voas' "The Emergence of Conspirituality". Great work! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
What about the fact that reliability is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion. Accusations of anti-semitism are not supported by any of our other reliable sources, including the NYT, Huff Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, 5 RT TV interviews, and three Israeli sources. Accusations of anti-semitism represent not only a minority view of TZM, but an extremely small minority view. Significant minority views should be at least mentioned in our articles, without giving them undue weight; but negligibly small minority views that are not supported, nor even mentioned, in the vast majority of reliable sources with wide readership, should generally not be included in WP articles. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The Zeitgeist Movement makes a factual statement based on the allegation of anti-semitism. Question: What about the importance of the factual statement, i.e., its prominence? Is the fact that it is a factual statement (based on a reliable source) only a necessary condition for inclusion in the article, or is the fact that it is a factual statement both a necessary and a sufficient condition for inclusion in our article? If it is not a sufficient condition, do we need to remove the factual statement from the article? The factual statement is not prominent; it is not supported by any of our reliable sources, including 3 Israeli sources. Until this issue is discussed and resolved in full, any and all claims related to anti-semitism in the article have to be tagged with "undue weight" tags, at the very least. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This was previously asked, and this was previously answered. By revisiting the point you are showing I don't hear that behaviour. You need to read the discussion above again, and pay particular attention to the detailed discussion of weighting, and to the indication that academic sources (cited academic sources with handy links even available freely online) exist covering anti-Semitism and the article's subject. All of the material required to conduct appropriate weighting of criticisms of anti-semitism now exist to article editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Fifelfoo. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Congo War, International Rescue Committee, BBC News

Resolved
  • In Second Congo War to support the claim that "2.7-7.8 million dead (1998–present)" assumed amongst civilians, is [Staff] (20100120) "DR Congo war deaths 'exaggerated'" BBC News reliable, and does it appear to represent the preponderance of scholarly opinion?
  • In Second Congo War to support the claim that "350,000+ (Violent Deaths)" occurred, is either:


Question 1:
The BBC article cites a new Canadian study that claims to use a more accurate natural mortality rate, which would reduce the actual number killed from fighting, down from 5.4 million to 3 million. So I think that wording of "2.7-7.8 million" should be tightened up a bit before this source supports it, it certainly doesn't support 7.8 million killed. I don't have a problem with the source itself. However, as the article mentions twice, this is a new study. It is unlikely at this time that it is the "preponderance of scholarly opinion" since scholars don't work that fast. It takes time to review these studies and draw new conclusions, or find fault with the methods used (peer review, etc). It may become common opinion over time, but not yet (particularly since the previous study went to some fair lengths to pass peer reviews to begin with).
Question 2:
The website is RS, and while it doesn't give a numbers breakdown, it does support the fact that the 5.4 million deaths are greatly weighted towards medical causes, rather than violence.
The PDF source is RS. And does support the claim of 350,000+ violent deaths (the remainder being due mostly to disease and malnutrition). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
News is not usually the best kind of source for such figures. At PMC 2223004 (PMID 18244974) we have a good Feb 2008 source for the 5.4 million which identifies the timespan 1998-2008, and ascribes an ongoing rate of 45,000 deaths per month to the aftermath of the war. A perhaps more nuanced analysis is in [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/05/how-millions-have-been-dying-congo/?pagination=false this review of Jason K. Stearns' book Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. Stearns assesses only 2% of deaths directly to combat. The vast majority are disease, hunger, and displacement.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thank you Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Todd Compton's self-published paper on the Romney family

  1. Compton, Todd (May, 2012), Mitt Romney's Polygamous Heritage, Todd Compton {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Romney family
  3. As an external link to the most comprehensive scholarly paper available on the subject.

Rationale:

wp:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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."

Compton is an award-winning scholar in the relevant field, hence, per our guideliens, his self-published monograph on the Romney family's roots should be considered reliable esp. for non-controversial assertions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard of publication of historical works is much higher than the standard of publication of other works, and scholars publishing in non-edited or non-reviewed forms are seen to be deliberately avoiding review. This work looks standard if lacking in content, the reason review appears to have been avoided is that it isn't worth publishing (the claims are ordinary, the focus of the object isn't illuminating, the methodology is standard). As such I'd suggest it be used as an external link. Actually, given the appalling coatrack that Romney family is, which utterly fails to discuss narrative accounts, please use it in the article with my blessing on an SPS exemption to introduce some narrative history from standard accounts. That article should be in list space. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)1. It is self-published. 2. the assertion that he is an award-winning scholar (in what field?) is a possible issue. 3. The assertions are considered controversial by at least one editor. "Todd Compton" has zero mentions in the NYT archives, which seems to raise doubts on my part. In fact, Awards from the "Mormon History Association" are, IMO, considered "minor awards" and insufficient to grant him "expert" status for a self-published source. Even if they are listed in his Wikipedia article. With the reference being a SPS from the ... Mormon History Association! Sorry the "award-winning" claim is a teensy bit weak. Thus he is not an "expert in the field" per Wikipedia guidelines (awards from minor organizations are generally ignored), he does not qualify as an academic for a year teaching at a university, and the nature of the "third party publishers" is a valid issue - the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting Mormon studies. It does not qualify as an "academic publisher" alas. And the articles show he is primarily a "theology person" [4] which is a problem with using his person website. Google News archives show he was employed by the Deseret News [5] , but that is about it for notability in any news reports. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to reject your assessment, but it gave me pause and so I reconsidered my own. The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal is a peer reviewed religious history journal, The Journal of Mormon History is scholarly (but seemingly not peer reviewed), Utah Historical Quarterly is peer reviewed and scholarly, and he has a PhD in a field that teaches appropriate historical analysis techniques. Three or four journal articles in scholarly historical journals is adequately convincing for expertise for me, especially as the articles were LDS / schismatic LDS individual biography in the period in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that Todd Compton's piece has extensive footnotes with many, many, many sources given. Even if there is doubt about the piece, many of the sources it lists can be used. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Patent (institutional) wp:BIAS:
  1. "...the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting [Catholic] studies. It does not qualify as an 'academic publisher' alas."
  2. "...the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting [Protestant] studies. It does not qualify as an 'academic publisher' alas."
  3. "...the main book under his name as author was printed by "Signature Books" which is a special interest publisher promoting [Jewish] studies. It does not qualify as an 'academic publisher' alas."
Not only that, but Collect conveniently leaves out books published by
Futhermore, he has published extensively in scholarly journals (and, by the way, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought is peer reviewed).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Snippets from a feature article about Mormon studies perhaps of interest:

Although Mormon studies is a fast-growing academic discipline, Mr. Quinn -- a former professor at Mormon-run Brigham Young University and the author of six books on Mormon history -- can't find a job. In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. ... ... Supporting himself on research grants and fellowships, Mr. Quinn cemented his scholarly reputation by publishing four books on Mormon history between 1994 and 1998, including a two-volume study of the church's interactions with politics and American society. In 1999, he began pursuing a full-time faculty job, to no avail. Few secular schools at the time sought a specialist in Mormonism. ... ... Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses. Utah eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with [Edited: someone else]. Arizona State University's department of religious studies recommended to the university administration that Mr. Quinn be offered a one-year appointment for 2004-05. It was starting a doctoral-degree program with a focus on religion in the Americas. Aware that Mr. Quinn was controversial, the faculty took pains to stress to administrators that his scholarship was first-rate, says Tracy Fessenden, a professor of American religions. --- Apr. 6, 2006 WSJ

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ... Articles are peer reviewed. ... Journal of Mormon History ... Articles are peer reviewed, generally of strong scholaraly caliber...."---THE EMERGENCE OF MORMON STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Armand L. Mauss – from American Sociology of Religion: Histories, Volume 13 of Religion and the Social Order (BRILL, 2007).

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Outside of Utah and Illinois, very few other university presses have taken on Mormon-related books, as will be apparent from a glance down the bibliography at the end of this chapter. Most prominent among those that have is Oxford University Press, which has recently published several such books, but the University of Oklahoma Press has recently also decided to expand its Mormon list. Of the commercial presses, by far the most important one in Mormon Studies is Signature Books, based in Salt Lake City, which has produced a number of distinguished scholarly works about Mormons, both in history and in current issues, since its inception in 1980. Some of its books have been quite critical, at least implicitly, of traditional Mormon truth-claims, policies, or practices, which have made it less appealing to both authors and readers of a more orthodox bent. Nevertheless, it is the single most prolific commercial publisher of scholarly work on the Mormons. Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City also specializes in Mormon Studies, but it is a much newer and smaller operation and primarily a specialized publisher of limited editions of important works that might not otherwise be published. So far it has published works in history and theology, with little or nothing of a social-scientific kind."---Mauss (ibid.)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"We now see a proliferation of books on both nineteenth-century Mormon polgyny (Compton, 1997;...)"---Mauss (ibid.)
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The only issue with Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought is that The Journal of Mormon History appears to have taken over any historical publishing that occurred in Dialogue, many many year ago. Dialogue publications in the 1990s, when considering expertise as a historian, aren't as significant as The Journal of Mormon History publications. (Dialogue may be the perfect place to demonstrate expertise in other disciplines, but I especially noted this fact regarding historical publications when researching my responses.) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aleph Melbourne

Resolved

Is this source [6] reliable for this statement: "A response condemning this statement was made by the Jewish website Aleph Melbourne." To see the article, contested edit, and the statement being "condemned" click here: [7] Freikorp (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can use this site for that specific statement. That doesn't speak to any WP:WEIGHT issues it may have though. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Not to make a major discussion out of a military order, however, if I do, pardon me.

I had a minor discussion with User:Yopie and the user believes it is fringe to use theories, however, there are many uses of theories to show about the Templar facts, and has deleted my book source when I had the right to use the book source of "Henry Dunant un die Templer". If deleting the main theory, then why didn't the user have the right to delete the theory of Knights Templar (freemasony) since it can be a major fringe, due to its theoretical definition of investigation between the Knights Templar and freemasonry. I was just about to edit a possible theory with the shriners, who are met with speculation with the Templars and the Red Cross Movement, from whom, Henry Dunant, was indeed a freemason. If theoretical sources are aloud to legends for military orders vanished for many centuries, then please explain Yopie why delete a possible theory of many theories, when the theory of above mine is also part fringed, the section called Knights Templar (Freemasonry), theorizing with Free Masons and Templars(possible X and Y), although, they suggest they are not from the Templar movement.

My main paragraph and source was used on this article:

There are similarities between the Committee of the Red Cross and the Knights Templar. Since, the creation of the Red Cross movement, Henry Dunant, the founder of the Committee, was a freemason in Switzerland, where it was rumored some of the knights had fled to the highlands of Switzerland and helped the villagers by blending with the civilians, to escape persecution from Pope Clement V and King Philip IV. It is a possible theory the movement still shows their presence by helping the wounded, meek, sick, and for other needs around the world.

Source Book from very few known:

| last = Quellmalz | first = Alfred | title = "Henri Dunant und die Templer" | publisher = Gebietsleitung d. Tempelgesellschaft, | year= 1964 | location = Stuttgart, Germany | pages = 62 | isbn = 978-3639064797

GoShow (........)

If you were going to use Quellmalz as a source on this, you'd need to show that Quellmalz has a record of publication in this subject area with academic publishers or peer-reviewed journals, or that his book has been reviewed and cited by other scholars. Andrew Dalby 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One major problem is that the name "Knights Templar" has been used by so many individuals and groups who have not the slightest connection with the Masonic groups or witht he historis Knights Templar -- which means that every "nut case" who says the two words can end up in articles on the Knights Templar <g>. As for the link to the IRC, one significant problem is that one person with the posited link to freemasons does not make any sort of a case that the large group which absolutely included non-Masons was a secret societ of Knights Templar. Amazingly enough, the idea of helping others was not restricted to that group. The word "fringe" is thus properly applied. Collect (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That explains alot for the proper word of "fringe" ideas used in the section for the theories of Shriners and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).-- GoShow (........)16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Source for the history of science

Resolved

Hello! This is a question I originally posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85, but I was pointed here.

I'm looking to determine the reliability of this source. It seems to be unavailable on the Internet, but it is used in a number of places, including History of scientific method and Book of Optics. The claims it is making seem quite dubious, e.g. (paraphrased) "Alhazen's scientific approach resembled the modern scientific method." These two particular articles also contain a numbered procedure for the scientific method (hypothesis, test, etc) and give this as the source - but I'm pretty sure that's a much more recent innovation, and the two lists are not consistent with each other.

This is the answer I already received:

"Searching suggests there is no article here on the author (Bradley Steffens), and according to Google Books, that author has written on a wide range of topics: origin of the printing press, animal rights, San Francisco earthquake, cartoonists, Emily Dickinson, censorship, addiction, working mothers, J.K. Rowling, the Loch Ness monster, and quite a lot more. It looks like this bio describes the author. Based on that, it appears the author has no training in a field that would make him an authority on Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) or the history of science. More opinions may be available at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)"

Thanks a lot! Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence of the author's expertise in this subject area, I would agree with the opinion you quote from Johnuniq. The work cannot be treated as reliable. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Overseas Development Institute

I would like to use a variety of Overseas Development Institute publications to provide additional insight to a number of articles. For example, I want to add the following section to the Pastoralism article:

EXAMPLE EDIT: Management

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute explored the management of natural resources relating to pastoralism in the Horn of Africa. They highlight that the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations [1]. As a result, agencies working in this area are obliged to consider a range of relevant issues, and not focus on any one issue in isolation. Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial.

The status, history and mission of ODI

ODI is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian policy. Founded in 1960, it has made major contributions to research, dissemination and policy change, on all aspects of development and humanitarian policy. The Institute has a staff of around 150, half of whom are researchers, with the remainder providing a wide range of support services.

ODI's mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.

With a reputation for high-quality research and policy advice, ODI is in demand by governments, international institutions and other partners around the globe. Through their core research programmes they work across a wide range of sectors that have a direct impact on the well-being of the poorest people in developing countries. In addition, ODI offers consultancy services that include monitoring and evaluation and the development and delivery of tailored training courses, as well as expertise in communications and knowledge management.

ODI attaches great importance to dissemination and public policy work. The Institute:

- publishes two peer reviewed journals – Development Policy Review and Disasters – as well as a range of authoritative publications such as ODI Briefing Papers, Working Papers and Opinions

- has a large public affairs programme, with many public meetings and seminars also streamed live online

- runs international networks, for example the Humanitarian Practice Network and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network

- hosts the Secretariat for the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)

- provides support to parliamentary activities, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD).

ODI also manages the ODI Fellowship Scheme, which has placed postgraduate economists in government positions in developing countries since 1963.

The ODI is held in high esteem by both international policy makers and the global scholarly community. For example, t The James McGann Think Tank Index, updated annually, ranked the ODI second in the world for International Development Think Tanks. in 2009[2] ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank.

ODI’s research programmes cover a vast range of development and humanitarian issues. Further information is available in the Institute’s Annual Report, and on the website. [3]

NewsAndEventsGuy and I have been discussing whether ODI publications are a reliable source. I am very much of the opinion that they are. My talk page provides extensive evidence to support my position. It would be great to have some further input from other editors to confirm for certain that this is the case.

References

  1. ^ Levine, S. and Pavanello, S. 2012. Rules of the range: natural resources management in Kenya–Ethiopia border areas Overseas Development Institute Retrieved 29th April 2012
  2. ^ James G. McGann, Ph.D. 2009 (updated 2010) The global “Go-to think tanks” , University of Pennsylvania
  3. ^ Overseas Development Institute

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a very thorough question. However, I'm not sure I fully followed it, did you want to include the section above entitled "The status, history and mission of ODI" in the Pastoralism article? Or is that just there to try and help your case and convince us that you're right? I'm thinking it's the latter, in which case, please don't do that (feel free to remove it), we can do our own research here thank you.

Assuming I'm correct, discussing the first part of your question, ODI seems like an RS source for this claim, although I would change your first sentence a bit as it's almost an exact quote of your source, and if you're doing that a lot in the article you're going to run into wp:copyvio issues. The source seems solid, and you've even included an inline attribution. I don't see the problem here. They appear to be experts, and this is their analysis. However, this does not mean that I can say yes to them being RS for "additional insight to a number of articles" as you mention above. RS-ness is evaluated on a context basis (it also does not cover notability or any other issues for your articles). Just because they are RS for this edit does not mean they are RS for every edit you would like to make. I'm only making comment on the one you've provided here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment.
  1. The only content to add about the institute to the pastoralism article is a sentence or two of information about specific major projects the Institute has engaged in, that can be shown to be important by sources outside the institute--so important that they're amomng the key projects that anyone interested in pastoralism would want to know about. If you have 3rd party source to show they're important, then you can add a link to the institute publication on it to give a link to details. But otherwise its promotional content. You may not use the article about a particular problem to put in an extensive section about the work of the institute on that problem--that's promotional spam. If you add such material to articles on general topics, you're likely to be blocked as a promotional account.
  2. Or perhaps you want to use the institute article as a source for the importance of the viewpoint presented, that "the management of pastoral mobility is key to the management of livestock, of the rangeland and of community relations" If you do, its a pretty vague statement, and needs some specifics to illustrate what you actually mean--does it mean we need to reduce & control the mobility of pastoral groups? The last sentence of that paragraph says , in my opinion, nothing at all--pure PR jargon. I cannot see any specific meaning in "Understanding the livelihood system from an institutional perspective is crucial." If you're just saying we need a systems approach, is that a meaningful contribution to any actual policy question?
  3. perhaps I misunderstand, and you intend to add some of it to the article on the Institute. But in my opinion the present article is promotional because of its use of adjectives of praise,, and the material you suggest adding is even more so. What you need to do if you want to use it anywhere is remove vague adjectives , and vague descriptions of its noble plans and worthy intentions, and talk instead about specific accomplishments for which you have outside sources. Phrase like "to inspire and inform" belong in a promotional newsletter, not an encyclopedia-- they're PR jargon. Lists of projects beginning "such as" should instead list actual projects, with references for every one listed--preferably from an outside source, to show it's significant. I struck out some meaningless sentences and adjectives as an example of content that does not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and advice. Despayre - I would certainly only put the section relating to Pastoralism into the article; the information about ODI was merely to provide information about ODI to other users. Someone had previously recommended that I do this.

I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications. I will be sure not to paraphrase from the publication itself in order to avoid copyright problems. Thank you DGG for highlighting this. I think ODI publications have a lot to offer in terms of providing current, well researched findings to wikipedia users.

Many thanks again for your input!

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:COI concerns

The one time I looked at one of these reports it appeared to be self-published. User Hannah did offer a policy-based explanation for why they are still RSs, but I got 'way too busy to review it before going on extended wikibreak. I've just been popping in briefly from time to time and today I see user Hanna has been active promoting ODI reports in most if not all of her contribs. Is there a bit of an agenda here, to promote self-published reports? In response to comments above, user Hanna even says "I will ensure my edits draw on only the findings of ODI publications." (bold added) While I appreciate the mission of ODI, let's pretend the think tank in question was Heartland Institute or some other example of very left or very right politics. Why should ODI's self-published material pass muster and blogs and inhouse reports from other such groups get rejected? I am going back to wikibreak. I just wanted to offer the question for any editors with interests in evaluating RS questions, with (hopefully) a consistent and neutral scale. Kudos to ODI, keep up the good work, I'm just dubious its appropriate material for this forum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


Easy question, WP:SPS generally refers to a single person, who may or may not be an expert, not usually to organisations who, in this case, has a staff of people with obvious experience and expertise. If you look at the staff listing for ODI, they have extensive expertise in this field, ergo, they're RS. However, as I pointed out to Polly, it helped that it was cited inline, and it may not be RS for other things she wants to use them for. The same policy would probably apply to some questions about right/left wing extreme groups too, assuming they had the education/expertise/experience on staff to back up their point of view, and they didn't stumble into WP:FRINGE problems. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply from the bolded section of Polly's comment above, but whatever she wants to do with her edits seems a little outside the scope of this board. Having said that, if you feel she's used something from ODI in a way that it shouldn't be, or may not be RS, please bring it back here and we'll evaluate that. As I said, ODI likely won't be RS for everything, but I can't speculate without context (which would make it not speculation at all . -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is intellectual integrity and application of a consistent policy. In the climate pages usually self published sources get tossed. If folks think ODI meets the execption criteria, that works for me. But question, Do the ODI reports' authors also submit to peer reviewed journals? If so those cites would be the better source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All ODI briefing papers, working papers, background notes and journal articles are peer reviewed. ODI is the UK's leading think tank on international development and internationally was ranked second only to the Brookings institute, according to the James McGann Think Tank Index [1]. ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank. ODI has no political allegiances. I have taken on board the comments raised here, and understand that the extent to which a source is a reliable source depends on the exact context. Are you happy for me to make edits with this is mind?

Many thanks,

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Prog Sphere music website

Prog Sphere is a growing online progressive music magazine with thousands of hits every week. We update every day with new CD reviews as well as interviews, album and concert reviews, and other music related content. We are covering vast field of music genres ranging from progressive rock, progressive metal, jazz fusion, stoner rock, to psychedelic, space rock and its related subgenres.

We consider that we are a reliable source of informations that could be used on Wikipedia, as we bring the "ontopic" material that is reliable and is the point of interest.


Any thoughts?

To support what statement in what article? By the way, the pages take forever to load. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


I would suggest reading a little bit on this page to see what websites pass and fail, and to take a thorough read all the way through WP:RS to see what Wikipedia requires from websites to qualify as RS sites. As Itsmejudith alludes to above, no site is going to be RS for everything, but if you're looking to be generally RS for general music issues, you are going to need to have expertise listed, have that expertise on the byline providing content, have an editorial oversight policy listed, support claims with sources, etc. None of which is explained on your "About" page (also doesn't indicate how long you've been running this site). I also don't see any link to contributors bios to indicate that their opinions are relevant, they need credentials. As WP:RS states, Wikipedia should only use "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I think that could be a tough hurdle for your website right now, unless your editors all have years of experience in other relevant areas in this field. I hope that helps. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The "About" page clearly stated it was a "blogzine" (you can see an archived version here). I notice it has been changed after I informed them that blogs were unreliable sources per WP:RS. And I have seen no evidence that this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The page is little more than a blog site ("blogzine" seems a good description), and thus I don't believe its reviews are considered reliable for inclusion on album pages. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Is this piece in the Ventura County Reporter a reliable source for support of any aspect/ section of The Zeitgeist Movement? (For example in support of a brief discussion of the movement's key/ core ideas, etc.) Does the Ventura County Reporter have a reliable publication process?

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a critical analysis of the movement by a qualified expert. Rather , it consists of interviews with the founder & a supporter, most of it paraphrased rather than quoted. There are better sources for what the movement says, especially their own writings. It does seem a rather good paraphrase, but still it's better to quote directly DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic.com

Resolved

There is an abundance of cites to allmusic.com at The Beatles, is this self-published website a WP:RS? — GabeMc (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes. See All Media Guide and Allmusic. Allmusic is published by a company with hundreds of employees, and its data has been licensed by well-known companies such as Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. See [8] for details. It's not a "self-published website" in the way that I would normally expect to see that term used. It's a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Metropolitan90! — GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

John Griswold's Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories

A section of work (see here for the removed info) was recently removed from the List of James Bond novels and stories article as it was "based entirely on self-published source", in line with WP:SPS. The section was entirely based on one work, Griswold, John (2006). Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1-4259-3100-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) The publisher is the self-publisher AuthorHouse, (Wikilink; weblink). I think a decision on the reliability of this source could assist; a partial discussion has taken place before moving over to here. The Griswold book goes a little further than the usual self-published sources and deserves to be classed as "reliable" for the following reasons:

These are all without looking at a number of references used by the mainstream fansites, MI6-hq.com and commanderbond.net. Short of an endorsement from a beyond-the-grave Fleming himself, I'm not sure what else is needed to verify the credibility of the book. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to the removed text begins, "Independent scholar John Griswold constructed a "high-level chronology of James Bond's life"". It can't be denied that John Griswold's book is a reliable source for that statement. So this is not a reliability question at all. It's a notability and fair use question: is John Griswold's construction sufficiently notable for us to base our whole table on it, and are we using his work fairly if we do that?
Those are not questions for this board, but I'd say you have begun to show, with citations above, that his work is notable. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess one question I would have pertains to the forwards written. We should not presume that the forewords were offered out of the gushing eagerness of the writers, but rather because of a shared connection to the written material and (far more likely) renumeration for such. Were these forewords endorsements of the contents or indebtedness tot he material within? I put those in quotation marks because that refers precisely to the definition of such. If, for instance the person writing the foreword is simply comparing their material to that of Griswold, it isn't an endorsement. Neither is it if the foreword writer talks only about Bond. More than a few people claim to have pored over this book at length. Perhaps they could tell us more about the forwards, and we can better assess the reliability/notability/ fair use triple-threat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Are you happy that Griswold is a reliable source to use? Many thanks. SchroCat (^ • @) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only one editor -- others may well differ! I agree with Jack Sebastian that short forewords often don't mean much. However, in my view, in this context of describing a "fictional world", Griswold appears to have been accepted by some major authorities -- (a) the "proprietors", (b) one of the recent authors of the series, (c) some academics -- as a serious source. So I think he should be treated as reliable on this, and we can footnote one or two of the citations given above to show that he has been accepted as such.
We should definitely name him inline as our source (the removed text that I saw already did this). This is essential, both because we need to distinguish his information from that given by the series authors themselves, and also to give proper acknowledgement for our use of his work. Andrew Dalby 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's great: many thanks indeed for your input. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Andrew. Do others concur with Dalby's assessment? The article is an FA, and I'd prefer that this discussion didn't come up again in a few weeks. Is there some other FA article precedent that someone can point to where a similar situation was resolved in a similar fashion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously being self-published usually rules out a source as an RS because they lack editorial oversight, and a foreward written by a notable Bond writer generally does not convey editorial oversight since forewards are often solicited and paid for. However, this text has been sanctioned by Ian Fleming Publications as an approved reference text for the novels: [9]. WP:SELFPUBLISH does allow for exceptions and I think given that the source is being used in the article as an authority on Bond's chronology, and Ian Fleming Publications has approved it in that capacity, it seems reasonable to apply an exception to this particular book for this particular purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, your link doesn't appear to point to an official sanctioning of the text, per se. Do you happen to have a source that says that they are sanctioned, or are you making a leap of logic here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It's one of four books listed following the words "IFPL approved reference books". This is on the IFPL website. You are entirely right that the word "sanctioned" does not appear, but being on the site and listed under approved books is a sanctioning, and not a leap of logic. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine, whatever. I hope this house of cards you've constructed doesn't cause a lot of collateral damage when it comes crashing down, my friend. My time is better spent elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

mytalk.com.au (a division of Fairfax Media) and 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/)

Moved on to AfD and ANI, this isn't an RSN issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: it is a domain owned and operated by Fairfax Media, and hosted on Fairfax Media servers. Its primary use appears to be for the use of its journalists and on-air 'personalities'. Fairfax Media is the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and radio station 2UE. Please also note the whois of the domain: http://whois.domaintools.com/mytalk.com.au I am using it to source a JPG photograph in the Craig Thomson affair article, which highlights inconsistencies in the alleged evidence against him. It was removed as an 'unreliable source', however Senator George Brandis thought the photo was good enough to submit to the NSW Police in his letter of 23 August 2011 to the NSW Police Commissioner and use as his "Annexure A"; please see [10] - which admittedly is from mytalk.com.au. As mytalk.com.au is itself an annexure of Fairfax Media, and they were a defendant in the defamation case of the article's subject, I believe the JPG should be restored (and the Brandis letter may be added) for the purposes of the article at issue. That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks. 2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Wikipedia as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that there have been no objections to using either mytalk.com.au or 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/) from any admin or any credible editor. However it may also be noted that http://mytalk.com.au redirects immediately to the Fairfax Media home page, therefore proving it is a domain owned and operated by Fairfax Media and accessible only by Fairfax Media employees. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be wrong of you to assume that because editors here haven't commented on your question as fast as you would like that we are in agreement with your position. At this point, you don't really have a question here to be answered, that is why there are no comments from others. Please read the template below, we don't deal with generalities here. Additionally, your phrasing "from any admin or any credible editor" has a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND sound to it that you may want to leave on your article's talk page. Also, your suggestion that because one website leads to another that they are both owned by the same company is completely WP:OR. I could redirect a half dozen of my own websites to Fairfax, would that prove I am owned by them too? (That's rhetorical to make a point). That in itself proves nothing. There are many other ways to prove ownership, but that isn't one of them. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
None of the material presented by the original questioner is reliable, as none of the content so far discussed is actually a source. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The image in question is here and there is no information given as to provenance. One component of the image is the purported drivers licence of Craig Thomson, supposedly photocopied by an outcall prostitute. Another is a supposed credit card imprint in which the surname of the target is misspelled - on the credit card. Maybe it's genuine, maybe not. No information is given as to the source of these images. "Independent Australia" appears to be a privately hosted blog, and judging by its content, about as independent and unbiased and professional as your average used car salesman. Nice theme, though. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Please specify the sources you wish us to discuss, we do not deal in "abstract" questions. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what he's asking either. It's a picture. What is it supposed to be showing/proving? Also, what a Senator does is completely irrelevant to WP source policy. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully I can help. The issue is being discussed at Talk:Craig Thomson affair#Regarding the domain 'mytalk.com.au'. As other Australian editors will know, this is a highly sensitive article about a story that could ultimately lead to the downfall of the Australian government, so there has been some heat, as well as some (genuinely) partisan posting. (i.e. by an opposition party member). Pete, an obvious opponent of the IP editor who started this thread, asked, about this source, "Could you provide some evidence of provenance as to the documents, please?" So there's the question. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Author (Year) "Article title" Repository, Newspaper or Containing Website page number or URL? We don't discuss "whole websites," we discuss particular documents, articles or books. For example, the citation to a 2UE file repository fails to name the show, time, date, announcer and just gesticulates at a jpeg. Similarly "theindependent" isn't a source, it is an entire website. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't help much more than that. Just pointed you in a lightly more certain direction. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The simple, and current answer is, things which are not sources cannot be reliable sources. I'd certainly counsel the variety of IPs editing who have connections to Australian politics, that their conduct on wikipedia is publicly available to journalists and to parliamentary speakers. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The IP editor is a new arrival and he was advised to seek assistance here by a more experienced editor. He's doing his best to grapple with the arcanities of wikiprocedures, and if he could be helped along, that might reduce confusion and distress. Frankly, I had no idea this place existed until a day ago, so he's really been tossed in at the deep end. --Pete (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Pete, an IP who spends a considerable amount of time discussing sourcing and reliability on an article talk page could be expected to be able to cite a source and identify a specific article to discuss. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP editor. You may have never encountered the idea of a "source" or a "citation" before, the following may help progress discussion. Only specific objects, ie: particular newspaper articles, segments of radio shows, books, authored chapters in edited books, parliamentary reports, or specific pages on a website may be reliable. A newspaper, a radio channel, a publisher, an editor, a parliament or an entire website are not sources. Please specifically indicate which objects you'd like us to discuss by citation. For example: Author (year) "Title of specific work" Title of newspaper, book, website, or radio show containing work page number or URL reference. Please note that some content on otherwise reliable sources may not be considered either reliable or worthy of weight of inclusion into the encyclopaedia. In particular: opinion pieces are often misused; primary sources, ie: material requiring original interpretation to make sense of, are often misused. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Podcasts from the Moshe Dayan Center

These are from the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies#Diwaniyya Podcast. The center itself would normally be a reliable source, but these are from what is described as " It connotes open discussion, a meeting of the minds. Diwaniyya is not another news program or political commentary podcast; it offers a wider view of a multifaceted Middle East. Through thought-provoking conversations on different issues in the region, Diwaniyya contextualizes current events and trends." Oh great, I hate it when you start one thing and it leads to another, eg this is copyvio from [11]. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. One of the edits is at [12]. Several similar links have been added by two editors, and the authors of the podcasts are Shoshi Shmuluvitz (one of the editors adding the links) and Ben Silbee[13]. Both editors adding the links are staff there. The two authors are graduate students and I'm not convinced that we should be using these podcasts (besides the COI issue). I'll invite them to comment here. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that these graduate students have weighty views, ie, do they have an extensive publication history in scholarly journals or with scholarly publishers. Otherwise, regardless of reliability, I don't see how their opinion in an op ed. forum would be relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to say that one of the editors emailed me and this is in response to that. She says "all the information in the Diwaniyya podcast and website is held to high academic standards and has been fact checked and approved by experts in Middle Eastern studies." but I've just emailed her asking her or her colleague to comment here. And suggested that they are in a good position to find sources already published in academic publications. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah—not a great sign given that trivial facts used as asides in "wide ranging" opinion discussions are trivial to locate elsewhere; whereas novel opinions and concepts, the very purpose of wide ranging discussions, are "only reliable for their own opinions" and it becomes a matter of the opinion's weight. Even then, there's the tertiary point: scholars of Middle Eastern and African studies have a wide variety of scholarly outlets readily available to them that have the standard system of peer review; scholars publishing outside of this mode have suspicion levelled on them due to the appearance or potential for avoidance of the scholarly mode's scrutiny. We generally don't accept "personal correspondence" as proof of editorial policy or peer review here. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, this is Ben Silsbee, one of the co-producers at Diwaniyya. You are correct in stating that both of us are graduate students and we understand the COI issue. The podcast is a fully funded publication of the Moshe Dayan Center and receives the approval of the academics and guests involved as well as regular review for content from Professor Uzi Rabi, the director of our center. I would also like to clarify that the podcast is an academic product, NOT op-eds, as some users have indicated. The text, taken from our description, is press copy indicating that show topics are not necessarily tied into current events, as is the case with many other Dayan Center publications. The show is in an interview format with guests who have the extensive publication history necessary for relevance in an academic setting, such as Martin Kramer, Meir Litvak, Ofra Bengio, Liat Kozma, and many others. The rare episodes which do not feature senior researchers speaking about their researchers have been either expert interviews with figures such as Haaretz reporter Avi Issacharoff, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of Academic Affairs director Mahdi Abdul Hadi, or the occasional "man-on-the-street" style report, such as interviewing Christian Pilgrims at Christmas in Bethlehem.

I think for clarity purposes we need to distinguish again between the Diwaniyya blog and the podcast itself. In my opinion, the content of the podcast, which is on the record and sourced from either reliable academic sources or newsworthy subjects should not be considered op-ed. The blog, which is the text portion on www.diwaniyya.blogspot.com is written primarily by graduate students, and while it reflects current academic research in the given subject for wikipedia purposes I agree that the source article should be cited rather than the summary blog posts. With regards to the podcasts themselves, the benefits of citing these on a Wikipedia page are twofold: they are primary sources with regards to the research of the guests and are useful not only for research purposes on the subject at hand, but for historiography purposes, e.g. Washington Institute for Near East Policy Fellow Martin Kramer's work on Western views of Islamic reformer Jamal Al-din al-Afghani may be found in short form in his published work but are significantly augmented and clarified in the episode of the podcast in which he is a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catblender (talk • contribs)

In this context, they're still opinion pieces. While the website of the podcast claims to have editors, the website's editorial board is two individuals, one of whom is a research assistant. There's no indication of a fact checking policy on the website itself, and the object resembles (strangely enough) blogged podcasts and not a radio programme or recording of a keynote address at a peer reviewed conference. As I noted we do not accept personal correspondence from editors as a demonstration of an editorial policy. Opinions expressed in the podcast would be entirely dependent upon the weight of the person expressing the opinion, and would effectively need to be considered each in turn as an SPS published by the chief interviewee or speaker, depending entirely on their credentials. This is precisely what you get when you emit non-traditional research outputs and place a half-hearted about page on them. Even then, the interviewees would need to solidly and clearly meet SPS, because African and Middle Eastern study scholars of repute have easy and ready access to traditional output modes. And I'm still not happy with this, the format ("thought-provoking conversations on Middle East culture, history and politics") in no way resembles traditional scholarly outputs—and wikipedia very heavily privileges traditional scholarly outputs due their time proven efficacy. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"Slave women were required mainly as concubines and menials. A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women." (from Islamic views on slavery) cited against Shmuluvitz & others (20120531) "Ottoman Slave Narratives" Diwaniyya. This is precisely the issue. Some editor has taken a loose discussion amongst scholars, cherry picked a fact, removed any time, culture or place context, and produced a generalisation of original research. Toledano certainly has an expertise, but look at this text that might very well contain the same content, but with PUP's monograph reviewer structure, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression, 1840- 1890. So does Kozma, and I eagerly anticipate her papers on late Ottoman slavery law. And when Kozma and Toledano do present in traditional output modes, we can be confident that they supply the context and frameworks required to make sense of the material published. In the case of this example, I'd point straight at WP:HISTRS and ask if this non-traditional output meets the standards of our goal sources in historical article writing. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Generally, I have to agree with Fifelfoo's assessment here (although he may need a cup of relaxing herbal tea this morning ). Whether or not anything claimed from the podcasts is RS or not is going to fall directly onto the expertise of the person doing the speaking, and does that person qualify for an SPS exemption. I would also suggest a little more detail in any cites, linking a 31 minute podcast to listen for a single sentence about slave rights is not "super-helpful" (a very scholarly term!). It may be that over time these podcasts can develop into a reliable source, but for now, I would have to evaulate each speaker independently, and in context, to determine the RS-ness of each cite. It would also help if the opinions/comments from your guests were already published so as to avoid the idea that they are pressing any agenda. I don't think there is necessarily any COI issue here though. I would suggest that providing more details on your guests credentials, including published works, would go a long way towards helping your site be an RS source. Making editors here jump through hoops to prove something that may/may not have been said in a podcast is not going to help. Context is also very important, so I would strongly caution against adding any cites that aren't 100% clear on what your expert/guest is saying. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the point made by Fifelfoo above that broadcast discussions and lectures should be regarded, at best, like opinion pieces. They cannot be fact-checked. The broadcaster/host is relying on the notability of the speaker and on the speaker's general knowledge of the subject, not on accurate memory of specific details. So, when we cite them at all, we should be citing them because they are what someone notable said about a topic, and not treating them as a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Clemens Heni and Norman Davies as reliable sources for Latvian Legion

I have two sources:

  • Davies, Norman (1998) , Europe: A History, Harper Perennial , ISBN: 978-0060974688; says "...recruitment drive for three Latvian divisions of the Waffen-SS. The men swore an oath 'to struggle against Bolshevism ' and 'to obey the commander-in-chief of the German armed forces, Adolf Hitler'." (see Appendix III, pp. 1326-7).
  • Clemens Hemi here (page 159, ref 2) says: "Members of the Latvian Legion had to swear an oath on Hitler himself and against the “Bolshevik enemies” of their “homeland.” The German reads: “Ich schw¨are bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, dass ich im Kampf gegen die bolschewistischen Feinde meiner Heimat dem Obersten Befehlshaber der Deutschen Wehrmacht, Adolf Hitler, unbedingten Gehoram leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit fur diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen” (Sturm 2001: 45).

In connection to that, my question is: are these two sources reliable for the following statement:

"... they (Latvian Legionaries) took a personal oath on Hitler and against the “Bolshevik enemies” of their “homeland”.[2][3] "

Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Davis (1998) is minimally reliable for established facts (cf: xii), which this appears to be. Hemi (2010) is entirely unacceptable as the review group is not the historical discipline, but a distinct non-historical in circle, "The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (JSA) is the peer-reviewed work of a select group of independent scholars who examine antisemitism in traditional and emerging forms. This group is not affiliated with any institution or financially dependent on a single source of funding. We have in common an understanding of antisemitism as a social pathology that must be eradicated. We are an educationally based concern." Their mission is non-historical. (They may be reliable elsewhere, but not for this). Ulrich's claims they're not peer reviewed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please elaborate on Davis a little bit more? Why he is minimally reliable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Its an overview work, with no use of primary sources, covering a long survey period in a large geographical reason, it isn't on topic in Latvian mid 20th Century war experience, and Davis notes that he doesn't cite the antecedents of the work because readers can look it up for themselves, see page xii of the preface. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Is it unreliable for Latvia only, or in general?
My second question, is about this: Valdis O. Lumans. Latvia in World War II. Volume 11 of World War II. Volume 11 of World War II--the global, human, and ethical dimension. Fordham Univ Press, 2006, ISBN 0823226271, 9780823226276, which on the page 291 says:
"Latvian apologists also claim that, contrary to common SS practice, the Latvians excluded standard National Socialist ideology from their training, and, in contrast to Waffen-SS, Legion units provided Christian chaplains for spiritual care. Nevertheless, Latvians swore personal oath to the Fuhrer..."
Is it reliable to that statement, as well as about the statement about "Latvian apologists"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Lumans (2006) is reliable, as a University Press published work of scholarly history in an edited series, for the personal oath to the Fuhrer; Lumans (2006) is also reliable regarding the characterisation of a particular narrative within Latvian social life as an "apologetic," and for the contents of that current's claim regarding the history of the Latvian SS. Country specific historians published in UPs or similar presses are the "go to" for the historiography and history of a location. The specific text used in article to characterise this is really a matter of discussion amongst editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) @Paul, Davies, per his original, is correct. Your construct (per Heni) adds words which are not in the oath and contradict Davies, nothing was sworn "on Hitler", instead, a promise was made in the name of God. Hitler is not God.
As for Heni, the Sturm oath he quotes is close to the German translation of the Latvian oath, but not quite. Regardless, I have provided the Latvian original, so why are we quoting German? Latvians are not Germans. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) On Heni, who are the peer reviewers? If all the "peers" believe that the purpose of commemorating the Latvian Legion is to glorify Arajs and other collaborators who murdered Jews in the Holocaust (a patently false and inflammatory claim), that isn't a very objective community. Arajs' crimes against humanity are well documented and universally acknowledged for what they are. Heni's piece from which you quote states the complete opposite, not only have Latvians not acknowledged Arajs' crimes against humanity, but the anti-Semitic lot of them including the government itself celebrate his contributions to eradicating Jewry. Heni's is an advocacy opinion piece, regardless of who reviewed it and gave it a "pass." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The peer review group for Heni (2010) is a group whose purpose in publishing is, a "common an understanding of antisemitism as a social pathology that must be eradicated," this is not an adequate peer review group for historical claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Did I understand you correct that Heni is not reliable for historical facts, but it is reliable for "antisemitism as social pathology"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@Fifelfoo, thanks for that. Heni is completely entitled to express that any commemoration of any Waffen SS unit, from his perspective, is a glorification of Nazism and of the Holocaust. (That is, in fact, Zuroff's zero tolerance policy regarding the same.) Heni is not entitled, however, to contend as a fact that the Latvian populace and government are anti-Semites glorifying Arajs and his crimes against humanity. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I've not expressed any opinion on what Heni (2010) may be reliable for. It isn't reliable for Latvian history. Someone would need to suggest alternate uses of Hemi (2010) for alternate claims in potentially alternate articles. I would come down like a hammer on its use in history, broadly construed. The concept that anti-Semitism is a social pathology is an extremely non-standard claim in the social humanities—I would suggest that it is a FRINGE claim, as the concept of ideologies or group behaviours being "social pathology or disease" is not current methodologically or theoretically amongst social scientists. There may be obscure areas of theory for which a group of politically engaged individuals who frame anti-semitism in this sense may be reliable; but, the claim was a historical claim in a historical article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ James G. McGann, Ph.D. 2009 (updated 2010) The global “Go-to think tanks” , University of Pennsylvania
  2. ^ Davies, Norman (1998) , Europe: A History, Harper Perennial , ISBN: 978-0060974688; (see Appendix III, pp. 1326-7).
  3. ^ Clemens Heni. Riga and Remembering. Journal of for the study of antisemitism (2010) v. 1, p. 159.

proboxing-fans.com

  1. Source being used: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/timothy-bradley-and-the-1-million-worry-free-drug-testing-guarantee_060412/
  2. Article: USANA Health Sciences
  3. Content: Here is the diff being offered by User:Boydbastian  : diff

User Boydbastian is an insider with the company of the article. He brought to the communities attention that their "Athlete Guarantee Program" has evolved since its inception with the RS we currently have from Toledo Blade. The article above is an interview with Timothy Bradley about this weekend's Bradley vs. Pacquiano boxing match. On the surface, the source seems to have editorial oversight: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ - However, this source has been vehemently contested by the primary editor of this article as non-RS, SPS, and even went so far to say the company, Boydbastian, or myself must have paid this reporter to post an article that is "clearly promotional in nature".

If you'd like to read the entire talk banter it is here.

I'd like to get a read from the community on this source, and whether or not this is RS for Boxing news, which the news site appears to me to be.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguing from involved editors. It is unnecessary/unhelpful and disruptive to repeat your talk page again here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no evidence of editorial oversight at the link Leef5 provided, and Leef5 has already been given more than ample reason why the source fails (badly) to meet WP:RS.[14] It's a self-published, blatantly promotional piece from a blog site operated by the author of the article (Jake Emen), who also happens to be a marketing and SEO hack writer.[15][16] The source fails on multiple counts, obviously. Curiously, this article was published 2 days after edits proposed by Boydbastian, a USANA insider (Communications and Marketing Strategist) with an acknowledged COI, were rejected because there were no sources to support the suggested revisions. Suddenly, poof, this self-published promotional article appears 2 days later, addressing all of the contentious text proposed by the USANA insider Boydbastian, and now Leef5 is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by failing to acknowledge the obvious inadequacies of the source and bypassing comment on on the talk page. Leef5 is an experienced enough editor (largely through his promotionally-slanted editing of various multi-level marketing articles; mainly USANA and Amway), to know that this source doesn't fly. At best this is tendentious/disruptive editing; at worst it's collusion/COI/gaming the system. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you thought it was necessary to repeat the same arguments you listed in the talk diff I posted, and then attempt to discredit my contributions as an editor by accusing me of having a promotional-slant in editing MLM articles. Since you consistently negative POV push on MLM articles, I guess I could see how adding neutral material to articles that aren't outright negative, could be seen that way by you.
Let's stay on topic please to get a community read from other than you or I. The timing of the articles is because the match is this weekend, not some conspiracy theory. It also appears BoxingScene.com has also covered this topic from a different angle with an interview with the trainer a month ago. http://www.boxingscene.com/bradleys-trainer-wanted-peterson-whip-khans-ass--52675 - again, with editorial oversight: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=team  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It was necessary to repeat the arguments because you never responded to them the first time they were laid out for you on the Talk page, even though those arguments make it plainly evident that the source is not RS by a longshot. Instead of conceding the point, or at least making an attempt at a rebuttal, you just ignored the facts and came here. Seems like a waste of resources to me. It has nothing to do with resisting the addition of "neutral material" as you put it. It is simply a case of rejecting a source that is clearly non-RS, self-published, and promotional in nature. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Thank you - I appreciate any independent community feedback.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why there is a problem taking the information directly from Usana's website. It seems the information is right there, plainly written and the site is RS for its statement of facts about its own company programs. Why are you even looking at other sites for this info? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor that has contested this updated wording does not want to use a Primary source since the article has a 2nd party RS that is quite a few years old that covers the details of the program. The editor that proposed the changes (a company insider), has said the program has evolved and expanded since the original RS newspaper article. This RS/N source as well as the http://www.boxingscene.com/bradleys-trainer-wanted-peterson-whip-khans-ass--52675 source agree with the company's wording in their annual report, but as we've pointed out to this editor, apparently their webmaster has not updated Usana's website to reflect the expanded program.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 06:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In the diff provided, I don't see that text as being corroborated by the boxingscene source. The annual report obviously does backup these claims, although you have a definite copyvio problem, as it's an exact quotation of the report. That Annual Report is definitely RS for their program's stated limits/purposes/goals. Am I missing an element here? I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding why that's even being questioned, causing you to go looking for other sources, and bringing the question here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor contesting the addition typically rejects all 1st-party sources about any non-negative additions to the article, from the website or their SEC filings. After he asked for a 2nd party RS, that's when I dug up this proposed one proboxing-fans.com as well as boxingscene.com - any read from you on either of these 2 sources as far as passing the RS test?  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for you to bang your head against that particular wall, the editor in question has apparently not read, or misread WP:PRIMARY which states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". That is what this is. It is RS for the material you want to add, you do not need to placate an individual editor who chooses not to want that information from that source. There is no need to look at secondary sources here. In this case, the primary source is as authoritative as you can get, replacing that with those secondary sources weakens your source strength considerably. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If an editor doesn't like that, you don't have a content problem, you have a behaviour problem, and that problem is usually solved over there, or there, or there. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Names of Istanbul

Euzen (talk · contribs) has been slowly edit-warring for several weeks to push an outdated, naive folk etymology into the Names of Istanbul article [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. This is sourced to a mid-19th century work by a Greek writer called Scarlatos Byzantios, the author of a Greek dictionary and a book on the history of Constantinople. Byzantios, while still occasionally quoted on matters of general history, is utterly outdated with respect to his linguistics: he had no knwledge of what in his lifetime was the emerging modern academic discipline of historical linguistics, and continued the centuries-old practice of guesswork "etymologies" that were essentially made up on the spot, on the basis of chance resemblances with any modern word in any language a writer cared to think of. Moreover, in his days, there had not been any serious study of Balkan placename histories yet. The foundational works on Thracian, Illyrian and other similar substrate languages in SE European toponyms were written only in the 20th century. The current academic consensus is that the name in question here (Lygos), just like most other old toponyms in the area, is of Thracian origin. Byzantios in 1851 could not possibly have had anything pertinent to say about this, because the whole discipline on which such judgments are based was not yet developed.

Euzen clearly isn't willing to listen, and I frankly have no patience to discuss furthern with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is convincing. I would tend to agree with you, assuming what you say is accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. is right that etymologies developed before the mid 19th century cannot be taken as accurate. We should report the modern consensus, and, if necessary, any current disagreements among specialists; we should not cite older speculation as if it were equally valid. Andrew Dalby 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to exclude all folk etymologies (the nature of which are somewhat mischaracterised by FPAS as 'made up on the spot') just because they don't match up with current scholarship. Historical understandings and culturally rooted interpretations of these names would seem to have just as much a place in the article as the current scholarly analysis as long as they are flagged appropriately (this can easily be done) and as long as they were influential or widely accepted in their own time (I think Euzen would have to show that this is not just some etymology but one that had some significance in the past). As a non-etymologist reader of this article I would be equally interested to read this information if it had some historical significance as I would be to read the current scholarly take on things. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback BothHands. In a toponym you may find a historical significance or not depending on your education and culture and your patience to discuss with other WPists. For your information, there was one more town/area called Lygos or Lygestis in Macedonia, today partly in Greece and in the Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia. The first is mentioned by Thoukydides (4.83.2 in relation to the Peloponnesian Wars), Strabo (7.7.8) and Livius (26.25.4 and 31.33.6). It is called Lygestis by Ptolemy (Geogr. 3.13.30). You may find etymologically/semantically usefull the fact that:


I agree that superceded old pseudo-etymologies might be mentioned if they were of lasting influence or otherwise significant, but we don't have any evidence that this was the case here; only this one source, in which the claim is merely made in passing, was brought forward. "Flagging" it as outdated is also problematic, since it would easily cross the line into OR: this belongs to the class of fringe claims that are so fring-y and so insignificant that modern sources don't even bother to refute them. As such, the only feasible way of treating it seems to be to ignore it, as even mentioning it would mean giving undue weight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no reason to think that it was significant even in its own time then I would agree that it should be excluded. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
On the other side, I agree that if an etymological speculation has been really influential in the past -- if it made history, so to speak -- it is worth mentioning on those grounds. (Forgive me for being pedantic, though -- this is not folk etymology. The name's confusing, but folk etymology is a totally different thing.) Andrew Dalby 11:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Searching for the name "Scarlatos Byzantios" in Google, brings up a whopping 542 hits, almost all of which seem to be self-references, nothing indicating notability (please note that google hits of themselves are *not* indicators of what should and should not be used on WP, that's not what I'm saying here). There does not appear to be much literature or scholarly work that I can find that uses Scarlatos Byzantios as a reference either. I think there are big problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, and more importantly for this board, I think it fails on WP:HISTRS grounds, which applies to your article. Also sounds like a little bit of WP:IDHT might be going on too. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who believe that Fut.Perf's concern is purely linguistic and not at all ethnic: The ref. to Sc.Byzantios's doesn't say that "this is THE etymology" but "according to". F.P., with all his linguistic fervour, or anyone else, did not supply any other etymology of the name Lygos. Besides, this is not exactly an "etymology", as the name is identical with it's assumed source. I had added to the article (see discussion) one more reference, linking the name Lygos with the root of other names like Lygii, Ligures and Lugdunum (EYÜPSULTAN SYMPOSIA I - VIII : SELECTED ARTICLES p. 221.) published by an internationally accepted contemporary Turk professor. However, this publication doesn't support the view that Fut.Perf. likes, that Byzantium is of "Thracian" origin and connects it with a homeric word. Unfortunately, this online publication obviously has been attacked by hackers who added a nonsense, that some christian saints of 4th c. are ... muslims. That was perfect for F.P. who erase the reference to the name. At the same time he (F.P.) promotes as a source a Popist priest who's job was to promote Unia in the Balkans (a church referring to a certain nation of the Balkans, who's national mythology absorbs most of F.P's interest) ([22]) and who (Janin) does not give his sources supporting a "thracian etymology" of Lygos. For those who don't know, there are no "Thracian" texts and no serious scientist would claim that he knows about Thracian language(s) any more than some isolated names and words. Just for the history, Unia's only opponent is the Greek Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
N.B. All the above said, I have no bad feelings for F.B. We both know that "Our names is our souls" as Odysseas Elytis said.  :) --Euzen (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, work on pre-Roman and pre-Greek etymologies is bound to stray towards speculation, is likely to be controversial, may be swayed by national feelings, and is highly specialised. All the more reason for us to limit ourselves to citing modern scholarship (including controversies). Andrew Dalby 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see then what modern scholarship thinks about Sk. Byzantios. I cite here some contemporary (post-WWII) scholarly works referencing Sc. Byzantios. The name is variantly found also as Skarlatos, Scarlatus, Vyzantios, Byzantius. I excluded Greek authors, as they could be biased by national feelings.
Noticeably, he is cited as a source on ambiguous or rare words and on proposed etymologies, as in:

Echos d'Orient: revue bimestrielle de théologie ... , 1971, vol. 22. “Scarlatos Byzantios a proposé une etymologie moins fantaisiste ... “

  • A name forgotten by other lexikographers but preserved by Sc. Byzantios:

Pierre Cabanes (1993) Actes du IIe Colloque international de Clermond-Ferrand, 5-27 octobre 1990, Volume 2: “On conservera donc le nom d' Amphineus, fils d'Hector, qui est généralement oublié dans les lexiques (à l'exception de quelques raretés, comme le vieux dictionnaire de Scarlatos Byzantios, où nous l'avons dépisté) et pour cela est resté ...”

But R. Janin does refer to Byzantios:Constantinople byzantine, by R. Janin, p. 259 :)
In some other works:

After this, I propose that his opinion on the origin of toponym "Lygos" be included in the article as "According to..." or "Sk. Byz. claimed that...", possibly adding "a view that is not to be found in other sources", adding of course any other opinion on this toponyme (as controversial or not).
--Euzen (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, this will be my last comment. Given the fair level of respect for Byzantios's work among later scholars, which you have shown, I think it's reasonable to mention his proposed etymology with some such wording as you suggest. If there is an etymology proposed by a more recent scholarly source, we should be sure to give the recent work more weight.
My personal view, having looked at the sources, is that no one has much idea when this place-name Lygos was used, or by whom, or why. Also (again a personal view) no one really, really knows the origin of the Greek word lygos = agnus castus. It is not a ridiculous idea to link the two -- but it is and will surely always be unverifiable. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Nothing in what Euzen has brought forward shows a "fair level of respect" to Sk.B.'s etymological work in recent scholarship. Competent writers in the field know that nobody, absolutely nobody, could have had anything relevant to say about etymologies of this type at the time Sk.B. was writing. It's like quoting a medieval author's opinion about the nature of the solar system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories. But what we don't do is cite Aristotle or Ptolemy in articles about physics in general, only about the history thereof. It's the difference between notability and significance. With regards Scarlatos Byzantios, if he is still cited in modern times, it sounds like we should have an article about him, and describe his work there. But if this origin of Lygos claim has not been made since, and was given hardly any attention even by Byzantios himself, it seems fairly insignificant. It should also be noted that even when an individual is highly regarded in a field, specific claims that have been rejected or absolutely ignored should still be left out of articles covering the mainstream modern understanding. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Apart from our opinions, do we have any source supporting another etymology or claiming that Sk. Byzantios was wrong? 2) Apart from Pliny, do we have other ancient author or an archaeological finding claiming that the old name of Byzantium was "Lygos"? Certainly we don't, therefore, following Someguy's reasoning, we should delete that paragraph.
Btw, in saying "Yet we do have articles on Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and other outdated theories ... only about the history thereof", Someguy gave me a good idea: A history of etymological opinions on Istanbul. Or "Lygos, a toponym and it's history". Thanks Someguy, this is some idea. --Euzen (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1) We have a reliable source arguing it was likely Thracian, and we have a not-quite-so-reliable one (the Özbayoğlu paper you found) that links it to a family of Indo-European placenames across Europe, suggesting a common IE root *lug or similar (unlike what you seemed to believe when you first cited the paper, that does not contradict the Thracian hypothesis, nor does it constitute a "Greek" counter-hypothesis. Proto-IE roots may be behind both Greek and Thracian, which after all were reasonably closely related with each other.) According to your own summary of the Özbayoğlu paper (which I can't check right now because it is currently offline), the meaning of that root may have been related to "swampy region". Suggestions like that are pretty common fare in placename studies, so even though I don't trust the paper overly much, it's not implausible. I don't remember if there was something about it in Georgacas.
2) No, I don't think any other ancient source besides Pliny has an attestation of "Lygos". So what? We are not using Pliny as an authority on etymology (which would be ridiculous); he is used (not by us, but by the reliable literature) as a source attesting to the existence of the name.
A separate article on the toponym "Lygos" will hardly fly, because there's too little content for it. That's why it's merged into the Names of Istanbul article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

F.P. I admire your ability to turn everything upside-down. Janin (the "reliable") is not talking about a "Thrakian name" but the name of a possible "Thrakian settlement" attested (the name) by a Roman author about 8 centuries after it was supposedly used. So, the one source (janin) does not contradict the other (Byzantios), for the same reason that today Ankara is a Turkish settlement but has a Greek name.
A separate article on the toponym(s) will certainly have more material and encyclopedic interest than, e.g., the series of one-line articles on the mayors of Elbasan, like this Hafez Musa Ali Basha, which you are requested to review when we are done with Lygos.
--Euzen (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

everyhit.com

Is everyhit.com a WP:RS? — GabeMc (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In what context? See the instructions above the edit window. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically,

They have had more number one albums, 15, on the UK charts and held down the top spot longer, 174 weeks, than any other musical act.[348]

[348] of course being a cite to everyhit.com — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, find the entire website suspicious as far as reliability goes. The webmaster has clearly put a lot of work into it, but it remains an amateur project. Who is the guy who maintains the website? Is he a recognized expert in the field? Why doesn't he give any sources for the mountains of information he displays? Is everyhit.com cited by industry mags as a reliable source, demonstrating a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? My impression is that it is not a reliable source for anything at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


May be useful and informative, but by WP standards, this site is not RS for the quote given. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lexisnexis

The source in question:

http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=gdjh&searchTerm=ehHQ.EDXa.aadi.YcOU&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

I edit was removed and it was cited that "no primary sources) (undo)" and "- you've already been told this is unacceptable per policy) (undo)"

The WP:Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kimberlin&diff=497145663&oldid=497142780

Also note that the same person that undid this edit says in the talk page that "And there's nothing "notable" about naming a senator in a lawsuit."

You would think people name US Senators in lawsuits all the time. Well they don't.

Mattsky (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to this editor by more than one person, citing only to the court record (an unpublished opinion) violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. Apparently, that hasn't penetrated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thanks for the link. It would have been nice if you gave it to me in one of our earlier exchanges. It would have penetrated a lot easier.

Mattsky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In relation to legal documents, court cases are primary sources, and would require interpretation to drawn meaningful conclusions. Such interpretation would be original research which we do not allow. The source isn't reliable for any claim, as it would require original research to draw a conclusion from it. Appropriate sources for a biography of a living person in relation to their legal life would be newspaper reports, television reports, radio reports, scholarly journal articles, books published by commercial or scholarly presses with a reputation for fact checking, or chapters in such books. In particular, for legal significance, the appropriate sources are legal journals, especially scholarly legal journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It is too bad others can't be helpful with out the nasty attitude.

Mattsky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm Fifelfoo with some footnotes. Most sources can be useful for something, even primary ones, but that something might not be notable, as per WP:NOTE. Legal primary sources might be useful for things like the fact that a case was heard on a certain date. But interpreting a legal case is OTOH of course very obviously an example of a subject matter which is both "non obvious" (see WP:BLUE), and also potentially both controversial (see the wording of WP:CHALLENGE) and affecting living people (SeeWP:BLP). In other words primary sources are good for certain uses, but not for complex conclusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
To put all this another way: Yes, the source is Primary... but this does not mean it is unreliable. The reliability of primary sources depends on context (ie what they are being used for). If you look at the diff provided, the primary source in question is being used to support two statements: 1) that a lawsuit was filed, and 2) that it was dismissed for a particular reason. The source (a transcription of the official court record) is indeed reliable for these two statements (indeed, I would say it is the most reliable source for these statements).
That said, the fact that a statement is supported by a reliable source does not mean the statement must (or even should) be included in the article. Reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion/exclusion of material... There are many other policies and guidelines that affect if, when, and how we discuss things. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The document says a lot more than "dismissed in DC's district court for failure to state a claim", there's an entire paragraph of reasoning there. I'm not a legal scholar , but it seems to me that there was more involved than only that one issue. To use this source to claim that one thing alone is definitely out of context, cherry-picking. This would be another good reason we don't use court documents, they aren't written in english, they're written in legalese, and we aren't experts in that. It's reliable for dates, and people involved only. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In this particular case, the reference WAS being used solely to establish that a lawsuit was filed and then dismissed. An editor wanted to exclude that fact from the article, and used various objections to different sources as a vehicle to do so, despite consensus to the contrary on the article's talk page. Belchfire (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not that the lawsuit was dismissed that is problematic here, it is the inclusion of the text that purports to claim *why* it was dismissed, using that primary document. That part is not ok. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How to interpret this source?

Source states in reference to the death toll of the 1929 Palestine riots: In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots." Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64

I seek third party opinion on whether to interpret this to mean that of the predominantly British inflicted Arab deaths (universally accepted), Jews killed specifically seven people, or does this mean that Jews killed at least seven people? Ankh.Morpork 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to interpret without knowing what source you are referring to. Author and year is not a sufficient citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This source. There are discrepancies in the sources regarding the fatalities so would like input on this particular source. The BBC does not cover this aspect in the breakdown of figures. Ankh.Morpork 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You should not be interpreting the source, that's WP:OR. If the source is unclear, you should quote it with an inline citation, such as "Mathews says that the deaths "includ[ing] seven victims of Jewish murders" totalled 133 Jews and 116 Arabs".[cite]" Or something to that effect. Better to find a clearer source if there is controversy over that one. If you have multiple sources, go with consensus, if this author's view is particularly relevant, note that too. Personally, I read that to mean they have a verified 7 deaths, and while there might be more, they are sure of 7, ergo for our purposes, "specifically" 7. But by the letter of policy, that's my interpretation only. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Despayre's analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Mathews says that the Arab deaths includes 7 murders by Jews. But I think it is OR to take the next step and use her as a source to say the totality of the Arab deaths from Jewish murderers was 7, because this is not what the source is saying. As well as that Mathews says "in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots", but I don't see how you can take from that statement that all the casualties from the suppression of the riots were caused by non-Jews. Mathews doesn't make a call on the ethnicity of those that killed Arabs in suppressing the riots, so you can't use her as a source to make exact claims about the ethnic responsibility of the killings during the riots. Dlv999 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're arguing against what I said, or you just over-indented your comments, but you're saying the same thing that I am, which is that the source is unclear, and should not be interpreted. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that greater context is required so I have tried to list the other views on this issue. If I took this too far, I apologise. Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary: [comparative source weighting from a variety of sources]

Proposed text: "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232 while trying to suppress the riots, and some sources stated that six Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources indicating seven."

The concern is how to present the Jewish inflicted Arab death toll. Some sources state 6, the BBC cites 110 caused by British police (from a seemingly agreed upon 116 total), and other sources indicate indirectly that the figure might have been higher. I have tried to achieve a formulation that covers both these viewpoints. Is it acceptable?

This issue has been contentious and ongoing for a while and many of the regular I-P editors have already expressed an opinion. I appreciate that I may have worded my query inaccurately and of course I have no objections to anyone pointing this out, but ideally I would prefer third party comment only and even better would be strictly comment from editors that do not edit I-P topics at all (Wishful thinking, I know). Thank you

Death toll:

  • BBC - A History of Conflict - "... in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police."
  • A History of Israel by Ahron Bregman - "In a week of disturbances, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs, 60 in Hebron alone, and 339 others were injured; the Jews killed 6 Arabs and British police killed 110 and wounded 232."

Title: A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories

Author: Ahron Bregman

Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

Page:24

Title: It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah

Author: Marlin Levin

Contributor: Esther Kustanowitz

Publisher: Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2002

Titre: The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases

Auteur: Martin Gilbert

Éditeur: Routledge, 2005

  • The Shaw Report of March 1930 - "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured" and "Many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces." It discusses an individual attack: "In this quarter there occurred the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed."
  • Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict by Benny Morris - "Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"
  • Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine by Weldon Mathews - "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots"

Title: Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History

Author: Weldon C. Matthews

Publisher: I.B.Tauris, 2006

A description of an individual attack

  • - "In Jerusalem, Haifa and other places, a Jewish "mob" avenged itself on the Arabs, killing men, women, and children and lynching passersby; in Jaffa, an imam and six other people were murdered in a mosque, and the mosque itself was burned to the ground. In Jerusalem the Ukasha shrine in the Jewish Zikhron Moshe neighbourhood was severely damaged."

Title: A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press

Authors: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman

Translated by: Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman

Publisher: Princeton University Press, 2008

Subsequent trials

  • "The Jewish policeman Simchas Hinkis was convicted for the murder of five and wounding of two when a mob broke into a house between Tel Aviv and Jaffa to avenge the murder of six Jews. Joseph Urphali was convicted by two separate trials, and lost his appeal twice, for the shooting of two Arabs from the roof of his Jaffa house."

This is an excerpt from the Wiki article with the following sources cited of which I have not been able to locate and directly quote from.

Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. 7 February 1930, New York Times: p. 9. 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Ankh.Morpork 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full scholarly citations. Author (Year) "Sub-work title if required" Work title Place published: Publisher, page range or URL. You're asking a hell of a lot here, have the courtesy to supply the information required to do the job. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As Ank has explained the rational for his proposal I shall briefly explain the rational for opposing the proposal then allow third party editors to opine. The main issue I see with AnkhMorpork's proposal is that the three sources that he relies on for the claim of 6 Arabs killed by Jews are all tertiary sources, none of them cite references or provide footnotes for their claims. Two of the sources are popular history books, the third is an "atlas" of the conflict (which basically provides maps, with one sentence summaries of important events in the conflict). I don't consider any of these to be high quality sources. What is more the 6 figure is contradicted by a number of high quality academic sources, the official British report into the riots which states that in the worst case of Jewish attacks 7 Arabs were killed, as well as the court cases following the riots in which Jews were convicted of 7 murders. None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity and I think our article should be based on these sources. Also the suggested edit intended for insertion into the lead, where it will contradict well sourced information from the article body. Dlv999 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Using WP:HISTRS to summarise the purposes and reasons for these findings:
    • [Staff] (no date) "Arab Discontent" BBC News: not reliable, non-scholarly tertiary.
    • Ahron Bregman (2003) A History of Israel Palgrave Essential Histories [Series] Palgrave Macmillan. Academic but aimed at a general audience (xviii), meets the minimum reliability criteria expected around controversial history.
    • Marlin Levin (2002) The Story of Hadassah Gefen Publishing House Ltd. Nope, this is a biography and a primary source; written by a non-historian, and not scholarly in nature
    • Martin Gilbert (2005) The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict Routledge Historical Atlases Routledge. Nope. Non scholarly tertiary source.
    • Shaw Report (1930). Nope. Primary. Use for history would be OR.
    • Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict by Benny Morris. Please supply full scholarly citations.
    • Weldon C. Matthews (2006) Confronting an Empire, Constructing a Nation: Arab Nationalists And Popular Politics in Mandate Palestine Volume 10 of Library of Middle East History [Series] I.B. Tauris. Reliable for proposed use. Scholarly work by a specialist historian A/Prof.
    • Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman (2008) A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel Princeton University Press. Reliable for proposed use. Scholarly press, Krämer is a chair at the Free University and her selection of this incident as "characteristic" or exemplary indicates its importance.
    • "Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 13. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately.
    • 7 February 1930 New York Times: p. 9. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately.
    • 6 February 1930, Telegrams in Brief". The Times: p. 9. 8 August 1930. Nope. Newspapers are not appropriate sources for history, they are primary sources, and their interpretation would count as original research. Particularly if an artificial narrative of an individual's life history has been constructed by an encyclopaedist. OR, remove immediately. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Please clarify why you consider Martin Gilbert to be non scholarly, or is this a characterization of the source?Ankh.Morpork 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly Tertiary sources resemble SAGE's encyclopaedia, they are aimed at scholars and are by scholars. While there are scholarly atlases, this is not a scholarly atlas. Scholarly atlases tend to be restricted to world history, especially world history prior to the 16th century. They represent large scale socio-economic findings, and present agricultural materials spreads in large scale comprehensible forms. It has gone through 8 editions (ie: it presents normal research to the public in a form specifically designed for general rather than scholarly consumption), and has no scholarly introduction seating the work in its literature or context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Martin Gilbert is an esteemed historian with a host of scholarly work to his name and although this book may be addressed at a wider audience, his statement is quite clear in identifying the figures. He explains here the revisions. WP:HISTRS states that historical scholarship may include university level textbooks that summarize the scholarly literature and popular equivalents of the above published by historians who normally publish in the scholarly mode and presents similar examples. Does this not apply here? I am unable to provide further information on Morris, this source was provided by my disputant and I cannot access it online. Ankh.Morpork 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a very clear "may." Some monographs are marketed as textbooks. Acceptable textbooks are those which are monographic in nature, rather than pedagogical in nature. For an example, consider Connell and Irving, Class structure in Australian History which has been set as a text book and includes primary sources as reading material, but whose primary purpose is to advance scholarly knowledge. You're really not going to get me to change my opinion on Gilbert as I considered the source at length before responding; other RS/N editors may have other opinions. If you seek specific review of Gilbert, break it out into its own section below. Regarding your disputant's failure to supply citation details for Morris: that which is not a source (ie: is not cited adequately) cannot be reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Another source: Christopher Sykes, 1965, Cross Roads to Israel: Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, New English Library (no ISBN; later editions will have one): "In the whole course of the rising 133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded, 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded. All the Jewish casualties were due to Arab action, and all the Arab ones to police action except for six killed in a Jewish counter-attack between Tel Aviv and Jaffa" (p119). Sykes was a diplomat in the region, son of Sir Mark Sykes. The book is widely cited, described on our page about Sykes as "classic". Sykes does not give his source, but the book is largely based on Zionist and Israeli state archives, and documents of the British Colonial and Foreign Offices. RolandR (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case the resemblance of the text to standard history (including its archival origins) and its later celebration by historians through wide citation would make it okay. Again, refer to WP:HISTRS for how a professional equivalence is constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Roland, that's a good source, but has an ambiguity. At one point, while awaiting reinforcements, Luke's auxiliary police were assisted by former Jewish members of the British army, and rejoined to that force, undertook reprisals on the Arab population, killing some 4 Arab Christians in Jerusalem, to cite one example. That, done as part of official (British) police action does not appear to figure in the statistical breakdown sources like these try to provide. There is more than one case of this (see Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2 2002 p.177)Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not offering any comment on the accuracy of the sources, or on the historical facts. I merely examined my bookshelf, and this was the one book I found which discussed the event in detail. Sykes also makes an unequivocal statement. He may of course be mistaken, and sources such as the one you cite could be more accurate, but we cannot judge. If there are conflicting reliable sources, the article should note this without attempting to adjudicate between them. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While I applaud the effort to improve the quality of history sources, I don't agree with all of Fifelfoo's judgments. It is certainly true that newspapers are bad sources for history, but they are not bad sources for news. So when a contemporary newspaper reports that someone was found guilty of some crime in a court, it is fine to note it unless there is a quality secondary source that denies it. In this case there is a fine academic source noting the fact of the convictions and only some details are taken from the contemporary newspapers with no interpretation. It fits the "purely illustrative purposes" section of WP:HISTRS. Zerotalk 11:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are you deriving the conclusion that this incident bears any historical weight from? Whole cloth. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also simply not true that use of sources like official reports is OR. Zerotalk 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Official reports that are 90 years old require interpretation in order to produce meaning from them. A report issued this year has an immediacy, a lack of historicity, that means that the interpretive frameworks immediately available to encyclopaedia edits are valid. In relation to British government documents produced in the 1930s the same does not bear, and the direct use by wikipedia of these is interpretive. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The OR could refer to the deduction of an overall death tally by analysing and compiling the reportage of individual events, which is what another editor suggested.
"Attacks on Jews quickly spread through Palestine...133 Jews had been killed and 339 wounded. Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence" p.13

Title: The Arab-Israeli conflict: its history in maps

Auther: Martin Gilbert

Publisher: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984 Ankh.Morpork 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an early edition of the same work would elicit a different opinion. If you're really committed to Gilbert and want another opinion, just start a new section specifically dealing with them and I'll see if I can't hunt up other RS/N editors to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert is good on Churchill and many other things, but very poor on the Middle East, where he follows a standard partisan interpretation, and ignores contemporary scholarship. He states that 59 people were murdered at Hebron in 1929, for example: the accepted figure ranges from 64/65 to 67. When he writes:-

Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the Arab police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence

,
any area historian would remind him that others put the figure at 136, and that in noting the Jewish injured, he ignores the Arabs reportedly wounded, some 240, a figure which, like the Second Intifada figures, is a probably significant underestimate (Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2, Fayard, Paris, 2002 p.179) because the Palestinians to this day hide and care for many of their wounded secretly, out of fear that, if hospitalized for proper care, these people will end up on a police file as terrorists, bystanders mere demonstrators, or not.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As a general principle in encyclopedia writing, I think one should aim at the most neutral, less-blame-picking sources, sources that are not written to hammer home a victimization or culpability thesis. Several historians quoted give the killing statistics (which all vary in details) and don't, as the editor proposes, try to finesse this by assigning who did what to whom ethnically. Note how Benny Morris gets this right:-

"Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"

That at least shows great sensitivity to the complexities, and an eye for neutral but informed evaluation. Our aim should be to choose sources that give the essential facts, not sources which, while providing them, use language that is cued to tilt the passions of the readership.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not just keep posting the sources until you get someone to agree to your preconceived opinions on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) diff
Isn't that what you're doing? The lead of the article currently does not include a piece of information which no historian disputes, which is that the vast majority of Jews killed were killed by Arabs, while a small minority of Arabs killed were killed by Jews. Is there a single source that contests this? Perhaps sources disagree whether it was 6 or 7 or 8, but the fact remains it was a small minority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

c64.org

Hi all. Was just wondering about this source: [23]. It's all a bit too techy for me to understand, but as I understand it it's a huge database of information relating to the Commodore 64. A new editor recently created this article, and sourced the website heavily. I removed the content as I don't consider it to be reliable - on this page of the website, it states under "Information" that:

All the information in CSDb is submitted and maintained by the registered users of the database. The CSDb staff cannot manually check all the information coming into the database, so please report any form of abuse to us.

As all the information is user-submitted and not uniformly reviewed/moderated/verified by any kind of editorial team it seems pretty clear to me that it's not a reliable source. However, the author contacted me and asked for clarification, and so I said I would get a third opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:RS this is clearly not a RS site. It may have lots of accurate information, but it should not be used for anything contentious, and if it's all user-based input, they're getting it from somewhere else, find that "somewhere else". -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Per Despayre's reasoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

State departments of education websites

Resolved

The author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics asked me on my talk page whether the various US state department of education websites and documents discussing the Quantile Framework are acceptable sources, in particular:

My understanding is that they are primary sources, and while they can be used with care (in particular to verify that those states do use the Quantile Framework), they cannot establish the Quantile Framework's notability. Am I correct? Huon (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would these be primary sources? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean specifically in regards to their use in those states? They aren't primary sources on the Quantile Framework. They are RS to support that those states use them, yes. In terms of using them to establish notability, I'd like a little more context for the question. If enough states use it, and their edu websites say so, notability is de facto established, but you do want to be very careful to avoid OR in that circumstance. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If the states report on their own use of the Framework, how would that be a secondary source? It's not some sort of independent review or evaluation. The context for the notability question is the article draft: These are prominent among the sources supposed to show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" per the GNG. To my understanding, being in use (and having primary sources confirming that) is not enough to establish notability when no secondary sources report on the use. Huon (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If the state didn't participate in the creation of the framework, and didn't fund the creation of the framework before they adopted it, then deciding to use it would be an independent evaluation. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Huon (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What Jc3s5h said... -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You might like to read WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting information on Classmates.com article

Resolved

Hello.

Please review the post I made on the talk page (diff). Discussion can continue here, but it is preferred there. Thanks very much. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


No source was cited on the second statement in concern. The first statement states "allegedly", the second statement is more definite. The reference appears to have a more definite tone to it, however, there may be other references cited in the article that point to possible deception rather than definite deception. Please provide a second opinion. I do not wish to make changes with the knowledge I have so far. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited:

  1. ^ Singel, Ryan (November 12, 2008). "Classmates.com User Sues; Schoolmates Weren't Really Looking for Him". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-01-13.
A quick look through available sources seems to indicate that the latter quote is correct, and that the former quote was correct, until the lawsuit has finished, which it now has. I don't have time right now to track down an RS source for it at the moment, although there's an article on Ars Technica here that probably works as a source for that second quote. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the page to the best of my ability. See this diff. Thanks. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


Looks like a good, sourced, copyedit to me. If anyone else on that article doesn't like that source, there were plenty of others to choose from, that one is probably fine though. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Using your own photo book as a source

Source: Heroes & Villains a "coffee table" book containing photos by David Steen. Only 350 copies were produced. Everything in the book is by David Steen, except the forward is by Roger Moore.

Article: David Steen (photographer)

Content: "Steen’s other subjects, featured in his published book of photographs, include: Burt Lancaster[2], John Hurt[2], Dirk Bogarde[2], Dudley Moore and Peter Cook[2], the Rolling Stones[2], the Beatles[2], Robert Mitchum[2], Richard Harris[2], Ian Fleming[2], Orson Welles[2], John Cleese[2], Michael Caine[2], Truman Capote[2], Noël Coward[2], Pete Townshend[2], Lester Piggott[2], Rudolf Nureyev[2], James Coburn[2], Tom Jones[2], Somerset Maugham[2], Harold Robbins[2], Robert Shaw[2], Brian Epstein[2], Cliff Richard[2], Marc Bolan[2], Peter O’Toole[2], Bill Wyman[2], Harrison Ford[2], Roger Daltrey[2], Jack Palance[2], David Niven[2], Mickey Rooney[2], Saul Bellow[2], Evelyn Waugh[2], Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond[2], El Cordobes[2], Jason Robards[2], Terence Conran[2], Sammy Davis Jr[2], Graham Hill[2], Donald Sutherland[2], Bobby Moore[2], Ringo Starr[2], Pierce Brosnan[2], Alex ‘Hurricane’ Higgins[2], James Mason[2], Sir Ralph Richardson[2], Tom Stoppard[2], President Tito[2], Placido Domingo[2], Julie Christie[2], Twiggy[3][4], Sophia Loren[2], Ingrid Bergman[2], Jane Seymour[2], Bianca Jagger[2], Elizabeth Taylor[2], Britt Ekland[2]."

Question: My understanding is that book by a person cannot be used for claims about 3rd parties.

There is also the Amazon refs in the article that are sourcing that a photo inside the book is by Steen, but the Amazon refs never mentions Steen. I know this is clearly out of bounds, but article's author thinks otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that much of the disputed information is biographical. A primary source is appropriate for biographical information; however, caution must be used. I don't know what to do about the Photographs of the Famous section. The book would be reliable; however, I don't know if the section listing every person is necessary, but that is a content dispute. The early career section should be pared down. Things like "My mum and dad were very proud." are not necessary. I assume he is using the book as a source for that as well and in text citations should be used. Paragraphs like

On sunny days mothers would leave their babies in prams outside their homes and, to earn extra money, Steen would borrow a camera, photograph the babies, and have the pictures printed at a chemist shop. He would pay a shilling a print and then knock at the door of the mother and sell her a photo of her baby for two shillings.

Are less appropriate to source with the book, while information on his career as an army photographer is appropriate; however, "had accomplished an immense amount of travel and photography" cannot be sourced to the book since it would require secondary coverage. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the biographical info as I know that is ok. I'm only asking about the 3rd parties. FYI... the early career has been trimmed down by several editors, but reverted. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I would think a book authored by David Steen would be an acceptable primary source for biographical content about himself, in the way an autobiography would be, although secondary sources are preferred since people often embellish accounts of their own lives; probably not ok for specific claims about other people. It would also be an acceptable primary source for the content of the book i.e. stating that it contains a photograph of Julie Christie, because a reader can verify that by checking the book. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Betty here - his book is an acceptable primary source. I would try to find a second source (at least) for most of the claims, if possible, and the tone should certainly be changed. As for the list of photo subjects, that's clearer - they should be kept. The pictures of those subjects, who have articles of their own, are his main claim to fame, are they not? Personally, because of how many there are, I would branch a list article for them, but that is neither here nor there.  The Steve  09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many photographers of celebs. Some of these photographers put out books of photos of celebs. Some of these books appear in editions of five thousand or more, from established publishers (Phaidon, etc). A list of the celebs photographed in such a book hardly seems encyclopedic. I don't understand why a list of the celebs photographed in a self-published edition of 350 is any more encyclopedic. (Especially as I've seen plenty of photos of these people elsewhere. Now, if the book verifiably contained photos of Howard Hughes, J D Salinger and Thomas Pynchon, it would be a different matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but its not a list of celebs in a book (or at least it shouldn't be), its a list of the photographer's subjects as part of his biography. The book is the primary source showing a lot of those subjects. It isn't necessary to list them all, of course, but because they are famous in their own right, it is certainly acceptable.  The Steve  10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Resolved

Would this be considred reliable for listing genres for the article http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,8976881,00.html Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Allmusic.com, the actual source, is, yes. This website, no. Go find the review on allmusic, and that can be used (there's a clue hidden somewhere in this answer ). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Allmusic was dismissed for Genres Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Genres are a little bit subjective, but allmusic is an industry standard site that employs all the editorial expertise we like to see. However, I would not use it to exclude a genre, merely as a source to say that they said it *was* a certain genre. Know what I mean Vern? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I understand now Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

Uh, how is Artistdirect unreliable? It's a professional company, for crying out loud. It's just as reliable as Allmusic. Panic Reaper (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vanity publishers are professional companies. Artistdirect has no editorial policy, and no indication of fact checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) No, it's not as reliable. First of all, they didn't publish the information in question, they reprinted it, so they are not responsible for this content at all (it would be impossible for them to change it, since it's not from their own website, ergo, they are relying on someone else whom they have no control over, not RS), which makes everything that follows moot. However, to answer your question, Artistdirect website lists no editorial control, indicates no music scene expertise, has no record of reliability, and no mechanisms in place to correct errors, whereas, AllMusic does, and here is the job description of their content editor requirements as well. Does that help clear it up? (I'm not saying it's not reliable for *you*, I'm saying it's not reliable based on the policies in place at WP:RS. The content on ArtistDirect may be spectacular, but their website omissions don't allow us to use it as an RS source, content at that point is irrelevant, and before you get all excited and start shooting the messenger, I'm just passing along the policy, not making it ). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you also post on his talk about that sidebox genres from allmusic have been dismissed Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm sure he'll come back to read the answer to his question anyway, so anything said here, he will already see. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Allmusic has profiles for bands and artists, well at the left handside theres a box which lists genres, members, moods etc. Well I want people to know that Wikipedia has dismissed Allmusic for being a reliable source when it comes to GENRES, and i was hoping you could let PanicReaper know that those have been counted as unreliable Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

San Francisco Chronicle Blog

Resolved

The San Francisco Chronicle has a blog called called City Brights - see here [24] The blog is contained on the San Francisco Chronicle's official website, however it carries this editor's note - "This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." Would this be a reliable source? The specific article that I would like to use can be seen here [25] --Jpcase (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look at the link, based on your description alone, they cannot be RS. There is an exception to that though, if an expert on a particular subject wrote something on that blog, and it was verifiable that he was an expert (and it was actually him), and he was saying things in his own "expert capacity", then yes, it could be RS, but I suspect that's not the case here. However, the article does give you places to go, it quotes Disney and Pixar, which likely means they are quoted in the Chronicle, find it there, the exact same quote would be RS from there. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The quote that I want to use is by the author of the blog post, not Disney, so another article wouldn't work. However, the author of this article has been published in the actual San Francisco Chronicle, as well as Salon, Glamour, the San Jose Mercury News, and other news sources. She has also appeared on Good Morning America, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. You can see her resume here - [26] I would have mentioned this earlier, but I didn't notice it until now. I believe that this would qualify her as an expert. Am I correct?--Jpcase (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Now I would need to know what edit you would like to use that as a source for, before I could say whether her journalist expertise covered what you want to say. I'm not sure she's an expert on the ins and outs of the movie industry, but she may be for some kind of girl-power/feminism topics (I'm sure those aren't the PC words I should use here, I just don't know what they are, so apologies to anyone offended). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The quote I would like to use is "Can you imagine if Disney...switched a movie title so it wouldn’t risk highlighting a male star? It’s awful that this kind of radical gender discrimination exists for our smallest people– little kids who come into this world with huge imaginations and aspirations, big dreams that get squashed by a bunch of billionaire guys who run massive entertainment franchises."--Jpcase (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
My fault, I should have been clearer. It's not clear to me in what context you want to use that quote. What article are we talking about, and is that the exact edit you want to insert? Or is that the quote that supports what you want to write into an article here? If the latter, what is the exact text you want to write, that this quote supports (and again, in what article)? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I want to include this in the Tangled article. I actually made the edit before realizing that the source may not be reliable and deciding to bring it up here, so you can already see my edit in the article. My edit is under the "Title change" section, and reads "Writing for the San Francisco Chronicle's blog, Margot Magowan accused Disney of sexism, writing "Can you imagine if Disney...switched a movie title so it wouldn’t risk highlighting a male star? It’s awful that this kind of radical gender discrimination exists for our smallest people– little kids who come into this world with huge imaginations and aspirations, big dreams that get squashed by a bunch of billionaire guys who run massive entertainment franchises."--Jpcase (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It depends on whether Margot Magowan can be considered an authority on the subject. The authors are not whoever wants to write, they are selected by the newspaper & this gives them a certain amount of reliability. I see we have no article on her--would it be possible to write one that would meet WP:N? DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Policy-wise, I think you are ok with that (based on shows that have interviewed her, I think she is N enough). Personally, I think she's a little over the top, and changing the title makes sense for the marketing reasons explained (they are trying to make money I believe), but that's not what you asked me and I have no interest in getting into your article. Interesting question though, thanks for that. One question, the paragraph says Disney altered to "emphasize Flynn Rider", but her quote says "switched so it wouldn't risk highlighting a male star", isn't that a contradiction? (this is not an RSN topic, if it needs discussion, answer on the article talk page, if it doesn't need discussion, that's ok too ). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The title was changed from Rapunzel to Tangled to emphasize the male character of Flynn Rider, instead of focusing on the female character of Rapunzel, even though she is the main character of the story. The quote by Margot Magowan criticizes Disney, by pointing out that they would never change the title of a film to draw attention away from a male character, even though they seem to be fine with drawing attention away from a female character. This isn't the only time that Disney has done this. The Princess of Mars was retitled as John Carter and an upcoming adaptation of The Snow Queen has been retitled Frozen. Disney may have their reasons for doing this, and it may not necessarily be immoral, but it still is a form of gender discrimination.--Jpcase (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that point now (not 100% sure I agree with the conclusion but that's ok ), thanks for clearing that up. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!--Jpcase (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Kaduri's note on Messiah

The edits in question are here.

Interactions on the RS issue here

Here is the Hebrew news source re the note News1, with the note and its contents. Here is the poor google translation. This looks like RS to me. The World Net Daily article is [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669 here]. Israel Today's archives no longer contain the article, but it does contain the image of the note [27] and its editor has received but not yet replied to my enquiries, but copies of screenshots of the original article on 30/4/2007 are widespread.

Attempted interpretations and images of the note are still being addressed on what is reported to have been Kaduri's own site Intensive discussion on the meaning of the note is documented elsewhere here for example.Cpsoper (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is disputed that Kaduri.net is Kaduri's own site, and it is certainly not a reliable source. Parsha.blogspot.co.uk is also obviously not acceptable. News1 claims to be a news site, but appears to be more a muck-raking site than a reliable source. The non-contextualised jpg from Israel Today proves nothing; certainly not that Kaduri wrote this note. And World Net Daily has been found countless times to be an unreliable source. None of this is remotely sufficient to establish that a note discovered after a leading Rabbi's death proves that he believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and that he would soon return, Exceptional claims demand exceptional sources, and these are exceptionally bad. RolandR (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your trenchant opinions, RolandR. First, I think we must clarify that there is no attempt to claim that Yitzhak Kaduri identified Jesus the Nazarene as the Messiah in the edits, and that has been hotly contested by the considerable party of Rabbinic supporters of the note's genuineness. As to his belief that Messiah's return was immminent, that is sourced from Maariv not News One or the note's contents. Can you prove your claims about Kaduri.net? Did it not serve as his own site before his death? If not, why didn't he or his family disown it then? Neither interestingly, to my knowledge, is there any formal denial of the note's provenance, on line. Please correct me if I err. The presence of the image of the note in its archives, is strong corroboration of the widely published Israel Today article - even if it has curiously subsequently been withdrawn, and its editor not responding to enquiry. I wonder if others would like to comment about News One, especially since the journalist Yoav Yitzhak later joined Maariv, who's 'muck-raking' appears more acceptable here - isn't this a common description of a primary task for journalists? Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Maariv reference was incorrectly formatted, so lead to a "page not found" error. I have taken the liberty of amending your comment to correct this. RolandR (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And reading the article, it merely states that Kaduri believed that the Messiah would arrive (not "return", that is your gloss, and not in the article) imminently. This is a view shared my many rabbinical eschatologists and kabbalists. It says nothing about a note, nothing about a name, and certainly nothing to suggest that he believed that Jesus was the Messiah, or that his return was imminent. RolandR (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for corrections. For clarity's sake, the Maariv article has a whole paragraph entitled, 'המשיח עתיד להגיע', or 'the Messiah will come'. The paragraph below specifies in Kaduri's view this would be soon, and contains his claim of having met the Messiah, presumably mystically or in a vision, a year before. It was not my claim that the obituary mentioned the note, it was a year too early, simply that his strong Messianic expectation is well attested. Again for clarity, Kaduri's purported note does not name the Nazarene, he describes the Messiah, but by acronym, a common Kabbalistic technique, the derived name by Rabbinic Orthodox Jews, many of whom believe the note to be genuine, is Yehoshua. Any evidence of your statements about Kaduri.net? I would value the opinions of others on News One's value as RS.Cpsoper (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Have had communication from Israel Today editor, the article was in their print edition for 2007, 'We did feature it on our website for a time after WorldNetDaily wrote about it, but the article did not get reprinted online when we revamped our website.' I also hope to have news from Kaduri.net soon. I'd still be grateful for other views on News1. I see it is used elsewhere on wiki in at least two places as RS, Ronald Lauder and Nahum Barnea.Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not mentioning this on the Kaduri talkpage. I actually think that News1 is normally an RS though it is evident that in this case, it merely picked up the note picture from the kaduri.net site which is certainly not RS and seemingly dubious and there is nothing in the news1 article 'source' to give any other background at all. Given the lack of RS reporting the authenticity of this note at this time, it should not be included in the Kaduri article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to transcribe these comments to talk if you agree appropriate. I await your response to questions of evidence on kaduri.net there, Shuki. Perhaps we should clarify with NFC whether it 'merely picked up the note picture' from kaduri.net, I agree that would not constitute proper journalism? Though the Israel Today and WND articles went further, as you know. I agree NFC is ordinarily RS, there are at least three other citations Gideon Levy, Yoel Lavy and Haaretz. If it were not ordinarily RS, these should also be amended.Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I grant my Hebrew is not excellent, but my reading of the page does suggest first hand sighting of the note, not a second hand report 'הגיע הערב (ג', 23.1.07) לידי Nfc.', the crucial word being 'to my hand'. There are also details about the note's writing which also imply first hand enquiry. It appears to be corroborated by the other two sources (though there may be some interdependence between WDN and IT) and of course kaduri.net.Cpsoper (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, your translation is wrong. The Hebrew does not state "I received it", but "Nfc received it" ("to the hands of Nfc", rather than "to my hands"). So the comment does not necessarily suggest first hand sighting; the (unnamed) writer could just be stating that someone else at the site had mentioned seeing the alleged document. RolandR (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, so, RR, is it still proposed that when NFC says, the note arrived to 'the hands of Nfc' on the evening of 23/1/07, and cites 'אנשי חצרו', 'men of his court' that this was generated only by seeing the note on Kaduri.net without another primary source? If that is the case, it would not be professional journalism, especially if as you and Shuki have claimed kaduri.net does not represent Rabbi Kaduri. However it doesn't seem at all likely, NFC also first broke the story about Kaduri's claims to have met the Messiah in 29/10/2005, so they have sources in his seminary.Cpsoper (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how the writer derived his/her evidence. The onus is on you to establish that this is a reliable source for this claim; several editors have questioned this. RolandR (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see where NFC/news1 says that it got the note. I guess it comes from the translation. It merely says that the note was revealed, whatever that means. --Shuki (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you both. NFC has been repeatedly accepted as RS for other pages, despite RR's global objection to the site. (I may have difficulty in counting but 'several editors' appears to be two at most, one specifically only to this incident.) Why must we start with assuming that NFC acted unprofessionally in this particular case, when it is RS elsewhere? What about the other two independent sources? Others on this noticeboard are discussing weblogs as RS! - these other two sources are identifiable, widely accessed institutions, with a track record in fact checking, self-correction, and are multiply-edited, with archived records. The question is not one of opinion, but of the incident of the note's discovery. From whence the onus to prove NFC acted out of character with its recognised modus operandi? There is ample evidence NFC has had connexion with Kaduri's seminary. The statement that NFC had the note idiomatically 'in hand' on 23/1/2007, in the evening is on the link above, Shuki. If there is a dispute about the note's provenance, please produce your sources. We have seen none except those you have so far chosen to reject. In addition, neither of you have as yet cited any formal evidence to contest the claim in print that kaduri.net represented the rabbi semi-officially during his life. I accept the note and its interpretation is controversial, and an entry should reflect that, but the evidence of its historicity is well substantiated, and I fear perhaps other considerations are affecting your weighing the nature of the sources. In the absence of objections I will cross post some of this discussion to the talk page.Cpsoper (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I recognise that 'reliable' sources may only be useful in specific contexts, and share considerable reservations about some of WND's reportage. However I note that a wiki-site specific google search for WND as a source returns nearly 500 hits, and includes some highly controversial subjects for which editors have considered it reliable. These include Johnny Chung, Failed terrorism plots, Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia), Project Daniel. For Israel today, there are 36 hits on a wiki-site specific search, and again include many Israel topics, like the beauty queen Liran Kohner, the charity Yad Sarah and List of artifacts significant to the Bible. These also include its use as RS on some highly controversial subjects, like Majdi Halabi, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and Gaza Baptist Church. Comments welcome. Cpsoper (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Is a museum exhibition a source for a 'conclusive statement' by the museum?

In a sense this may be a waste of time, as the editor seem unwilling to listen, but at Ancient Egyptian race controversy an editor, despite an ArbCom warning and discussions at the talk page and WP:NPOVN, insists that an exhibition of the Fitzwilliam Museum is one of several "conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research". The material in question is:

More recently the Fitzwilliam Museum of the University of Cambridge has dedicated the new "Kemet" exhibit to showing ancient Egypt in it's "proper African context". <ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">,{{cite web|title= Kemet|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/index.html}}</ref> The exhibit is based heavily on the work of scholars such as S.O.Y Keita, Ossama Abdel Meguid and Mpay Kemboly. The Museum also has the "Black to Kemet" exhibit which presents Egyptian art and posing the question;

"Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today."

<ref name="fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk">Andrew Crowe ,{{cite web|title= Black to Kemet Placing Egypt in Africa|accessdate= June 10 2012|work= Fitzwilliam's|date= June 20 212 |url= http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/kemet/}}</ref>

I can't find any definitive statement on race by the museum. I can't even find the "proper African context" although I can find " placing Egypt in its African cultural context."[28]. I will say that the exhibition uses work by S. O. Y. Keita who does not believe in the concept of race and does not call Egyptians black, although he does say that the present population is probably similar to the ancient population.

As I said, he's been told this a number of times, but just as he's been told that the Britannica is not a reliable source, he keeps reinserting it. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had academic acceptance I'm sure the museum wouldn't pose it as a question, it looks like the aim of the exhibition is to be controversial. It also seems contrary to the consensus of scholars as seen in the second paragraph of the lede of the respective article. Surely something controversial like this should be sourced from an academic source. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Museum captions are "published" and, potentially, reliable sources. This is a scholarly museum. But a text asking a question is not a source that supports either the answer "yes" or the answer "no". It supports the claim that this is an interesting question. Andrew Dalby 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Andrew above, also, I would remove the word "proper" from the "African context" quote, as that's not supported by the source in any way, and the text currently has it appearing as as direct quote, also it's a terrible cite, as the cite doesn't point to the info, I have to click to other pages to find that. The museum text goes on to say "This exhibition invites the viewer to consider the appearance of the people of Kemet around 3000 years ago and to ask the question: ‘Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’", in no way is this the same as saying it is a fact. This exhibit is not a "conclusive statement" of anything other than "Scholars are unsure what Egyptians looked like 3000 years ago". And even that statement is a bit of a stretch, this whole exhibit could be seen as a thought experiment for history. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well now that's what I call cherry picking with a vengeance! No it definitely isn't conclusive. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_124&oldid=1136075483"