Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 94

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

Help needed

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

We need help regarding 27 sources presented at talk page.

Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Sources_on_Serbian_origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 18, the link is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was also a Harvard graduate and he was a prime minister of a democratic government that overthrew the monarchy even if it lasted only six months. Even if you don't trust his neutrality his work still remains the comprehensive biography in English of Gjergj Kastrioti and The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli, George Castrioti Scanderbeg i.e WP:RS. Btw many of the sources that were refuted again, have been refuted in the past too(like source 9).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, by now you should have realized that you cannot have a real discussion with the supporters of the Albanian POV. The fact is that the Serbian origin of Vojsava is the mainstream as WP defines it (Mainstream is, generally, the common current thought of the majority.) and the Albanian origin is the fringe theory, supported only by a couple of Albanian or openly pro-Albanian authors.--Euzen (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

tfwiki.net as an external link

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

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

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

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

Die Presse article on "King & King"

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

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

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

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

I agree with Roscelese. While Die Presse usually is a reliable source, it should be possible to verify this with Latvian sources (there's another article in one of Der Standard's online portals link). Maybe a member of WP:LITH could help to find Latvian sources for this? --Six words (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC) About your other question: the article doesn't say anything exciting about Rimantas Dagys, just that the book was read to children in playgroups which lead to protests from parents' associations and, subsequently, to Dagyns criticising those readings.

Hm, that's two separate sources (unless one got the story from the other), but still Austrian rather than Lithuanian. I'll post for help, thanks for the suggestion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Seattlepi.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

Dempsey does work for the SeatllePI and does regularly have articles featured there, if this changes anyone's opinion on the subject.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does she? I'm not sure this is correct. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, she has written a book on this subject and is considered an expert on it.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is this a reliable source within Wikipedia's rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it has a wide circulation, reports on news, and has an editorial process. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't have an article on English WP seeing as it is an Italian-only magazine. If I could read Italian, I'd see what this [2] says about it.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article on the publisher, RCS MediaGroup. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Google Translate of the Italian Wikipedia article for Oggi says "Today was one of the most popular magazines weekly current affairs Italian , with a circulation of 681,000 copies (2006)." I translate this personally as saying that Oggi is one of the most popular weekly magazines for Italian current affairs with a circulation of 681,000 copies. That seems to show to me that it is a reputable news source for Italy. Silverseren^C 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the original poster and I'm new to Wikipedia so thanks in advance for your patience with me, but I'm wondering what happens now? At what point can I say a decision has been reached about whether OGGI magazine is or is not a reliable source? I was expecting someone with some recognised authority to make a ruling on the issue which I and others would be able to refer to - unfortunately what i'm seeing here is a hodgepodge of differing opinions, personal sniping and and comments from highly involved partisan editors who are looking for any excuse to exclude the source. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nobody with the recognized authority to make such rulings on Wikipedia - we work (or amble along) by WP:CONSENSUS or the lack of same. Given the different opinions here, I would certainly not use OGGI as a source for statements about the mental health of a living person. Our policy on biographies of living people is particularly strict for potentially negative information. If the claim is notable and true, it should be possible to find a better source, like La Repubblica, La Stampa, the Corriere della Sera, or, if you look internationally, the BBC, the NYT, FAZ, or other high-quality news outlets. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, only one editor not involved with the article has suggested that this isn't a reliable source, and that opinion is conditioned on this article being like another tabloid (an unsubstantiated claim by an involved editor).

Stephan, regarding your opinion on the source, would your opinion change if the article is reporting on something less controversial, like that a person may be hard of hearing?LedRush (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. WP:BLP still applies. I also wonder why you would advance that point - unless it is to suggest that the person would be an unreliable witness. If that's the aim, you certainly need a source making that specific statement - see WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But this method of working just isn't acceptable, Stephan. You're telling me one thing, others are telling me the exact opposite. What authority do any of you have to answer my simple question? What is the purpose of this noticeboard? It seems to be entirely useless for what I took to be its intended purpose. I need a final decision from someone with the authority to make it. I don't care if it's yes or no. I do not want to sit interminably reading the waffling opinions of whichever random people decide to pontificate about my simple question. I'm sorry if i sound frustrated, but this is ludicrous! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. But that's the way it is. There is nobody to make this decision for you. You can try some of the steps of dispute resolution, e.g. a request for comments ("Should the following fact, sourced to [your source] be included in the article?"). If you believe in authority, I've been here for 7.5 years, an administrator for half this time, and in my personal opinion, which is not binding at all, it's a bad idea to use that source in such a suggestive manner. I hate to say is "love it or leave it", but Wikipedia is based on the consensus model, and if you cannot live with that, you will encounter difficulties when editing contentious topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I should note that anyone who has responded here that is involved in the dispute should not be considered toward consensus. The entire point of RSN is to get an outside opinion on the matter. Thus, while outside editors should consider the views of involved editors, the views of involved editors themselves should not factor into consensus. Silverseren^C 19:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So... their opinions don't count? I only really became involved in this article because I commented that the source isn't reliable for this claim FWIW. I still don't think it is. The material is mentioned in a single brief/vague line in an article that is a tabloidy discussion of evidence at the appeal. It has not been brought up in any other sources that I have been able to find so far and we have no more detail than the 4 or 5 words in Oggi. Don't get me wrong; Oggi seems reasonably reliable for some things, akin to any source of this level, but for a specific (BLP) claim with minimal detail it is not very satisfactory. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant: Considering that there are WP:BLP issues involved, can you post a diff that contains this person's name or e-mail it to me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple questions:

• What does the Oggi article actually state? Does it state that this person has a history of mental illness? Or does it say that according to someone, this person has a history of mental illness? There's a world of difference between the two.
• Are there any corroborating reliable sources that also contain this information?

My following comment goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but I do want to point out that Wikipedia is not news and we have no deadlines. Considering that there are WP:BLP issues, I think the default should be to exclude this information from the article for now - at least until we're sure that this source is reliable for this type of content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It states that the witness has hearing difficulties and a history of mental illness. This is a rough translation byDempsey:The witnesses who... ...have problems of deafness, of physical and mental health serious enough to be hospitalized in a psychiatric ward.

No detail on where the information comes from is given. However the mental illness stuff probably comes from Paul Ciolino (video), an investigative journalist, who talked to relatives of the witness. The hard of hearing stuff isn't expanded on but probably is derived from the fact that the defence has asked for the witness to recieve an audio-metric test. A satisfactory source explaining this in detail has not been provided yet (I am still looking) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The hard of hearing stuff is not derived from the request for audiometric tests. The request for the tests was because it was posited in court by the defence that even someone with good hearing could not have heard what she claimed to hear. So let's not jump to that conclusion. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that's more progress than I made. How do you know this? If it is the case then we can pretty much reject it as a factual statement (certainly "near-deaf") for the moment, because repeating the claims of the defence is generally not a good idea (not while the appeal occurs anyway) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I haven't got definite proof as such. I do know that when the audiometric tests were suggested, nobody made any specific claims that Nara was hard of hearing. That info is in the Massei Report. Wherever the claims about her hearing came from, it must be some kind of new source. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant: By "Dempsey", I assume that you're referring to this?[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My girlfriend rechecked the translation and it has some errors (mostly of the "this is how different translators would read it" sort), but that is mainly correct. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have another question. What's the proposed text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question :) the piece that was in (and then removed) from the article said: On 3rd April 2011 Giangavino Sulas writing in OGGI magazine stated that <Name of Living Person> was near deaf and had been hospitalised for mental health issues. Candace Dempsey translated the article for English speakers (example diff). On the talk page not much was really suggested, although I did propose adding material about the audio-metric test (which is a hearing test asked for by the defence, sourced to the Judge's report on the trial). --Errant ^(chat!) 21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I removed the name of a living person in the above post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can say that my text there was unreasonable. That's exactly what the OGGI article said. I didn't endorse it or say I agreed with it. But the reader needs to be aware of the article's existence. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While Oggi might - in general - be a reliable source, I consulted our policy on WP:BLP and I am reminded that we are supposed to be very firm about the use of high quality sources and that BLP material should be written conservatively and with regard for a person's privacy. Further, I am reminded that Wikipedia should not be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Given that English-language news sources have apparently not picked up this story, that would make Wikipedia a primary vehicle for spreading this claim in the English-speaking world. In my opinion, this source is not strong enough for this content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I assume your opinion is worth the same as the other individuals who have posted on this thread, or do you have special status on Wikipedia? I have already stated I am not interested in hearing from ordinary Wikipedia users such as yourself because you have no authority. Comment edited. I apologise for my over the top statement.CodyJoeBibby (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC) CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby: Nobody has special status or authority to answer this question. Please focus your attention on the substance of each editor's comments', not on the editors themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with A Quest For Knowledge and others. From what I can tell, Oggi (Today) seems to be the Italian equivalent more of National Enquirer than of Newsweek, and strict compliance with WP:BLP, as others have said, is of paramount importance in this situation. If there were fewer potential ramifications stemming from the inclusion of this content, and the article in question did not pertain quite so strongly to BLP, I doubt that there would be much reason to exclude the magazine. Elsewhere, comparisons have been made of Oggi and Gente (People). I recall reading from an issue of the latter on one occasion, and it certainly appeared to be on the same level as the UK tabloid magazines OK or Hello. If the proposed content is deemed significant enough in the wider press, no doubt some of the more authoritative English-language media will pick up on the story soon enough. SuperMarioMan 00:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if these facts are significant, they will be reported elsewhere, and we have a responsibility to protect the privacy of living persons. I think the suggestion that a person was hospitalized with a mental illness falls in the category of extraordinary claims, and this is not a extraordinary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the witness is already in the article. Now the question is whether it can be raised that Oggi has claimed she is hard of hearing, a claim repeated by an expert on the subject on her blog at SeattlePI, and perhaps on the West Seattle Herald on the video referenced above (I can't get a straight answer on that one). It seems, though, consensus is arising that we need to get some more sources even for mild claims like this.LedRush (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that you do not post on this request SuperMarioMan as I came here for a neutral opinion. You and various other posters on this noticeboard request are fully involved in the debate on this issue. You are the problem I am trying to deal with, not the solution. Surely this is a violation of the basic principle that one should not be judge in one's own cause. Is there someone I can raise a complaint with regarding this? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You can post any time at wp:ANI and get yourself blocked. Enjoy.TMCk (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody, LedRush has requested that you moderate your self-expression to avoid blocking, yet now you demand that I refrain from editing here (in violation of WP:CIVIL), refer to me as a "problem" as opposed to a "solution" (in violation of WP:CIVIL) and make another subtle threat about lodging a complaint (in violation of WP:CIVIL, and possibly WP:LEGAL). Does the "principle that one should not be judge in one's own cause" apply to you, also? SuperMarioMan 13:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

@Quest; thanks for removing that name, silly oversight on my part. To sum up my thoughts on this:

• Oggi is a reasonable source, but not superb, and so caution should be used with BLP etc.
• The mental illness stuff is an extra-ordinary claim, the two sources (a line in Oggi, and the video) are not top notch enough to work with
• The hard of hearing stuff is of relevance, but again the Oggi source is not very good. (LedRush; the video does not say anything about being hard of hearing)
• If the hearing stuff is relevant then other reliable sources will report it, I see no issues in waiting for them
• The audio-metric test should be sourced and added to the article

Take that as you will :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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

On the feminist movement page, an editor has written:

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

and provided the citation: "Facts & Figures on Women, Poverty & Economics, Report published by UN Women", which links to the webpage [4]. See talk page [5].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-The UNICEF page says that "it is estimated that..." but it does not say by whom. (Is this not an example of "weasel words"[6]?)

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

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

-There is no author of the webpage in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a bit confused by the unreliability claims. Which is more reliable from the Wikipedia perspective, the questioner's assertions about the reliability of "the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women" who cite figures from the UNICEF source [7] or the United Nations sources themselves ? The UN are surely a reliable source for their own statements attributed to them in Wikipedia articles. Can someone demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the figures are contradicted by other reliable sources that could be added to the article or can the questioner suggest sources that are more reliable than the United Nations for this information ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you all for taking this issue seriously as the editors on the Feminist Movement page just dismissed what I said and then refused to comment further. They further struck out my addition when I tried to add that "UN Women does not provide any primary/empirical evidence to support this statement." @ Moxy- it is true that this statistic has been recycled endlessly, but there have been cases in the past where false statistics have been widely printed, only later to have been revealed to be false. I was just reading about a statistic where a few women's groups were claiming that 150,000 women died per year from anorexia, but it was later revealed to be only 100 (I can provide a link if you are interested). @Andrew Lancaster, I agree that the fact that I cannot find it does not mean there is no empirical study, but usually when there is an empirical study to back up the claim, the original source usually comes up quite quickly. Further, I wrote to about 10 different organizations that had posted this information (including 2 UN agencies), but none of them ever replied. I do think that professionally, if an organization wants to make such claims which could so negatively impact one gender, they should be able to back up their claim when requested. @Sean Hoyland- actually the data are directly contradicted by the data in the UN HDR 04 study, which is the only data I could find that even comes close to addressing men and women's labor globally. I realize that by wikipedia standards I am not allowed to do even basic mathematical computations, but if you look at that source [8], on page 233, you will see data for minutes of men's and women's labor. Even in the worst countries (i.e. most unequal), women's labor accounts for only 54.5% of a total 100% (617 minutes/total 1132 minutes=54.5%). Also Catherine Hakim has conducted research showing that, in Europe at least, men and women work virtually identical amounts (I can provide a link if you wish.) Please note: 54.5% is a long way from 66%. "Can the user suggest data which is more reliable?" Yes. UNDP's HDR 04 report. @Jonathan Wallace- Can you please be more clear about which way you are arguing? Are you saying it is not a reliable source? Finally, I want to address that the UN is such a reliable source. This is a problem, that people put the UN on a pedestal, and think that it is this unassailable source, but I have worked for two different UN agencies, and I can assure you that they are not as great as you think. I know that you probably think that is irrelevant, but I think its important to check your assumptions about the UN. Finally, I know a few people who work at UN Women, so hopefully I can contact them and get a clear response from them (as opposed to just ignoring my e mails). I look forward to any more comments.64.25.27.130 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please be more specific--its hard to respond to a very general request. What is the current state of the article and status of the discussion? Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the demerits of the source itself (e.g., does "work" include home production?), I think that the source is adequate for the specific, directly attributed statement that is being made. That is, a UN webpage that actually contains the words that the UN webpage is alleged here to contain is sufficiently reliable to prove that UN Women actually said these words.

As for whether those numbers are likely to be understood as meaning something very different from reality, the very most you could do is to encourage a proper reliable source to look into them and publish an explanation. If you've got connections to reputable economists, then now's the time to suggest a topic for their next paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

news.medill.northwestern.edu

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking over this, I note several things.

• The about us thing indicate Graduate NOT Undergraduate students writing these.
• If one looks at Medill News Service on Google News it shows the wire is frequently used Verbatim by RS just as they use the associated press.
• I can find RS using this particular article but that does not make the report of unreliable in it of itself.

Given those issues, I think it qualifies as WP:RS and should be given WP:DUE weight. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Medill is used in dozens of WP articles.[9]   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Catholic Answers" and "Facts of Life"

*sigh* I honestly can't believe I'm doing this again.

In Christianity and abortion, a user is repeatedly adding (against 1RR) the phrase "The Church has consistently taught that life begins at conception," cited to websites published by Catholic Answers and Human Life International. Now these sources, I point out, are unreliable on their face - they are not published by scholars of church history, but rather by people with an explicit political agenda which is served by their trying to make people believe that the Roman Catholic Church has always held the same position. However, the statement has another black mark against it, which is that it's exactly the opposite of what better sources say (see Ensoulment for detail).

The user who wishes to add "Catholic Answers" as a source says that it is reliable because 1) it cites primary sources and 2) it has been given a "nihil obstat." However, merely citing primary sources does not make a source reliable (how do we know they are being quoted correctly and in context?) and the nihil obstat indicates freedom from doctrinal error, not from historical error. (Indeed, one might suggest that the nihil obstat makes the source less reliable.) No rationale was given for including "Facts of Life," the HLI document.

(Note: I've taken "Facts of Life" here twice already. Both times, it was rejected.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscelese (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

nihil obstat..so it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals...that settles it then. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to your last version and posted a reminder/invitation on his Talk page to discuss it here rather than trying to reinsert the material into the article. I didn't see the one revert notice; shouldn't it be at the top of the Talk page?? Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do a template one, so I just informed him in my own words and linked to the general sanctions in the topic area. Is one supposed to give these specific sorts of notifications at the top? I put it at the bottom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. The only page I have touched which has a 1RR restriction is this one, where the rules are clearly spelled out in a box at the top. Per WP:1RR I thought a one revert rule could only be imposed by an admin, ARBCOM, or by consensus on the talk page, so I am not sure of the nature and origins of such a restriction at Christianity and abortion. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - I thought you meant my notice to the IP. Not all the abortion-related articles have editnotices, presumably because it would be tedious to add them all and because the sanctions are broadly construed. They were imposed by community consensus a little while back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR on all abortion-related articles, broadly-contrued, was imposed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Christianity and abortion page)Catholic Answers is not "anti-abortion advocates" (or "people with an explicit political agenda" as she says here) any more then any Catholic organization that follows the teachings of the church. Their mission statement has nothing to do with abortion. They are an organization thats primary mission is present authentic Catholic teaching to the people. People associated with Catholic Answers have written several books both under their own names and under the banner of Catholic Answers. Every source has to be evaluated on their own merits. Calling "Catholic Answers" anti-abortion advocates is just name calling. Also the discussion of ensoulment and when life begins are two different items and is confusing the issue. If you read the article it specifically says "Even when the prevailing scientific theory consider that early abortion was the killing of what was not yet a human being, the Church condemned all procuring of abortion." The discussion of when life begins is independent of when ensoulment occurs.Marauder40 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I replied there, 1) you're incorrect in claiming that CA is not an anti-abortion advocate (read their article!) and 2) you need real sources that make a distinction between "it has no human soul" and "it's not a human life," not just your personal opinion that that's what the historical church meant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, "the RCC has always taught that life begins at fertilization" is a questionable interpretation of the source anyway. Just one more reason... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You still haven't proven they are an "anti-abortion advocate". Catholic Answers is an organization with many writers. The goal of Cathlic Answers is to promote Catholic teaching. If you have to disqualify them just because they promote Catholic teaching you would have to disqualify ANYTHING said by the church or anyone that agrees with the church. Like any source, each source needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, author by author, cite by cite. It isn't my personal opinion about the distintion between human soul and human life. All you have to do is read the Ensoulment article. There are plenty of sources already in that article that say it including directly from the Vatican. Marauder40 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"The goal of Cathlic Answers is to promote Catholic teaching" - rather than to provide an accurate version of history. Yup. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You mis-interprete what I am stating. Some of the people that work for or are consulted by Catholic Answers are historians, apologists, theologians, etc. Calling "Catholic Answers" as a whole and any source from them non-RS based on your opinion of one article is POV pushing pure and simple. Just because YOU may not agree with the content of this one article doesn't make every editor, writter, etc. that works with Catholic Answers an "anti-abortion advocate" or anything else. This is like saying every person that works for or supports Planned Parenthood loves abortion or every Republican is x or every Democrate is Y.Marauder40 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that organizations with an explicitly anti-abortion agenda are less likely to be reliable sources on abortion. If you believe that the CA piece was written by a reliable author, tell me who wrote it. You can't claim blanket reliability of an anonymous piece because the publisher asked a historian about another thing once. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So by the same logic any organization with a pro-abortion agenda doesn't make a reliable source either. Of course Catholic Answers goal isn't explicitly anti-abortion. They promote Catholic teaching there is a major difference. By your logic you would disqualfiy anything from any organization even remotely associated with the Catholic church. Your comments about publisher asking a historian once about a piece are entirely combative. I have read entire articles in This Rock magazine written by respected historians. This honestly sounds like your bias is getting in the way of your objectivity. As I said before every source needs to be taken on a case by case basis, author by author, etc. Just like you would with any publisher. You don't throw out all the books by Random House, just because you don't agree with one of their books. Marauder40 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were using a source from a "pro-abortion" organization, we could take that to RSN too. (However, I don't think we are. I don't think any "pro-abortion" organizations exist, besides presumably the Chinese government, so how could we be citing a source from one?) I also don't know how you can claim in the same comment that CA isn't anti-abortion and that they promote Catholic teaching, which is anti-abortion. (Random House doesn't exactly have a political agenda.) I'm still waiting for you to identify the respected historian that supposedly wrote this piece. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said I knew who wrote the article. Only Catholic Answers knows that. Nobody ever said that you have to know the author of an article. I was just saying that you seem to be trying to throw out EVERYTHING that Catholic Answers ever wrote because they are an "anti-abortion advocate". Yet they have lots of different experts in lots of different fields both on staff and as consultants. You seem to be claiming a political agenda but not providing any proof.Marauder40 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources are non-RS by default. Is there evidence that "Catholic Answers" is an RS per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything that disqualfies them as a reliable source. Peer review is required for RS and the nihil obstat and imprimateur show that it has been reviewed for doctrinal matters. Sites that review Catholic Answers as a whole from a Catholic perspective say things like "Fidely: Excellent, Resources: Excellent..." [10] people that have written for or spoken on their shows tend to be Bishops, Cardinals, and many different walks of life, from average everyday people to respected theologians, clinical psychologists, etc.. They operate within the Diocese of San Diego with official permission and are listed in the Official Catholic Directory as an approved Catholic organization. They have a priest on staff. Staff members have produced many critically acclaimed books. This organization qualifies as someone who can speak on Catholic matters. Of course like any source, every book, quote, etc. has to be judged on its own merit, author, etc. Nothing has been shown to disqualify them as a reliable source other then one editors perception that they are an "anti-abortion advocate" and based on their definition of such you would have to disqualify EVERY source written by a Catholic.Marauder40 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a reliable source on doctrinal matters is entirely different from being a reliable source on the history of the church. For historical matters, especially in such a controversial article, it would really help to know the identity and credentials of the author and something about the fact checking or peer review process. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowing the author isn't a requirement of being a reliable source, we know the publisher. Yes it would help but in this case for some reason they aren't listing an author. My bet (theory alone) is that it was written by someone within the organization and then gone over and edited by several people. Maybe even in the process of editing multiple people got into the process so they felt having an individual as the author wasn't as important as presenting it. The sources for their statements are included in the document. As for the fact checking and peer review process you would have to contact them directly. I do know from discussion on their forums MANY different people from all walks of life dissect their statements with a fine tooth comb. Based on watching this organization for awhile, they are pretty much an expert at presenting the Catholic perspective to the general public. Many of their apologists and experts are seen regularly on EWTN (the largest English speaking Catholic network) and you constantly see back and forth discussion between them and many within the Catholic community.Marauder40 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

None of which makes them a reliable source for a historical assertion. Anonymity of the author should definitely be a factor in evaluating a source, as we routinely ask whether a writer being cited for an assertion of fact is a professional journalist, historian etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing the name of the human who wrote a sentence isn't a show-stopper: Many perfectly reliable sources, including government, non-profit, and corporate websites, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and such do not publish the names of the employees who wrote the source, but instead use corporate authorship.

In that instance, we basically say (for example) that the US federal government is "the author" (and the publisher) of any information at www.example.gov, and if the US federal government is a reliable source for whatever's being discussed, then we're okay.

When we can point to neither a known human nor a reputable group behind a website, then the source seems quite a bit weaker. In this case, I'd say that the source can only support fairly lightweight claims, such as sentences beginning with "According to this website...." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Carola Hoyos / Financial Times on history of slavery

In 2009, Carola Hoyos of the Financial Times wrote that

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.[11]

As the article points out, these individuals have more typically been seen as opponents of slavery. Hoyos is a financial reporter, the Financial Times is a financial newspaper. I haven't seen anything about these claims outside this source. While the Financial Times is obviously a reliable source when it comes to information about economics or business, would it be considered one for historical information? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's adequately reliable. However, if this is the only source to make this claim, then mentioning it might not be WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda": Are these sources "out of context"?

There is a debate going on at All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (formerly known as the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine) as to whether the ideology subsection of the infobox should include a piped link to left-wing nationalism. The party is apparently not described as "left-wing nationalist" in any reliable sources, but User:Lvivske believes that the piped link is appropriate on account of the party's association with the ideological term "social-nationalist" (he takes it to mean "left-wing nationalist" in this case).

I have repeatedly pointed out that the party is described as "right-wing nationalist" in reliable sources, such as

• "A right-wing nationalist Ukrainian party nominated its leader, who has made public anti-Semitic and xenophobic statements, to run for president.
  "Some 500 delegates of the Svoboda, or Freedom, political party unanimously endorsed Oleg Tiagnybok at the party's 20th congress on Sunday."
  ("Ukrainian party picks xenophobic candidate" (25 May 2009). The Jewish Telegraphic Agency.)
• "The right-wing nationalist Svoboda political party has endorsed a decision to nominate his leaders, the controversial Oleh Tiahnybok, as a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections."
  ("Right-wing nationalist Svoboda party to nominate Tiahnybok as presidential candidate" (24 May 2009). Kyiv Post.)
• "The Ukrainian Social National Party (USNP) is an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism."
  ("Ukraine. Extreme Nationalist Organizations and Groups" (1998). Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism.)
• "In western Ukraine, in particular, but by no means limited to this region, a plethora of right-wing nationalist groups, such as the Social Nationalist Party, the Ukrainian Nationalist League, and other self proclaimed successsors to the OUN, more and more frequently insist on a hard-line nationalist policy toward Russia. . . ."
  (Prizel, Ilya. (1994). "The influence of ethnicity on foreign policy: the case of Ukraine". In Sporzluk, Roman (ed.), National identity and ethnicity in Russia and the new states of Eurasia (Volume 2 of The International Politics of Eurasia). p. 121. New York: M. E. Sharpe.)

However, Львівське (Lvivske) continues to claim that all these sources are "out of context". He also claims it as my burden to find sources stating this it isn't left-wing nationalist. [12]

To avoid synthesis and problems of original research and interpretation, for several days I have requested that Lvivske provide secondary sources calling this party "left-wing" nationalist. He still has not provided them.

Are these sources "out of context", and should Svoboda be described as "left-wing nationalist" in the ideology section of the infobox when the party is described as "right-wing nationalist" in media and scholarship? There is a long (and somewhat tedious) discussion on this point at Talk:All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"#Social Nationalism. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The argument here is not that they aren't a right-wing, nationalist party. The argument here is that their stated platform and ideology, "Social-nationalism", Zloyvolsheb claims, should not be pipe-linked to the Left-wing nationalism article. I have provided sources, and even the Nationalism article confirms this, that Left-wing nationalism is also known as Social[ist]-nationalism. Now, understand that this party is Ukrainian, so in the Ukrainian language wiki (and Russian as well), Left-wing nationalism is called "social-nationalism". Zloyvolsheb says these aren't reliable sources, and I know an article in of itself isn't, but that's why there is no 'Social[ist]-nationalism' article in the English language, because more often than not it is referred to as Left-wing nationalism. Finally, Zloyvolsheb claims that, despite reliable sources proving the party is for "social-nationalism", wants to call their ideology "Right-wing nationalism", simply because they are called often a "right-wing nationalist party" (because they are "Right-wing" an they are also "nationalist", but not "Right-wing-nationalist" as an ideology in of itself). I have provided a journal article that defines both left an right wing nationalism, and even though by these standards the Svoboda party is in no way a "Right-wing nationalist" party, he doesn't care, because of the above lines he keeps quoting out of context. These words, SN and LWN, are synonymic; this should be straightforward.--Львівське (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Lvivske's one non-Wikipedia secondary source is a 1987 journal article entitled Class and Nation: Problems of Socialist Nationalism. This is an article about the nationalism of socialist movements ("illustrated by examples taken primarily from French socialist thought in the period before 1914"), and predates Svoboda's formation in 1991. The sources I have provided all talk about Svoboda, and describe it as either "right-wing" and "nationalist" or "right-wing nationalist." Essentially, Lvivske is saying that although the above reliable sources describe the party as "right-wing nationalist", this is "out of context" - such that the party is not "right-wing nationalist" but "right-wing" and "left-wing nationalist." (And I see that as WP:SYNTHESIS.) Does this approach make sense to anybody else? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing this query, it is quickly apparent that the sources regarding Svoboda that meet WP:RS indicate that the party is "right-wing nationalist". There are no reliable sources indicating that it is "left-wing nationalist". The pipe to left-wing nationalism is not in accord with the consensus of the reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the query is not whether Svoboda is a "right wing" "nationalist" party. The query is not even about Svoboda at all, but whether "Social[ist]-nationalism" should pipe link to "Left-wing nationalism". They are properly sourced as a party that supports 'Social-nationalism'. Using sources to (correctly) label them as a right-wing party only obfuscate's the actual dispute. The "right wing" used in those sources is differently defined from the that used in "Right wing nationalism". That a party is both right-wing and nationalist does not mean they adhere to "Right-wing nationalism" (a branch which advocates authoritarianism and racism). Doing so would be an egregious display of WP:OR--Львівське (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is about whether Svoboda is a right-wing nationalist party - this is a discussion about the ideology section of their infobox. If the party is not left-wing nationalist, you can't pipe-link to that. What the reliable sources say about them is much more important than the "social" in the labelling that the party's used - because we cannot say that "social nationalism" indicates "left-wing nationalism" in this particular instance - contrary to what the sources say, you are assuming that (as also conflating the label "social nationalism" with "socialist nationalism"). The ideology of Italy's Social Alternative was neo-fascism. The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is ideologically conservative and right-wing nationalist - not liberal. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian government source

The following source [13], apparently some Bulgarian government agency on minorities, is used to make the following claim [14] in the article on the Sarakatsani. The claim goes against all mainstream scholarship, nor does the source go into any depth or contain a bibliography. This being the Balkans, I believe claims about the origins of this or that group from government agencies should be taken with a grain of salt, and it would be far preferable to rely on scholarly sources instead of source like these. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What user Athenean fails to realize that the only purpose of this source is to establish that such opinions exist and that their inclusion in the article is justified. Obviously, if even a government agency supports such an opinion, it can hardly be argued to be a fringe view and therefore needs to be included as an alternate theory. Also, I'm afraid that Athenean's opinion about this theory is not entirely accepted: there are in fact scholars who support the Vlach origion theory of the Sarakatsani: see here. Kostja (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because an agency of a Balkan government supports a theory does not mean the theory is automatically mainstream. According to the Turkish government, there is no such thing as a Kurdish people, only "mountain Turks"? Does that mean it is a "mainstream theory" that "needs" to be mentioned? As another example, the Greek government posited at one time that the Vlachs are descended from "Latinized Greeks", clearly nonsense. The point is, when it comes to the origins of minority in the region, the opinion of regional governments needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And what kind of source is it that doesn't even mention the possibility that the Sarakatsani might, just might, actually be of Greek origin? As for the link you provide, it shows the opposite of what you claim: John Campbell, the only scholar quoted in the article supports the notion that the Sarakatsani and Vlachs are distinct groups that are not ancestrally related. The only scholars that support the Vlach-Sarakatsani connection are Romanian, just like the only scholars that support a Slavic origin of the Sarakatsani are Bulgarian. Surprising? Hardly. Fringe, politically motivated theories? Definitely. Athenean (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You have chosen a bad example, as the "Mountain Turks" claim is actually mentioned in the Kurdish people article. And you are not trying to treat the opinion of a regional government with a huge grain of salt but to remove it altogether. And while John Campbell doesn't agree with the Vlach origin of the Sarakatsani, he does the mention that this opinion is supported by Romanian scholars as does the article. Kostja (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The arrangement of the article is odd. It deals with questions of the origin of the Sarakatsani much earlier, so why does the question arise again in the subsection "Bulgaria" of the section "demography"? Presumably because the Bulgarian government, and maybe the Bulgarian Sarakatsani too, have strong views on the question that may differ from the mainstream.

Government agencies' views on ethnicity should be taken with several grains of salt, but they can be very influential (to say the least) and therefore worth knowing about. People's self-identification and their own views of their origin are also important. My suggestion would be, first, to reconsider why origins bulk so large in the "Bulgaria" subsection; if the emphasis is indeed needed, then make it clear thoughout that what are being quoted or summarised are local views, official or otherwise, not necessarily scholarly. Give quotations or summaries in the text and also mention the source in the text. I don't read Bulgarian easily but the one in question seems to be a National Ethnographic and Demographic Agency or something like that? Andrew Dalby 09:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I suppose it would be alright to include the statement, as long as it is properly qualified then ("According to the Bulgarian government...."). I also think we can all agree that this [15], on the other hand, definitely has no business in the article ("Wonderland Bulgaria" is definitely not a reliable source of any kind). Athenean (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, except that one might see a reason to include [16] under "External links". It can't be called a reliable source, but it may offer a handy overview. [Added: - It mentions the annual fair near Sliven, which the article itself doesn't.] I haven't compared it, though, with whatever the article already has at "External links". Andrew Dalby 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Would this be a reliable source for this article? Normally I'd go with it, but since it's a newspaper excerpt from 1875, I'm a bit hesitant. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would see yes, it is hosted on a University server, I see no reason to doubt it`s authenticity. I have often used newspapers from the 1800,s as sources. Tentontunic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It may or not be. What does it say and what is it used to support? TFD (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above linked Wikipedia article states that, in 1875, William Barbee staked 21 mining claims and published an article on his claims in The Salt Lake Tribune. The above linked newspaper article is the very same one Barbee wrote in 1875. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a primary source. So long as the article cites it in the way that you describe, and doesn't base interpretations on it, that's fine. That's just the way we should use primary sources. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Source of a common slang phrase

Hi,

I would like to include a reference to a common slang phrase in one of the Wiki pages, but I am being challenged because the reference I cited was Urban Dictionary , because it is a user-generated resource. However, it is not fully open (membership is required to edit).

It is considered to be the best reference source available for slang phrases: by their very nature, slang phrases evolve and are not written in mainstream dictionaries. I cannot see where else such a phrase could be cited.

With this in mind, am I right to use Urban Dictionary as a source?

regards, RJM

Posted twice by mistake, sorry. Don't know how to delete it.

What is the phrase by the way and which Wikipedia article are you referring to ? I can't tell from your contributions from your current IP address. If you have an account please login and don't forget to sign your posts. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary isn't reliable in our terms: anyone can register, expert or not.

It isn't true that mainstream dictionaries don't include slang. There are, in addition, specialized dictionaries of slang. Very recent slang, not yet in published dictionaries, is often discussed in newspapers etc. and in reliable online sources (both news sources and specialized English-language sites). Andrew Dalby 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mayo-Ireland

I just wanted to know if this site would be considered a reliable source? It dose have some very useful information, but I don't want to be using it if its reliability is going to be challenged later. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a self-described "e-zine" on the county web site with no information about professional editing or fact-checking, and the authorship and sources of the particular article you want to use are unknown. So it is essentially a self published source analogous to a blog. It would therefore only be useful if the author was a recognized expert in the field previously published in other reliable sources, and we don't know that. Therefore I would say not to use it, but to look for better sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looking at the site I've got to agree with all that, if it doesn't even name an author it had better be a very reliable site and it isn't. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking, and accept the points raised. I'll leave it here for additional input, and will remove it from the article based on the current findings. Thanks for your help. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Any RS left?

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

Is Fan S. Noli, 14th Prime Minister of Albania, reliable source on article about Vojsava, mother of Albanian hero Skanderbeg? Sources can be found in the article. Also, are any of the sources currently presented in the article reliable? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, our article on Noli notes that he received a PhD in history from Boston University (1945) and that his dissertation was titled "Scanderbeg in the Light of Archive Materials". Based on that, I would say he sure seems to be a reliable source (although, given the date, probably a bit out-dated). Do you have a reason to question his work? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And looking at the other sources ... they all seem reliable to me. Again, is there a reason you question them? Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This was dealt with here recently under the section name Help needed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was questioned under Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Sources_on_Serbian_origin, so i don't know can we trust any of the sources on that page. As that dissertation may be politically questioned. Dont know, what do you say... See talk page. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I see that there is a debate on the page as to whether the subject was Albanian or Serbian in origin... with both sides questioning the reliability of sources that support the other side's viewpoint. All editors involved should make sure to read to WP:NPOV. Now... where did I leave that ten foot pole? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aahaa, ten foot pole! I asked only because one uninvolved editor questioned in per that question... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what is required is a fifteen foot Slovak. Really, a good bit of it is OR, and it needs trimming. Glad to see I'm wrong as someone's been busy there, looks better now! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Margie Hines

Would someone please take a look at the situation here? An IP, and now a named editor, have been trying to put in dates and places of birth and death. I did a fairly extensive search and could find nothing to support it -- and the editors involved have not provided specific sources -- so I've been routinely reverting the changes. Now, the named editor says that he or she got the death info by putting the birth info into SSDI, a references that I am unaware of that the editor claims covers all births and deaths in the United States. I can accept that on GF, but if there is not reliable source for the birth date -- which as far as I know there is not -- then the connected death death is purely an instance of GIGO. I kind of get the feeling that this may be a family member (is SSDI a Social Security database?) with privy information, but I really can't get the involved editors (either IP or named) to be clear about what is, exactly, going on.

It would be good for an uninvolved party to examine the situation. As long as there's no verifiable death date for Ms. Hines (an actress) the article is, tecnically, a BLP. I'm going to back off and take it off my watch list for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If the new editor has any connection to the subject, then s/he should know which newspaper(s) ran an obituary. My own search of the Times-Union (the main paper for the alleged location of her death) since the alleged date of her death turned up nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if SSDI is a reliable source, assuming that any given death record is this particular person is OR at best and speculation at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Those thoughts were in line with mine. I'm just not seeeing sufficient RS support for these "facts". They may be correct, in which case I wish we could get the IP/named editor (whom I'm assuming are the same person) to come clean about the source of their information, perhaps it would direct research to the right place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Latino Review

Is this source okay to use in the article G.I. Joe: Resolute as reception information? It has a little bit of critical analysis that may be useful. They have an about and contact section for any info.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like you to look into this source for the same article stated above, using the same context. As a reception reference, using the info from the review.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

iI went to the About page[17] for Latino Review and saw that it was filled with grammatical errors, which doesn't give a good impression regarding fact checking and accuracy. I don't understand why one would use the BSC page, since it says very little about the movie. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources for reliable sources for critical reception of movies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Open wikis in EL sections

Hi. I know that this is a page for the WP:IRS policy rather than the WP:EL policy, but a matter has come up for which I believe the principles of WP:IRS may be applicable, for which those knowledgeable in this area may be able to contribute. If interested parties here agree, can you join this discussion I started? The input of as many knowledgeable editors as possible would be appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Marrs

I've been repeatedly reverted by a user adding citations to the work of conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs to a number of articles related to the JFK assassination. Marrs has written extensively on a wide number of conspiracy theories, promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, esp, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. (He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations.) A consensus here against using this material would be helpful in preempting a lengthy edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there would be a consensus that a particular author is never a reliable source. If there are specific sources you want to discuss, please list them here, preferably with the assertions that they are being used to support. But it sounds as if you are more concerned about undue weight being placed on his work and this is more a matter for the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

A quote from Robert Schoch saying "The much-touted “ancient inscriptions” seem not to be ancient at all. I was told by a reliable source that the inscriptions were not there when members of the “pyramid team” initially entered the tunnels less than two years ago. The “ancient inscriptions” had been added since, perhaps non-maliciously, or perhaps as a downright hoax." was removed here [18] with an edit summary "you can not quote a source which is not referenced...who said? I heard from reliable source.."

I thought this was wrong and replaced it but it was removed again [19] with the edit summary "The reliable source that told him that is not quoted and couldn't be verified so the statement is not reliable as we do not know who the source is (maybe a passing peasant? )".

A statement backed by an article in the Smithsonian Magazine [20] was removed here [21] with an edit summary saying "this is an accusation not backed up by any evidence, just supposedly said by Schoch" (it's actually a quote from Schoch from a letter to Science Magazine).

I'd appreciate comments and maybe even a few eyes on this. It's a difficult one as it is a fringe subject and needs a good cleanup as well and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Magazine [22] doesn't mention the inscriptions, so it does not support the assertion, and I agree that an assertion made by Schoch in a letter to an editor is a less than ideal source, shall we say. Schoch is apparently not an archeologist, so I'm not sure he's a reliable source in the general sense on the topic of inscriptions. That being said, this claims to have been published in a journal, so my suggestion would be to use the journal article directly as the source for a general statement that Shoch questions the pyramid theory. He's clearly fringy, but documenting the dispute seems appropriate. That he's using an unnamed source he claims to be reliable does not carry much weight, honestly, and I would suggest avoiding that bit, enough to say that he asserts these are natural geological formations, since that appears to be his academic area of expertise. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Schoch a reliable source for inscrptions, but he isn't authenticating them himself but saying that he was told that they were recent, so why can't we use the quote? Is it worse than the quote from Zubrow sourced to [23] who asks questions about these without presenting any archaeological or geological evidence? Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the letter in Science Magazine -- I assume it's Science 10 November 2006: Vol. 314 no. 5801 p. 925 DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5801.925b -- should be a reliable source for a statement of the form "Schoch said X". It is not a reliable source for the assertion "X". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - we can use it but it must be clearly attributed to Schoch. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I would suggest just a passing mention of the inscriptions, and relying more on this, if it checks out that it was published by a journal. It's a better source, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Expressen

A note has been left at WP:BLPN regarding the use of the newspaper Expressen as a source for controversial information at Urban Ahlin. The controversial section was removed from the article based on Expressen's description as a "tabloid", however I'm not sure whether the description is being used in the traditional (newspaper dimensions) sense, or whether it is actually a poor source? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the web site of Expressen, I believe it has merit as an RS. It may be on the dramatic side of the news (like the NY Post) but it also contains serious reports on politics etc. [24] So my vote would be its OK depending on what's being reported, the context, whether its a BLP etc. are all considerations for its application but I don't see grounds for a flat rejection of it as an RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsarama

I'm looking for comments on the reliability of www.newsarama.com. It has been used to support notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 8 (comics) where it was said that although http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=113158 looks like a forum posting, it is in fact the site archive and that the first posting can be considered reliable. Is it possible to identify reliable sources within this site? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Although the Newsarama forum server seems to be glitching right now, I looked at the Google cache of that thread[25] and I agree with what User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said in the AfD thread: the content of the initial post in that thread (the interview and context) is Newsarama content, not a reader post, and can be used as a reliable source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are white racist sources reliable?

Communist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute in the article Communist terrorism whether the white racist governments of Rhodesia and South Africa may be used as reliable sources that groups opposed to their policies should be labled "terrorists". Their is also a synthesis discussion about whether the fact that these governments called their opponents both "communists" and "terrorists" allows us to call them "communist terrorists". TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

From WP:V

• Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
• Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:...'

If the sources are extremist or otherwise questionable then they would not be suitable for general use, and should only be used in articles about themselves.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the correct thing to do would call them something more neutral, like leftist militants, but then if there are notable organizations/governments which label them as communist terrorists, than you can attribute it to them by saying " Organization X, who are perceived to be/labelled as/seen as communist terrorists by government Y, did this and that and..." Passionless -Talk 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Passionless is on the right track. I add that if document #1 says "communists" and document #2 says "terrorists", then the accurate representation is "The government called them 'communists' and 'terrorists'" rather than "The government called them 'communist terrorists'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.". No article should describe an organisation as 'terrorist', except in the form "described as terrorist by..." or similar. As to whether a source that describes a group as both 'communist and 'terrorist', I'd say using this to justify a claim that they described them as 'communist terrorists' might be synthesis, unless the source suggested a causal linkage between one and the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The source in question is not from a white racist government at all. The source is Windrich, Elaine.(Editor) The Rhodesian problem: a documentary record, 1923-1973 Routledge. 1st Edition. 13 Mar 1975. ISBN 978-0710080806 which is a perfectly reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 April 2011

Windrich is a reliable source that the white racist Rhodesian government called these groups specific names. It is not a reliable source for accepting the labels plastered on these groups by the Rhodesian government. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is taken from a Note to the United Kingdom Government from the Rhodesian Geovernment, 28 August 1967, C.S.R. 45-1967) and is listed as "document 52" in Windrich's book (p. 278)[26] This is not Windrich's opinion, but a passage from the Rhodesian government, which she refers to as "propaganda" (p. 278). TFD (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help clarify the situation if, instead of saying that the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa labeled their opponents "communist terrorists"... we instead said something along the lines of: According to Elaine Windrich, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa labeled their opponents "communist terrorists". Proper attribution can often make it clearer who says what. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD: That is all fine. We simply indicate that in the article. That does not mean "do not include." IMO, the entire phrasing of your question seeks to quash content as opposed to including it responsibly. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, what do we indicate in the article? TFD (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like "According to Elaine Windrich, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa proscribed groups Xxxx and Yyyy as communist terrorists" would be suitable. --Martin (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not need an in-line citation unless we determine that she was expressing an opinion rather than a fact. She is referring btw only to Rhodesia. But the source does not say they were called CTs. That terminology had already become outdated. TFD (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean an WP:INTEXT attribution ("According to Elaine Windrich"), not an WP:INLINE citation (stuff usually placed in <ref> tags at the end of the sentence). IMO whether a group was a "communist terrorist" group seems quite WP:LIKELY to be challenged and thus is on the WP:MINREF list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing Irrelevant Link to Wikipedia Page

Hi - I work with the ACE Group and have a question about an external link that a disgruntled claimant has persistently been linking to the page since this past summer. We feel that this link has no relevance to the broader context of the section and would like to take it down. Does anyone have some experience with this kind of problem and can share some insight as to whether this is legitimate in the context of the community? You can find the story here [27] and the link we think is irrelevant is here [28].— Preceding unsigned comment added by CWACE (talk • contribs) — CWACE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For clarity,

• article is ACE Limited
• the About ACE Insurance Litigation Watch page for the organization providing the source
• the statement in the Wikipedia article, "The Spitzer investigations also triggered civil litigation by policyholders who claim they were victimized by the bid rigging and commission schemes."
• the ACE Insurance Litigation Watch page used for the citation

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that new civil litigation mentioned at the end of the article have any independent coverage? If so, then it's valid to keep it in. If not, then there's no need to keep it in because companies get sued all the time as a normal course of their business and we don't need to mention each lawsuit. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

New Reference for Article "Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive": RoHS II attempts

Within the category Labeling, the RoHS II attempts are shortly mentioned. Now, I've found some more information on the topic and would like to add the following:

"The European Parliament completed its first reading of the draft of RoHS II in November 2010. Items that were previously in question have now been clarified and RoHS II is on its way to becoming a CE Mark directive, which means that CE marking will be affixed to all finished products, as per Module A of Annex II of 768/2008/CE. With CE marking, the responsibility is now to be shared between manufacturers and importers and distributors. CE declaration remains the manufacturer’s obligation, while the release of compliant products onto the EU market becomes the responsibility of importers and distributors. The CE mark will now not only mean that an electrical or electronic product complies with all applicable regulations - for example, the low voltage directive or the electromagnetic compatibility requirement – the CE mark will also mean compliance with RoHS. Thus product compliance and conformity assessment will now include the obligation to comply with RoHS. No new restricted substances have been introduced and the publication of the directive is expected this year."

The reference I'd like to use comes from the free consumer information service of an international testing company (See Consumer Information on RoHS II, P. 10: http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/SGS-Consumer-Compact-Feb2011-EN-11.pdf.

Would it be ok to use it?? Thanks. Portrino (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The information is interesting and relevant. This commercial newsletter may not be the best source. Seems RoHS II this would have been covered in the mainstream media. On the other hand, since SGS is the leading testing company, it's quite likely the information is accurate. I'd be inclined to leave it in the article and to continue to look for an additional source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your opinion! I see you know the company as well... I'll try to find further references on that topic, too. Portrino (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tito Minniti

I am asking about the credibility of this source "L'Aeronautica italiana nelle guerre coloniali", which has been added to this article on Tito Minniti, an Italian pilot killed in the Italo-Ethiopian war of 1935-6. This article has been a minor battleground because of disputes over atrocity stories concerning both Ethiopian and Italian actions in the war. Frankly, I don't know what to believe, so I am not coming to this representing one side or another, but I am, I admit, sceptical of pro-Italian editors trying to justify Italian actions and emphasise Ethiopian war crimes. The editor who wants to add this source says it is "official" and provides this link to the cover. [29] There is a quotation on the Talk:Tito Minniti page, added by user:NewPangea4 who is so far an SPA, only editing this article. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar doesn't bring up any citations. However, a general Google search on the title brings up over 1,000 hits[30], including a discussion among historians in which the book is cited. My impression is that it's a legitimate source. This description says it's based on a large amount of archival research.[31] TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography

hello,

please check reference 40 (Zobbel) and 41 (ChartStats) for reliability. At the moment it is a FLC. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hayes Hotel

I would like the opinion of editors on this web site as a source. It is being used on this Article to support the suggestion that the name of the hotel was Hayes Hotel, while it actually calls it 'Hayes' Commercial and Family Hotel'. I have two sources, W. F.Mandle, (1987). The Gaelic Athletic Association & Irish Nationalist Politics 1884-1924, Gill and Macmillan. pp. 6. ISBN 0 7171 1509 7 and Marcus de Búrca, (1980), The GAA A History, Cumann Lúthchleas Gael. pp. 20. ISBN 0 950722 1 3 which both use the name 'The Commercial Hotel,' which was owned by Miss Hayes. The name 'Hayes Hotel' however is also supported by this web site. Should the article name be changed? I personally think that Hayes Hotel would pass as Common Name with About 15,500 results (0.22 seconds)?Any suggestions welcome?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

pagat.com

The website pagat.com is used extensively as a source for articles on card games. For example, it's the only source for Hokm which is so hard to source that I initially thought it might be a hoax. However the discussion persuaded me otherwise. The site appears to be a self-published source by John MacLeod, who is acknowledged as an expert. My question is whether this site is reliable for sourcing an entire article. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source?

(I believe I am one of the most active editors in the general area of card games. The question arose in a discussion between me and Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus.) The site is currently linked to from 337 pages, and more than half of them are in article space. So I would guess that it is linked to from roughly 200 articles. In my experience it is of key importance for developing card game articles because it contains information about the distribution of games, and about game variants, that cannot be found. Such information is regularly added without sources by anonymous editors, and it is impossible to source unless pagat.com happens to have it as well. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I want to make sure that we get a decision now that I can really rely on with my continued work in this area. At first I am focusing only on the question whether the site is a reliable source or not.

For me there is no doubt that pagat.com is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of John McLeod who is an expert on the history, rules and distribution of card games by virtue of having co-authored an influential two-volume scholarly book and being regularly quoted as such an expert.

• Dummett, Michael; McLeod, John (2004), A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 1, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6447-6
• Dummett, Michael; McLeod, John (2004), A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 2, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6449-0

The above book is the most important single source for the following book:

• Parlett, David (1990), The Oxford guide to card games: a historical survey, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-214165-1.

The latter scholarly book (note the publisher) also includes numerous comments and footnotes such as: "I am indebted to John McLeod for helpful additions to the train of thought at this point." Another footnote in that book reads as follows: "McLeod, John, 'Ulti', in JIPCS (May 1976), p. 15. McLeod tells me that many such methods of ending games are to be found throughout what was once the Austro-Hungarian empire." (These are just examples taken from the first 2 of 23 chapters.) JIPCS refers to the Journal of the International Playing Card Society, of which a much more recent example can be found here. The journal is probably not peer-reviewed, but to the best of my knowledge no peer-reviewed journal exists that would be appropriate for the publication of technical articles on card game history.

Some other high-quality books that cite pagat.com as a source or recommend it for further reading in general or on specific topics:

• Parlett, David (2004), The A–Z of card games (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860870-7.

From the introduction: "Researches [...] have revealed that every country [...] harbours local communities, often quite small, who play games or variations unique to their region or locality, such as All Fours and Don in Britain. These are well described as folk games, not being recorded in books and subject to no universally accepted set of 'official rules'. [...] Fortunately, they are now recorded and regularly updated by regular contributors throughout the world on John McLeod's award-winning 'Pagat' web site, where you will also find further information on most of the games described in this book, as well as many more that are not." The introduction ends with a "useful links" section that has pagat.com first (the other three useful links being http://www.davidparlett.co.uk, http://i-p-c-s.org and http://www.playingcardsales.com). There are further URLs from pagat.com in the body of the book, where Parlett did not have the space to describe a game in detail.

• Parlett, David (2008), The Penguin Book of Card Games (3rd ed.), Penguin Books, ISBN 978-0-14-103787-5.

From the preface: "The exploration of card games has become a particular pursuit of the International Playing Card Society, founded in the late 1960s originally as a forum for playing-card collectors. Many field researchers are members of the Society, and report their findings in its bi-monthly Journal, known as The Playing-Card [or JIPCS]. [...] The most important [among the card game sites] is the Pagat website, <http://www.pagat.com>, conducted by John McLeod, a prominent member of the IPCS and himself a well-travelled field researcher. Its intrinsic authority is constantly enhanced by the contributions of interested and knowledgeable players from all over the world, making it a living, growing, interactive encyclopedia of the cybersphere. [...] Many thanks are due, and are duly rendered, to John McLeod and Andrew Pennycook, with whom I have shared much information and discussion over the years, and both of whom read various drafts of the text and rescued me from a number of errors."

• Kastner, Hugo; Folkvord, Gerald K. (2005), Die große Humboldt Enzyklopädie der Kartenspiele, Humboldt Verlag, ISBN 978-3-89994-058-9.

This German encyclopedia of card games (including historical ones) has the following recommendation in its foreword (my translation):

"The following links are in any case much to be recommended, in particular the Card Games Web Site by John McLeod: (1) The Card Games Web Site (2) The English Playing Card Society -- The World of Playing Cards (3) The House of Cards (4) US Playing Cards". As for Parlett's books, there are deep URLs to pagat.com from various individual game descriptions. Hans Adler 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone believes I may have made up the quotations above, you can also see what David Parlett has to say at http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/histocs/ . Hans Adler 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can it be used as the only source?

Now this is a more difficult question, so I would like to address it separately. In the case of Hokm it is (almost) our only reliable source, but no doubt that's because as an English encyclopedia we have trouble locating and understanding sources in Farsi or Arabic, which I guess are the most likely languages of books discussing the game. Our page Iranian folklore lists Hokm as one of four games traditionally played in Iran. For more detailed information about card games played in Iran see http://www.pagat.com/national/iran.html . There are several online servers where you can play the game:

• http://www.varagh.com/varaghftp/dev1/Varagh.html?
• http://www.hokmgame.com/
• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hokm-Baz/57621291043

This is not the kind of topic that we should drop just because we have only one reliable source talking about it in English. In this particular case the game also happens to occur with a 2-paragraph description under Whist Variants in Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games. The description is independent from McLeod's (Parlett cites an Iranian email correspondent) and omits some details, but is fully consistent with McLeod's version.

Parlett's approach of describing the game as a whist variant rather than as a separate game is reasonable. Giving it its own article also seems reasonable to me given the relative prominence which this game appears to have in Iran and the international character of this encyclopedia. Notability in the sense of WP:GNG cannot automatically be presumed just because a game has a page in pagat.com, but in many cases it follows from McLeod's information that reliable sources in the original language are likely to exist, though hard to find. Hans Adler 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MacLeod does seem like a good source to use. And it seems fine to use MacLeod as the sole source for Hokm, for the reasons you give. As an experiment, you might try Googling it in other languages.[32] TimidGuy (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally search in the languages I can read and also in the original language. But with Hokm it's tricky. The original name is حُکْم. I can search for that by using copy/paste, but then I can't even tell whether the sites I find have anything to do with card games, and if they do whether they are related to this game. (Not to mention reliability assessments.) After all, it's a normal Farsi word that also means trump and arbitrator. Hans Adler 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet we have someone on the project who can read Farsi fluently. I'm not sure what Wikiproject would be best to contact, but you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. I'm sure someone with this skill would find it an interesting project to help you with. Otherwise I agree, McLeod sounds like an expert source - usable despite self-publication.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Under WP:SPS: "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." McLeod seems fine, and I don't think its a concern even if he is the sole source on a particular game. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks to Hans Adler for such comprehensive documentation. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims based on not-so-extraordinary sources

A claim is being in the article on the History of Medicine that Avicenna described bacteria and viruses back in the early Middle Ages [33]. While the claim is sourced, and the source on first inspection appears reliable, the issue here is that the claim is quite extraordinary, but the source is not. How could someone in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years before the invention of the microscope, perform such a feat? The existence of viruses wasn't even guessed at until the late 19th century. The claim about Avicenna is thus extraordinary, and such claims should be sourced only to the highest quality, specialized sources. The source used does not provide an explanation of how Avicenna achieved this, and moreover does not appear to specialize in the history of medicine. I thus believe that it the source used is insufficient to source such an extraordinary claim. A second opinion would be very helpful. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of microorganisms was hypothesized for many centuries before their actual discovery, please see Microbiology#Ancient. According to The Middle East: a humanistic approach, Michael W. Kamell, Andrews Pub. Co., 1973, "Al-Razi wrote the first treatise on small-pox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness". Other sources indicate Al-Razi's "On Smallpox and Measles" was the first accurate description of smallpox and measles. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is an extraordinary claim, and contradicted by hundreds of sources.

The actual quotation appears to say, "Notable in the field of medicine is one Abu Bakr Alrazi (932) who wrote the first treatise on smallpox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness."

It is uncertain what is meant by "isolate this virus". The technology of the time had no possibility of doing what we currently mean by that phrase. It certainly does not mean "the first descriptions on bacteria and viruses," which is the text proposed here. Even if this older book made exactly that claim, I'd say that it would be WP:UNDUE. Any single text could contain an error; when all the others tell a different story, then one obscure source should just be ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you response WhatamIdoing. More extraordinary claims are made here [34] here [35] and here [36] (particularly the bit about the discovery of the immune system and "modern" surgery - in the middle ages no less). I'm not sure these sources pass the test for the magnitude of the claims. Athenean (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the involved editors, sources and formulations of those claims, I'd be rather skeptical. Imho all claims need to be checked by someone with expert knowledge and access to those sources (and better more reputable ones). I agree with WhatamIdoing that the sources look formally ok at first glance, but WP:UNDUE might have to applied here as far as the content is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kmhkmh, I don't think you are respecting WP:AGF by telling other editors to be "skeptical" of me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While skepticism of editors may be uncalled for, skepticism of the sources and their claims is perfectly justified. The added material definitely needs to be double checked by knowledgeable experts. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"May be" uncalled for ? I don't know this Kmhkmh and he doesn't know me, we've never talked before and I don't recall anyone complaining about my use of sources. Either he's rude or racist to slander me based on the area of my work. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had a couple of editors who have found it necessary to add content to the effect that Medieval Muslim scientists made lots of major discoveries that did not become accepted until the late 19th and early 20th century. I've seen edits to this effect to the medicine article since 2007 at least. I think that in most of the cases, this seems to be a WP:WEIGHT problem. Even if this point-of-view exists, the sources are not actually stating this clearly (or they are difficult to access). I know that in modern medicine there is a fashion to attribute medical discoveries to Hippocrates, Galen or Aretaeus, sometimes taking significant liberties with the original sources. This is no different. Even if the ancients described a transmissible disease that was later found to be viral, that does not earn them more credit than Peyton Rous.

Could I encourage these editors to avoid the risk of historical revisionism and respect mainstream POV here? JFW | T@lk 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more doubtful claims in the article are sourced to the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Is this a reliable source? It is not indexed on PubMed, and the Society clearly has it is one of its aims "[b]ringing to light the contributions of Arab and Muslim physician to the history of medicine and to promote public awareness of these contributions. This is to be achieved through encouraging more research and academic studies of earlier Islamic Medicine"[37]. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal of published material on Avicena's writings, including bibliographies such as this. Here is his A treatise on the small-pox and measles in English translation by William Alexander Greenhill. Page 30 of that translation is quite astonishing.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought p 29 [this edition's page numbering, not the numbers in the margin] was more interesting: "Now the Small-Pox arises when the blood putrefies and ferments, so that the superfluous vapors are thrown out of it..." p 30 blames it not only on the natural process of children getting older, but on "pestilential, putrid, and malignant constitutions of the air." I saw no indication that it was even identified as a contagious disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that is a primary source, on which we shouldn't rely anyway. The question here is whether sources such as the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, which seems to be a partisan-advocacy type source, are sufficient for the claims made in the article, or whether this is a case of WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A partisan/advocacy source is usually not reliable for topics in which it is partisan. If there were RS saying that it's an accurate publication, then it could be used. Also, it's not an extraordinary source for the claims it's making. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OP's claims that JISHIS is not reliable are unfounded. The journal has been cited by numerous peer-reviewed journals including:

Springer: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-4425-0_9326

Harvard: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2007HisSc..45...65R

Reproductive BioMedicine: http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2810%2960719-5/references

Online Journal of Health Ethics: http://test2.ojhe.org/index.php/ojhe/article/viewArticle/129

Besides, the claim cited from JISHIS is not really extraordinary. This is the bit that was cited from JISHIS . Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources:

• Saul S. Friedman, Professor of History at Youngstown State University, where he specializes in ancient and modern Middle Eastern studies:

"Most significant, the Canon warns of the danger of contagion through contaminated water. Like ibn al-Khatib, vizir in Granada, and ibn Khatima, who lived through the Black Death of the 14th century, Avicenna warned the spread of disease was not the result of fate, but physical contact, and pollution". (A history of the Middle East by Saul S. Friedman)

• "The modem germ theory appears to be based on the observation of Avicenna who has discussed in detail that unless a bodily secretion is contaminated by foul foreign earthly body no infection can take place". (Studies in Arabic and Persian medical literature, Calcutta University [on label: sole agents: Luzac, London], 1959 - Medical - 173 pages)

• The famous physician, ibn al-Khatib said in a work, The Plague:

"… the existence of contagion is established by experience, study, and the evidence of the senses, by trustworthy reports on transmission by garments, vessels, ear-rings; by the spread of it by persons from one house to another, by infection of a healthy sea-port by an arrival from an infected land…by the immunity of isolated individuals and …nomadic Bedouin tribes of Africa…It must be a principle that a proof taken from the Traditions has to undergo modification when in manifest contradiction with the evidence of the perception of the senses" (Ibn al-Khatib, cited in Meyerhof, 1931: 340).

Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dumping irrelevant sources here is meaningless. I don't see anything in the above about the claim of Avicenna's describing bacteria and viruses. Anyway, that issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. Moving on, the question is now whether the following equally extraordinary claim [38] can be sourced to: Bashar Saad, Hassan Azaizeh, Omar Said (October 2005). "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review", Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2 (4), p. 475-479 [476]. Oxford University Press. This would be a wonderful source for the subject of traditional Arab herbal medicine, but I do not think it is appropriate for claims about "the discovery of the immune system, introduction of microbiology, use of animal testing" and so forth. Athenean (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a response to those who claimed such claims were extraordinary at the time. The "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review" was published by Oxford University Press. I think you need to explain why you said "the references used therein are dubious" on the talk page of History of medicine when referring to this article ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is published by. A review of Arab herbal medicine may be a good source for Arab herbal medicine, but not for claiming the discovery of the immune system and microbiology by Muslim physicians in the Middle Ages. Again, it is a question of WP:UNDUE. Everything else is a distraction. I'm also more interested in the opinion of others, I already know yours. Athenean (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If Al-Andalusi's sources check out, there would seem to be good published sources on this. Are there other good sources saying otherwise? Also this might be a case where citing Avicenna directly at least in this discussion may help clarify matters. If the secondary sources are in doubt it may help to check the primary source. Lambanog (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sports123.com

This site is a sport archive which is used on many articles of Wikipedia (not only English Wikipedia but other languages' too), specially Asian Games related. I just want to know is whether this site is reliable for sourcing. Bill william compton^Talk 00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IP possibly adding false sources?

Perhaps someone should double-check if the sources 212.56.25.159 has continually been adding are valid and verify the content, as they've been warned about doing this before, and have also been accused of being a spam-only IP. I don't know whether these sources are reliable or not so hopefully with this notice someone can take action if need be. -- œ^™ 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you give the sources, and preferably the assertions they are being used to support, then it will be possible to comment on their reliability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at a few. In the cases I looked at, an addition is made to the bibliography of the page. The work added is real, recent, relevant and (in general) academic. No assertion is added to the text of our page; it's just the bibliography. I can't see any commercial connections among the books and articles being added. So the anonymous editor seems to be doing just what we would want, making our pages better documented than they were before. (Items added to a bibliography need to be useful, as these appear to be, but not guaranteed reliable: none of us could do that.) A larger sample might give a different impression, but this looks OK to me ...

[A moment later:] No, I see now, the problem is that these items are added to "references" but, as an earlier warning pointed out, there is a "convention on Wikipedia ... that "references" are only those sources actually used to write the article". The anonym's mistake is probably to add these items to "references" rather than to start a "further reading" section. Even that might be over the top for us since, according to another warning, "it is not an aim of WP to provide full bibliographies on subjects". (Quotes from here). Nice try, anonym. Andrew Dalby 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, the thing is he's been warned about adding these to "References" as opposed to "Further reading" yet he's ignored or disregarded the warning and still continues doing this. I'm conflicted now as to whether this user is unintentionally being disruptive and whether to take action or if the 'references' he's adding actually verify parts of the content then we should let him carry on. I can't tell without looking up the sources, and don't know the reason for his ignoring the warning. -- œ^™ 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find it difficult to comment further because I'm not comfortable with the other guidelines being applied here. A good encyclopedia should certainly have bibliographies listing recent, relevant items as these appear to be. If they don't support the content now, they will help anyone who wants to improve the article later. It could be that our guidelines don't quite strike the right balance between referencing all possibly controversial assertions (like an academic paper) and providing fruitful lines for further work (like a good encyclopedia article).

If I'm being too pessimistic there, and there's no guideline problem, then the right solution, albeit time-consuming, would seem to be not to delete these added bibliography items but to put them under "Further reading" or "Bibliography", not "References". It's not surprising if a shy contributor finds this difficult to grasp: our guidelines may be clear, but our observable practice is inconsistent. Andrew Dalby 09:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Editing policy should apply. Problem is there are editors that are prone to strictly interpreting lesser guidelines such as WP:External Links. This is the result of the lack in content creators and the proliferation of editor enforcers that flit from article to article instead of being dedicated to actually building a few. Lambanog (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Immigration Think tanks Reports

• Center for Immigration Studies===

Dubious source labeled hate group by SPLC I am doubtful its reliable for much. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Public Policy Institute of California

I have no idea about this source other than our article . The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like reports from unknown, partisan think tanks are analogous to press releases: SPS that are occasionally picked up by the mainstream media. Off the top of my head: treat as SPS unless the information has been otherwise reported. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely but There are a variety of think tanks (even some partisan ones) that have been found to WP:RS.. Its always been case by case with them. Thats why I am asking about these two in particular The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As with many sources, I would think they are reliable enough for some assertions and unreliable for others. What assertions are being sourced to them? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, CIS (The hate group mind you) is claiming that immigrant cause more crime and attacking Public Policy Institute of California because it doesnt find immigrants to be crime inducing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So are either reliable sources for immigration statistics? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Like other partisan sources, they need to be used with care and attributed in the text when used.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Will I am not sure that it even meets the bare basics of RS to make assertions! It seems odd to let a white supremacist organization to be a source on immigration! Becuase you know they are such big fans of Hispanics! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:QS says questionable sources with extremist views should only be used in articles about themselves. I can see where some of the better partisan think tanks could be considered reliable, as judged by the fact that mainstream media will often report their research. From WP:IRS: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." I would think that anyone wanting to use extremist sources would need to show that they have been used as sources by accepted, high-quality sources such as mainstream media. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One problems is that the SPLC labels a lot of groups as "hate groups", and there reasons may have nothing to do with the reliability of the groups as sources. I'm very familiar with CIS and its related organizations. My concern about their reliability is not that the founder or board members have made racist remarks, but that they are highly partisan and committed to ending "mass" immigration. So their numbers are suspect. OTOH, they are often treated with respect by reporters and commentators, and are frequently cited in news articles. For that reason I don't think we can easily dismiss them as unreliable. If a case could be made that they are demonstrably unreliable, for example their facts are often incorrect, then that would disqualify them as a source. Even then, though, they may still have a significant POV which might need to be included in articles for NPOV, if only as an opinion. I think the bottom line is they should be used with care and attributed.

PPIC is another matter. It may be too obscure to have a reputation for accuracy.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Such groups are clearly reliable for their own assertions and positions: eg "'Cyans Go Home' said 99% of crime is committed by cyan people". But the underlying figures, if correct, would have a better source anywaysuch as government statistics. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a big article on the founder of CIS in today's New York Times: "The Anti-Immigration Crusader".   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Zurf Military Aircraft

See previous discussion at [39]. User:AircraftZurf is continuing to cite his own website "Zurf Military Aircraft" in numerous Wikipedia articles:[40], [41]. In the previous discussion here, I encouraged Zurf to cite the original news stories, rather than his compilation and analysis of the news stories at his website. In the website, Zurf compiles and analyzes news reports, and it looks like a useful compilation of information, but I have grave doubts that at the present time it qualifies as a citeable reliable source, by Wikipedia standards. But there is no editorial staff listed, and no byline is provided; it is anonymous. No evidence has been presented that the website is treated as a reliable source by news organizations. I found no mention of "Zurf Military Aircraft" in a Google News archive search. I do not want to proceed with any sanctions against the user, or with deleting all the references cited to the website in numerous Wikipedia articles, without a wider consensus as to whether it is permissible for a user to cite his own website as a reference in Wikipedia articles. I have informed User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source, totally unusable for other articles outside of Zurf Military Aircraft. Zurf uses a lot of copyrighted images without permission and he does not cite his sources. An effort should be made to remove all Zurf cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So Zurf should stick to citing only the original news stories, and not citing his website which compiles and analyzes them? Is it correct to simply remove text referenced only to his website, or should the text be left with a "citation needed" tag when it is noncontroversial and likely citeable to the original story in turn accessible from his website? Edison (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for a user to cite his own website: He did it, didn't he?

Probably what you mean to ask is whether it is permissible to do so. The answer is yes: See WP:CITESELF and WP:SELFCITE (those very similar shortcuts point at different pages, by the way).

Is this the best approach? Probably not. It might well be WP:REFSPAM (and WP:LINKVIO, too) and better sources are likely available. If you know that the original news story supports the statement, then I would simply substitute the original news story.

For myself, I wouldn't fact-tag any statement that isn't on the WP:MINREF list. You will have to use your best judgment to decide when a tag is needed or helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did someone before you use the word "possible" as you imply? All I see is discussion of whether it is "permissible." Should we have to follow around behind Zurf, everytime he cites his website, and go there to find the news story which might back up his statement in Wikipedia? I don't think that is a reasonable request or a productive use of other editors' time. Edison (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is bad judgement & bad form IMO. How do readers here know what's factual & what's opinion? How do we know if any of it has a basis in fact? Nor do I think it should be incumbent on us to clean up after somebody who can't even respect copyright. (Leave off the wholesale copying of DANFS on WP, I don't expect to win on that one...) Junk it all & slap him with a warning. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In favor of Zurf, he seems to be well informed about military aircraft, and certainly spends a lot of time compiling info on his website. He can be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, if only he will refrain from citing his own website, and instead cite the news stories directly. Binksternet has spent considerable effort removing cites to the Zurf website from Wikipedia articles, since the consensus appears to be that ""Zurf Military Aircraft"" is not presently citeable in Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Zurf has the makings of a good contributor if he cites his sources rather than himself. Also, if he heeds WP:NOTNEWS and quits adding conjecture about future possibilities. The encyclopedia is far more about what has happened than what may happen. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This has the feeling of self-promotion of his personal website Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it does look very self-promotional and spammy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are These sources reliable

I have presented these sources that are referenced for the article Iranian Azaris below you can also see the context in which they were used at. Please can you comment on weather the use of these sources is okay.

Claims of Cultural Suppression

Some human rights watchdogs have made claims that the Azeri minority in Iran has government restrictions which encompass both cultural and political activities. These restrictions are also imposed upon organisations that primarily target social issues.This opinion was stated by Human Rights Watch.

Source: www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/iran HRW report on Iran]

Amnesty international along with Human Rights Watch also believe that there is political pressure faced all by the ethnic minorities of Iran; although Azeris constitute a greater influence in the government they are still said to be target to arrests, detainment and imprisonment due to their political activities.

Sourced: Amnesty International Report Human Rights Watch Report

"In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists." this opinion was stated by Human Rights Watch Report.

Source:

Human Rights Watch Report

As claimed by Amnesty International; these political activities include public disobedience such as boycotts. One boycott conducted in "Iranian Azerbaijan" resulted in the detainment of 15 people. There are further claims of detainment that include the action of torture such as in the case of Mohammad Reza Evezpoor who was reportedly been tortured in his 3 days detainment. This still remains controversial so must be approached with caution.

Source:

Amnesty International

In addition to this United Nations Office of the High Commissioner For Human Rights states in its view that the 1996 Mr Chehragani, an Azeri candidate for March 1996 Parliamentary elections from Tabriz emphasised that Article 15 of the Constitution on use of local languages. “He subsequently faced police interrogation, torture, arrest and disqualification from the ballot. This led to widespread clashes in Tabriz.”

Sourced from:

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Sub-regional Seminar Minority Rights: Cultural Diversity and Development in Central Asia (Bishkek, October 2004)

Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Human right watch has been discussed earlier here : Human right watch and changing a whole article about culture and geography according to that reports is disputed .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International's report about a political activist , can't be used to show all of his ethnic group are under pressure . I think the report can be used in his own article : Chehragani.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as that thread shows, there is a strong consensus position here that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are reliable sources generally. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if their description or detals of it are disputed/contested there might a need for a direct intext attribution ("according to amnesty ..."), but amnesty is usually reliable and definitely not fringe, so there's no good reason to block its citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the sources are reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion. Less sure that they are reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are notable advocacy organizations, but their advocacy is often very controversial. Their opinions are often noteworthy enough to be included in articles that relate to human rights issues... however discussion of their opinion should definitely be phrased as being opinion, and not stated as unqualified fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--makes sense. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we essentially agree here, that's why I wrote, it depends whether the content is contested/disputed (which is the case here anyway). So in the given article amnesty should get an intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have problem with these sources in terms of there is no author. Wikipedia WP:RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". On News organizations: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others". For example lets one of these amnesty reports, it states:

• [42] "Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that

the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. . Article 15 of the Iranian Constitution permits 'the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools... in addition to Persian'.". The first sentence is a wholesale generalization and here is a newsreport (with a reliable author) that contradicts the amnesty sentence: [43]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". Note, the wholesale generalization of Amnesty international. It uses "Iranian Azeris" as if they all think the same way.

• The second contradiction is that Amnesty does not understand Article 15 of the Iranian consitution. It states: "The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian. "[44]. Thus article 15 in the constitution actually allows only one language as medium of education for all government funded schools, that is Persian.
• Given that Amnesty international is not a specialist source and generalizes many times, and also it cannot verify anything in the ground, and tends to hyerbole, I would treat it as unreliable unless it has authors who are experts in the field. It uses terms not carefully and generalizes possibly the opinion of a few to represent a whole group. Most of the time though, it could just be a college student writing a report based on some organization that it gets information from. I believe unless the authors are known (both amnesty and the sources they get the information), then there is a lot of room for mistakes.
• Note there a Wiki article Criticism of Amnesty International: [45] "University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who spent several years as an Amnesty International USA Board member, claimed that aspects of organisational continuity and survival came ahead of human rights aims. He stated "Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."".
• Overall, I think if several full university professors have summarized a situation than it is much more reliable than amnesty international. I am not rejecting amnesty outright, but if sources from university Professors describe a situation in more detail, then amnesty international which has no author should not be given weight in an article. Only in articles where academic study of the subject is lacking than I believe amnesty might be a necessary option.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Having been involved in many articles and discussions involving Human Rights Watch and Amnesty as sources, I think the consensus position, in a nutshell, is that they are reliable sources but their statements should always be attributed to them. They have come up again and again, here and on many talk pages. That is, in my view, largely because Wikipedia attracts so many advocates for the states and groups that are criticized by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty for human rights abuses, violations of international law, and many other issues, but I digress. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

@Khodabandeh14:

An "author" doesn't have to be a person, but it can be an organization as well. I.e. press releases by organizations are "authorized" without necessarily naming a particular author. Also there a few well established, reliable newspaper/journal that traditionally may not name individual authors (Der Spiegel for instance used to do that iirc) as well as reliable tertiary sources (various encyclopedias). In such cases where an individual author is not given, you have to look at the reputability/reliability of the publisher instead.

There seems to be consensus that Amnesty can be cited but that it requires an intext attribution. Since you said yourself you would dismiss amnesty completely (just consider it less reliable/reputable that a few others sources), can't the conflict be resolved by simply citing amnesty with an explicit intext attribution?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What if their view is an overwhelming generalization and directly contradicts newsreports? As I said, I see no academic person writing these reports but rather college students obtaining reports from unknown organizations. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if various sources disagree the common approach to integrate both (or several) view points into the article (unless they are fringe)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here let me illustrate again. Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[46]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". It seems unlike amnesty, the guy in RFERL has done some field work. Note how amnesty generalizes the whole situation by speaking on behalf of millions of people. How does amnesty gauge the opinion of Millions of people? Amnesty has no author (who is writing the report) and lacks any specialization on the topic. If some sources contradict amnesty, we should give weight to the stronger source and not include amnesty as a weight issue. My main issue is that not only amnesty is making a gross generalization but there is no author who writes the report. It seems that an Encycloapedia should at least reference an actual author/writers (rather than vague organization) when it comes to discussing controversial matters. Until I figure out how amnesty international can gauge the opinions of millions and speak on their behalf, I find the report to simply be unencycloapedic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dismissing highly notable and widely respected sources like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Inbternational is not a realistic option available to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there is only a requirement to use reliable/reputable sources, there is no requirement mandating that individual human authors have to be identifiable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"As per the sources you brought from above, it is again news organizations without authors. All of them from "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" but no authors were mentioned. Wikipedia is not a place for piling up random news source. For example, one does not fill the article on Kurds in Turkey with thousands of reports from various new sources." As said by Mr Khodabandeh. This is a radio station which clearly contridicts a well-known human rights watch dog but still if we were to take this radiostaion as a reason as to not including other groups we would need to incorparate the very same reports made by the radio staion and these are:

Azeri-rights protesters demand Khatami apology

Detentions after Azeri rights chants disrupt Iran rally

Ethnic Azeri bloggers imprisoned in Iran

Relatives say ethnic Azeri activist held without charge in Iran

Iranian group concerned over detained Azeri activists Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, if the authors are not academics, then it is hard to verify the accuracy of their statements. For example when talking about oppression, According to Shaller and Zimmerer in the Journal of Genocide Research, the leadership of Young Turks planned to eliminate Kurdish identity by deporting Kurds from their ancestral land and displacing them in small groups. In this era, the Kurds suffered from deportations and death marches and forced Turkification. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans in WWI and 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed where approximately 350,000 of these displaces Kurds perished. These Kurds were forced by the young Turks to go on death march resembling the Armenian marches which was part of a plan to eliminate Kurdish identity. The movement has also been seen as the cause for the policy of "Turkification" which Turkey has attempted to impose on its ethnic minorities such as the Kurds until 1991. In an attempt to deny their existence, the Turkish government categorized Kurds as "Mountain Turks" until 1991.. However, amnesty international is not a peer reviewed journal and lacks any peer-review mechanism.

• I have three questions:
• First is what happens when amnesty international which has no author contradicts other news sources and academic books with authors?
• Second can amnesty make a generalized statement when it contradicts other news sources that have authors(like RFL). Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[47]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". So which statement is correct?
• How can one verify the information of amnesty international when it does not get vetted through any peer review academic process? And does one used amnestry reports from say 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago and how much weight and space should they be given in an article?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You see Khodabandeh your question can be reversed to; what happens when indivicual scholars contradict group reports from well known human rights watch dogs? I would say Human Rights Watchdogs should take presidence due to the fact that their reports are subject to verification and that they are written with a group. However you forward that scholars should take presidence. This I belive where opinion comes in, and ones own interests. Its for this reason both sources should be included. You have said about news sources contridicting the human rights reports, however you denied the BBC editorial report which stated that Azeris are suppressed to a certain extent. As said we should include all sources which are reliable or recgonised to be so irrelevant of the fact that some contradict others.Thank you, regards. Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) The amnesty international source is not from 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. It is very recent. To add to this ethnic status does not change over night, it is a slow moving process.

• An author-less report from Human Rights NGOs, which are mainly based on agenda-driven activists' "he said, she said" can not be used to suppress or contradict reliable academic sources written by experts, historians and specialists in a field. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Did not understand what you said, but HRW or amnesty is not subject to any academic verification and that is an invalid claim. Many times, political pressure groups send false reports to these organizations and these writeups are done by college students with no serious aademic background. I do think on such controversial matters, serious academic studies by Professors who have done years of field works takes precedence over random websites with no verifiable academic peer-review mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Random websites, so you are calling BBC, Amnesty International, United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch random, well I have nothing to say to that... These sources are humanitarian not political, please support your claim. Please also support the claim that said these sources are written by college studets. You dismissing these well known internationaly accepted sources, it does not look good. I will not be responding after this as its getting late. Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Human rights reports are tertiary sources at best, as they're author-less and usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So they could be treated as reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion, on pages dealing with the individual subject in question, or Human Rights pages like "Human rights in ____". But to cherry-pick random author-less lines from these types of sources, presenting them as statements of facts even-though they openly contradict scholarly works, and use them as a soap-boxing/advocacy tool on various tangibly related topics, as Tugrulirmak has been doing, not only violates WP:RS, it's also clear infraction of WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe, and WP:SOAP. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I consider myself tolerably familiar with our sourcing policies, and I do not recall ever having seen a single sentence in any of them that says anything remotely like "Sources that name the author are better than sources that don't".

I can name dozens of top-quality sources that don't name their authors and are unquestionably acceptable. (Nearly everything on nearly all government websites, for starters.) These "author-less" reports are acceptable sources for Wikipedia's use, and the persistent inability to hear that suggests that the real problem is that certain editors don't agree with the sources' contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and editors who are apparently not familiar with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the genuinely baffling extent of considering them fringe probably should not be commenting about their reliability and mode of usage. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• My main point of contention was that is some of these reports contradict perceptions of actual newsreports from other sources or contradict viewpoints of Professors, what should be done. Given weight to these sources or dismiss them? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculas first my edit was reverted by Kurdo777 on the grounds that "rv - per WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP - this is neither the place for this, nor are these claims supported by acadamia, and stuff about particular incidents belong WikiNews, or a Human rights page" however we discussed here that the sources were reliable and perfectly reliable for a page which also features ethnic status of Azeris in Iran. Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally made after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution. I'll let you conclude whats happening here...Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What we do Khodabandeh is include two equaly reliable sources inside the article irrelevant of the stance they are taking. This means include the scholars and the Human Rights Watchdogs. Then let the reader decide. Simple as that.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak`s latest inflammatory comment, labeling other editors "Iranian" etc (falsely too, but that is not the point), goes to the heart of the problem with his edits. He is an ultra-nationalist POV-pusher (a quick glance of his editing history, his denial of Armenian genocide, his white-washing of the Grey Wolves, his soap-boxing userboxes etc, would put that in perspective for you ) here to battle his perceived enemies in Armenians, Iranians, Greeks, Kurds, etc. This is a classic case of a nationalist user engaging in WP:Battle and WP:Soap. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry if calling someone Iranian is offensive, I had no such prior knowlege; I was just trying to describe the correlation between the reverts conducted on my edits and the people who did them, I apologies. However the fact that I made a mistake does not grant you an invitation to personaly attack me. I do deny the Armnian genocide for I have evidence to back this up (if you wish to have an extended discussion please post on my talk page or better yet the Armenian genocide article) same goes with other topics. That being said however, I do not deny the other oppinions that were presented to me, I belive they should also be featured on wikipedia. I hope you did not mean to call me an ultra-nationalist and I forgive you if you didn't for you have no idea of my political beliefs and irrelevant of what they are, mine do not have a presence in wikipedia.Attacking me personaly will not help us resolve this issue so please refrain from doing so. We need contributions from each side to resolve this, not damaging comments.Please do not reply here again as I fear the true aim of posting here which is to check reliability is being lost in our discussion. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia , we are not going to push for ultra nationalistic and partisan point of views . As other editors have mentioned earlier , the reliable human right reports may be used only in Wiki articles that deal with corresponding title and not as a pressure tool in pushing for anti national sentiments . Don't know what was the reason , but user Tugrulirmak not only has especial points of views in Armenian genocide , but he wrote about my ethnic group in Iran(Azeri) as fishes ! [48] and in response of my objection he said he write it to "lighten up the mood" ! [49] . Anyway , we tend to edit in Wikipedia without prejudice and without tendency to push for Pan- ideas ... neither Pan-Turkism nor any other Pan idea WP:SOAP.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the "ultranational viewpoint" here is, the promotion or the suppression of the assessment of human rights organizations?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism is a point of view that states all of the Turkic language groups in other countries are under pressure and they should unite and build a unified state to protect them from continuous harm of the other ethnic groups .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal national sentiments of editors are an irrelevant distraction. Everyone has to comply with policy and if they don't they will eventually get themselves blocked. It's about the sources and their usage at the Iranian Azaris article. These sources are very obviously notable, reliable (with attribution) and pertinent to the issue of the status of Azaris in Iran according to reliable sources which we are obliged to reflect. To try to exclude these sources on the basis that they should go somewhere else is frankly nonsense. These matters are clearly within scope of the article since there is already a section dealing with them. It even contains the statement "claims of de-facto discrimination". If an article is to deal with such matters, as is apparently already the case, and to do so in a policy compliant way, it's simply not possible to exclude the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most prominent sources on the planet for this kind of information, and then claim to be complying with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually "personal national sentiments " can only go so far in Wikipedia. Somebody denying the Holocaust, should not and will not be taken seriously here in Wikipedia, the same also applies to editors who deny other well-documented genocides, and treat other editors, sources and subjects based on "genetics closeness" to their own. There is something fundamentally wrong with the editor in question, and pointing it out, is in line with WP:SPADE. Overall, what you are suggesting above, is not what the editor in question is after. He just wants to turn the page into a WP:COATRACK, and dump whatever cherry-picked material that suits his own POV, regardless of relevance or weight. Otherwise, I see no problem with adding a couple of attributed lines from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to the already-existing section dealing with the ethnic status, as long as the weight is proportionate and appropriate. If a particular claim is contradicted by several academic secondary sources, then it should be treated as a minority viewpoint. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are not to take the sources I give seriously due to me not believing in a "genocide" then go ahead you would also be excluding the whole of Turkish community also... In addtion to this the sources are not connected to me so how can my own "bias" effect the sources I present. Lastly calling me a biast or "ulta-nationalist" is just absurd I belive other sources can be included like those scholars so how does this nuetral stance make me extream in your eyes. Stop attacking or I will have to make a complaint. If you want to attack anythign attack the sources I present and come up with valid reasons as to why they are not a good choice.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is a fundamental problem in my opinion when the user (Tugrumimak) called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." [50]. Note the said person is also not Iranian [51]. Wouldn't such a person have much more qualification to summarize about this issue than a random report from AI (which should be treated as a primary source that needs secondary analysis)?
• No one has answered my question though (I am asking some uninvolved in the article), when it comes reliability and claims, "exceptional claim require exceptional sources". When there is several scholars, professors in major universities contradicting AI or doing a fine job summarizing the situation, how does one treat something like AI which might get its report from fringe groups or contradict these sources? Doesn't WP:Weight go with the Professors/scholars rather than an organization which is not peer-reviewed and has been criticized by scholars [52]. I am not saying to dismiss AI, but on a topic which might have political fringe groups making claimns to AI, One should consider current scholarly viewpoints from universities and give them the most weight. Also AI is almost like a primary source (if its claim is valid and sometimes it is just a random report about something that could have been outdated by now) and secondary sources (peer-reviewed publications, professors , etc.) should make a summary. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My own fictitious "political agenda" or "bias" does not apply on wikipedia. I, or you present sources and we discuss them. For all I care some can be an extreamist; what I care about is the reliabilty and the relevance of the sources presented to me and so should every one. Trying to invalidate certain sources by invalidating me does not realy work as I have no connection with the sources.About the professor, I said she might not be as reliable due to the fact that she is Iranian and I stand by it. We would be fools to think that ones own national sentiments do not apply when drawing scholarly conclusions, one still bears a vested interest no matter how represt it may be. I would draw the same conclusion if the author was an Azeri or a Turk. And according to Alborz I called Azeris fishes, now why would I defend someone I called fishes, no reason( although may aim was realy to lighten up the mood). Khodabandeh as I am sure you are aware wikipedia does not quote wikipedia as a source as it is deemed unreliable. Lastly, we have stagnated our discussion upon me, and Amnesty International. However one can see, quite clearly that I have presented two other sources UNHRC and HRW if we can also reach a certain stand on their reliabilty it would be good also.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Professor from UCLA who is a full professor is more reliable than authorless AI with no academic peer-review process. See WP:RS. Second she is not Iranian but your accusation of her as being Iranian shows complete bias and disregard for Wikipedia policy on account of not understanding WP:RS. I stand by my case that on a complicated matter, one should use secondary sources rather than alleged tidbits by political advocacy group, when the two come into conflict. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are """as""" reliable as each other. Both must be included. Saying AI a large well-known organisation is not reliable is just absurd.Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please cite relavent wikipedia policies where it says academic institutions are as reliable as AI! No they are not. As far as I know, you accused a Professor from UCLA who was not Iranian to be of Iranian background and claim people in academic institutions are biased due to their background. Both claims can be dismissed , see for example taner akcam and are not part of wikipedia policy. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

reliable to be mentioned in which article ? Do you have problems in mentioning them in a human rights article ? or the problem is about adding a whole chapter to the article of Iranian Azaris?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not adding a whole chapter. We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports. As said on talk page the article covers the treatment of Azeris in the Pahlavi era and now so the reports are relevent to the article.

by adding the signs of == == there will be a headline in the page . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you have read what I said correctly I talked about extending the Ethnic Status in Iran section not making a new section here is the quote "We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports". Next time please do read correctly.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am asking for a third party opinion and I will repeat. Is Professor from UCLA who is a full professor or similar academic institutions more reliable than the authorless(in terms of having a real person with a known academic background) AI with no academic peer-review process. See WP:RS. I want to quote WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". I would consider AI as a primary research paper and when it comes to conflict with secondary academic sources, I believe the secondary academic sources should be given more weight. I am asking for third person opinion on weight issues rather than if AI is RS or not. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly are we discussing the reliability of the professor, NO. Secondly did I say she is unreliable, No (if I had you made me change my mind almost a month ago). AI is a secondary source HRW is a secondary source BBC is a secondary source UNHCR is a secondary source. Again are we talking about the reliabilty of the professor, NO. We are talking about the reliabilty of the above sources. Stop trying to veer the discussion to where you want it to go to. You said it yourself "you consider" well thats just your point of view. They are reliable as many discussions have prooved them so. Again you are only saying AI i have provided 3 sources yes 3. These are if you have not yet seen: AI, HRW and UNHRC. You are asking for weight? I would say international sources are pretty hefty in their weight, but go ahead ask away and we shall see the reply. Lastly don't bring up the professor again for we are not discussing her nor me.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please watch WP:NPA. I asked for a 3rd party opinion. And yes you did call a Professor who was not Iranian as Iranian and tried to show has biased. AI has no academic qualification and it is an advoacy organization. And yes, it does matter to the discussion to see which has more weight, AI or Professors of universities. We are talking about WP:weight, between academic institutions vs AI. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not made personal attacks to anybody I belive it is me who is under personal attack from 3 editors, however I shall take this lightly and assume they do not mean the things they said. I would like a link to your request on 3rd party opinion I will be greatfull.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again with the professor? We are not discussing weight here we are discussing reliabilty of three sources UNHRC, AI and HRW. She is Iranian as the wikipedia article on her states so, for the record I am talking about the wikipedia article before your deletion of the statement which read "Nikki R. Keddie is an Iranian professor of Eastern, Iranian, and women's history" so yes she is Iranian. Now which has more weight, indivicual scholars or large global human rights organisations? I say both, both are as reliable as each other and thus both should be included.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats because you do not understand the term and you also thought the article about fish DNA is talking about Azeris. I'll explain it for you. "Iranian Professor" in the Wikipedia article meant Professor of Iranian studies. Just like Arabic Professor could also mean Professor of Arabic. Iranian Professor could also mean Professor of Iranian studies. Turkish Professor could mean Professor of Turkish studies. It simply requires the person to understand the context although it could be confusing. Else, in fact she is not an ethnic Iranian and you can check her biography on the UCLA page. Individual full professors publishing from reliable universities have much more weight than AI as clearly noted in WP:RS, which mentions academic sources and publishers to be the best sources on subjects. AI is not a global organization as it does not have office in most place. As per "Both are reliable as each other", no they are not. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, they are not clearly as reliable. WP:RS gives more weight to academic sources (Full Professor of Iranian studies for example) above AI website and also when summarizing a situation, it is best to use academic sources rather than making OR based on AI. As I said, I will wait for second opinion from someone not involved in tis issue. The main question to them: "What happens when you have bunch of academic full professors who summarize a situation in more detail than AI and they offer a different viewpoint which contradicts AI. How does weight work here". In my opinion, vverall, a Professor of Iranian studies (not Iranian ethnic background as you claim) has more weight as it is specialized source in the area over advocacy organizations. Because the former has done a more detailed study where-as the latter, is not even academic organization and has no peer-review vetting of its writing. I will wait for opinion from other non-involved users on this point. I'll wait for a 2nd opinion from non-involved users on these topics as it is general policy matter, not just particular to the specific article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you take me for an idiot, a simpleton that doesn't know the difference between "Iranian professor" which means Professor of Iranian origins and Professor of Iranian Studies, please do not insult me. I am not liable if the information presented to me was wrong which was the fact that she is Iranian. So I withdraw my analysis on her however that is not to say I was unjust with the former information I had to get to the conclusion I had. Now then if we are finished discussing a professor we are not even supposed to discuss here. If we look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS we can clearly see both the sources are as reliable as each other, failure to notice this is a grave flaw indeed. We can clearly see that Human Rights Watchdogs have more resources, people and organisation to aquire more evidence to draw a conclusion upon however I also take your point on the scholar and belive they should be included also. In order to keep nuetrality in the article we must include sources that represent the other stance, and if the sources are as well reputed as Amnesty International, Human Rights Wach and United Nations Human Rights Comission it would be a against the notion of nuetrality.Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you also please give me a link showing me where you requested 2nd opinion?Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. "Middle East Professor, Turkish Professor, Arabic Professor.." could mean a Professor teaching those subjects. The context makes it clear. I am requesting second opinion now, except everytime I am requesting it, you repeat the same thing which means that the discussion here is not over and there is no clear concensus. AI, HRW and etc. are not in the same league as Professors and scholars. Even if they are RS, they do not have the same weight as academic institutions. And no if we look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS we can see academic institutions get priority over non-peer review websites. Per Weight: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. " and "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science". So no, they are not equal weight all and your claim that they have equal weight is not supported by Wikipedia policy, which clears prefers academic books/articles and peer-reviewed journals specific to the topic over generalized websites and newspapers. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peer-reviwed" do you know these organisations are world wide globaly accepted sources they trump "peer-reviewed scholars" any day even though I still think we must include both. You denial of these well established Human Rights Groups is very worring and please do not reply again here and ask for a third oppinon for we are going to go no where. Also please provide a link for if you don't I will have no idea weather you have requested 3rd opinion thus would have to request myself. I am not discussing any more, I shall await for the 3rd party opinion.Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are adding your own personal opinion (OR) and attributing it wikipedia policy. In Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia policy. Peer-review scholarship and academic institutions trump any sort of authorless website with no peer-review process and no attribution of sources. Per Weight: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. " and "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. And yes, I asked for 3rd opinion here (I already know your opinion) but I am waiting for people who know the details of the policy to repy back. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to Google Books

I saw an above reference to a convenience link, and wondered what our policy was on adding direct links to text in searchable editions at Google Books. If these are added alongside a proper citation, are they considered good practice? The links are ugly but the one-click access to source material is fantastic.

Example:

• "Feeling Unreal: Depersonalization Disorder and the loss of the self" By Daphne Simeon and Jeffrey Abugel (2006) Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-538521-2, p. 144. Google books.

Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 04:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent policy seems to be WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is equivocal but militates against linking to an online third party source (not the publisher's own website) unless that is the only source of the work. However, I would say this is a widely disregarded policy, as links to Google Books seem to be common (and I have seen editors accused of hiding their sources if they found information on Google Books and only cited to the paper copy). One interesting sidelight is that particular pages in Google Books don't seem to be consistently available to different users, so what one sees may return a "not available" message to others. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting archived thread from this noticeboard in which editors are generally favorable to using links to Google Books but there is some dissent about links to particular pages ("deep links"). Someone points out that clicking on the ISBN itself brings up a Google Books link. A re-read of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT suggests it wasn't written with Google Books in mind, but with paywall databases and those requiring someone else's account to access. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't provide so called convenience links. It means you shouldn't cite the online database instead of the original journal publication and you shoudn't link inconvenient (=false) convenient links, that are not publicly accessible or purely commercial. However public accessible convenient links of cited (print) reference are generally welcome and this is by no means restricted to Google Books. Preprints of journal papers are often available on arxiv.org or university pages. Online copies of books are also available on archive.org, project Gutenberg and various university libaries. Google books links are used quite often but not all authors like him (I do though), because although they are public, it is not guaranteed that all users can read them (the access depends on the local copyright situation in which you reside and Google sometimes blocks repeated access based on your IP or changes the exact sides being available in preview). Nevertheless usually the Googble Book link is usually accessible for many readers/editor and does indeed offer a great opportunity for "1 click verifications". However when you use Google Book links you should not use the ugly and confusing search link, but instead use the page link [http://books.google.com/books?id=ONLyq-mVLuIC&pg=PA144 Google books] (Google books) or even better the available template {{Google books|ONLyq-mVLuIC|online copy|page=144}} (online copy, p. 144, at Google Books)--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about that template. Thanks, Kmhkmh! Andrew Dalby 11:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Not sure if I just have bad luck with that particular Google book link or whether it is generally not accessible. But assuming for now it is general issue, I'd like to add one should only add Google book links if at least a limited preview available, providing a link without a preview is somewhat pointless (anfd just a hidden Google Promotion).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be an example of different results for different folks. It took me to a search page for three or four occurrences of "Suzanne" in the book, and I was able to click through to see p. 144 in full. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found books that I could look into once and can't look into now; and, likewise, books that others can and I can't. I guess the links are still handy if some people can. But I agree, it's a bad idea to add the link unless the editor concerned has tested it to see full text or preview. Andrew Dalby 14:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great responses and links. Thanks. It sounds like {citebook} with a url is ideal. Maybe no deep link, since preview is inconsistent. OTOH concern about url's being inconsistent and ISBN's link to GBooks already. So though not necessary, it can work if done right. Sounds good. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather give the user more info than less, even if not all are able to make use to it. I generally link to the main page for the book, that is the page from which you can get the preview, but sometimes will do a deep link. No one has really brought up the issue to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I always use deep links practice, because I hate being forced to hunt for the passage that supports a Wikipedia claim, and I don't want to burden others with that.

Because this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I'll make the obligatory comment that not all Google Books are reliable sources. For example, Google Books has a huge number of self-published books online, which would not be appropriate references. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. However that has nothing to do with Google books itself. The reliability is always the relibility of the original (print) publisher, Google Books is merely a convenience link to an online copy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bosma" in "Plan Dalet": is it possible that a peer-reviewed scholarly article is not a reliable source?

In the article Plan Dalet some editors dispute that an edit is from a reliable source, although this edit is based on an article in a scholarly journal. It so happens that I'm the author of the article, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that the journal "Holy land Studies" is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and that WP:SOURCE says: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.". Whether I'm a chemical engineer or not is not relevant. What counts is that I'm also a historian and that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It is not up to wikipedia-editors to question the expertise of peer reviewers.

see also the talk page

see also the "Holy Land Studies" website

my proposed edit:

According to J.C. Bosma Plan Dalet and the question of Zionist intent should be seen in the context of the "contradictions of Zionism". Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation:

Ben-Gurion and the military leadership did not send their troops to destroy or "occupy" Palestinian villages without an explanation and legitimation. The troops were ordered to "move to State Dalet for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet". Plan Dalet and its stated defensive rationale were referred to and therefore automatically provided a framework that legitimated these orders. ... the politicians need not worry about the moral side of this, because these actions were justified by a defensive military plan.

Bosma investigated the military logic of Plan Dalet and points out seven aspects of it that are inconsistent with the stated defensive purpose.

• J.C. Bosma, "Plan Dalet in the context of the contradictions of Zionism", Holy Land Studies 9 (2), 2010, p. 209-227

There should really not be a dispute here, because it is obvious that a peer reviewed scholarly article should be considered a reliable source. JaapBoBo (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In the section Jaap wants to include this, we currently have the views of Walid Khalidi, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Henry Laurens, Yoav Gelber and David Tal. J.C. Bosma has apparently only published this one article in the field of History, and his expertise is Chemistry.

So there are two questions here. Is anything published in a scholarly journal automatically considered RS, and if it is, should the opinion of someone who has no known expertise in the field be included with these well known professors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The second question is not good. I have a known expertise in the field, because it is recognised by the editors of "Holy Land Studies" during the peer-review process. Well known experts on the subject, Nur Masalha and Ilan Pappe (one of the six), are on the editorial board. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The source can probably be considered reliable, but given the fact that the author isn't a historian it may be WP:Undue weight to mention it. Remember, there are other policies and guidelines which can limit inclusion besides RS. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So Blueboar, you agree with me on the question of RS?

Regarding "Undue weight", that is another discussion, but of course if my article had not been a worthy addition to what was already published, it would never have been accepted. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since I am not an expert on the topic, I can't "agree" that it is a reliable journal. All I can say is that it seems likely to be reliable. To me the undue weight issue is potentially more critical, but you are correct that that is a different issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could figure out both issues here, that would save everyone some time and effort later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this constitutes an undue weight issue rather than a reliable source issue per se, and would gently suggest to JaapBoBo that, in spite of what he says, the fact that he's the author of the article is relevant here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing absolutely and automatically gets a free pass as a reliable source. Peer-reviewed scholarly journals are generally assumed to go to the top of the pile, but there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals and there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals -- there's a difference between The Lancet and the Southern East Carolina College Review of Cultural Studies, for instance -- and there is difference between statements of fact and statements of contentious political interpretation. If there is good reason to believe that the author of an article has a dog in some fight, that slides the reliability quite a ways downward on the scale. I am confused about what Holy Land Studies is... it apparently is this, where I see that the first article listed is named Liberating Jewish History from its Zionist Stranglehold, which sounds kind of political... it looks to be partly a political journal. Is it? Middle East politics is a fairly contentious subject. I would first ask the editor using the ref: Do you assert that Holy Land Studies is essentially a disinterested scholarly research journal free of political bias? Well, is it? Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether "Holy Land Studies" is politically biased. I would say it is offers a forum to the anti-Zionist side rather than to the Zionist side. Some "Zionist sources" are certainly ideologically biased, e.g. the article Plan Dalet also refers to Zionist historians like Gelber, Morris and Tal.

A political stance tells nothing about reliability. We should not use political bias as a criterium, because in that case one could just as well remove all the views on the Zionist intent (which this part of the article is about). As I see it, historians can write reliable about facts, but can offer politically biased interpretations at the same time. This is the case with most of these sources. The article that I wrote is certainly reliable as regards to facts. As regards to interpretation: it would probably be considered politically biased by some.

In this case, what wikipedia should strive to is to give an overview of all the important interpretations (all of which may be biased). Actually this is what WP:NPOV tells us to do: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ...". JaapBoBo (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy Land Studies is an interdisciplinary journal published by Edinburgh University Press. It is clearly a reliable publication by a reliable publisher. This means this paper may be used, but it's up to the editors to determine if it should be used, and if so, how much weight it should get. Generally speaking, an article by someone who hasn't published anything else in the field should get less weight than the views of established experts, if any at all. This should be resolved by the editors at the article talk page; I'm seeing some good arguments against using it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary souce OK for music genre? In lieu of alternatives for obscure band

On the article for the band Nokturnal Mortum, we kind of got into an edit war over a certain musical genre being added to the infobox. The problem here is that this is a) an obscure band so sources are nil, b) they're from Ukraine so [English] sources in general are nil, and c) obscure metal bands in general aren't talked about in major RS's like publications, so the realm of e-zines is where one typically resorts to editorials or interviews, etc. Anyway, the dispute is whether the genre "NSBM" should be listed as a genre. Now, this band is, in my experience, always mentioned in online discussions for NSBM bands and their earlier lyrics are blatantly and obviously national-socialist in nature. Now, I found this interview with the band leader in which he clearly states that the band's musical style is "national socialistic Black Metal". I also found another interview with NSBM band, here, where its stated that "The brightest bands of nowadays NSBM / Racial Pagan Metal scene surely are: NOKTURNAL MORTUM". Now, I understand the second is a secondary source from an e-zine, but it does establish that this genre tag is commonplace, IMO. The first is a primary source, but in line with WP:RS policy, it is only used in a "straightforward and descriptive" manner. So are either of these sources alright to use? Currently one editor is blanking these sources saying primary sources aren't allowed, while another involved has opined that it should be allowed for this band given the circumstances.

Despite the 2:1 'consensus', things are still getting blanked, so just looking for another opinion here on policy? --Львівське (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are only two references in the whole article, and both to ezines? Does this article meet notability requirements? If the Firegoat ezine is being used for three of the four citations, and is apparently acceptable for that information, what is the argument against using it as the source for a statement that this band is NSBM? It's hard to comment given the dearth of sources, but if this article were to survive WP:AFD, it seems like the band member's own statement that the band is NSBM could be mentioned in the article someplace. "In an interview, so and so characterized their music as NSBM." TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's okay to state it in prose, why would the infobox be off limits? NSBM itself has an article; if it's notable itself to have a dedicated article, and its alright to mention such a source in the body, what would be the prohibiting factor from keeping it out of the infobox as a secondary genre/style? Anyway - the argument by the user is that the Firegoat interview is does not meet WP:RS, even for use as a straightforward description. He says it is "absolutely unacceptable" and doesn't "pass RS", so I ask you, for this purpose of description, does it "pass RS"?--Львівське (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a deeper sourcing issue. Are there reliable foreign language sources that can be used? I'm skeptical that any of the currently used sources are enough for them to pass notability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While there may be other sources that would work for the article itself for basic information, I've been unable to find anything relating to the above topic of NSBM without it being an interview by a band member, another band / activist mentioning them, or a plethora of forum postings. There are for sure enough sources out there for it to pass an AfD, if that's a concern.--Львівське (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here... the first issue is the reliability of primary sources for factual information about the band. I would say that such sources can be reliable in the absence of secondary sources.

The second issue is whether the band is notable enough for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. WP:BAND is the guideline that governs this issue, and lists a number of criteria that could establish notability (the primary one being that the band has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself".) I am not at all sure that this band meets those requirements. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Inside the Actors Studio

The following assertion is in the Dave Chappelle article: "He also said the rumors that he was in drug or psychiatric treatment only persuaded him to stay in South Africa." The source is: "Dave Chappelle". Inside the Actors Studio. Bravo. 2006-02-12. No. 10, season 12.

This is what WP:RS says (I think this is the relevant part):

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

What does it mean to be "properly cited"? Is the cite above good enough? And what does it mean by an "archived copy"? If the episode were available on DVD, would that be sufficient?

Finally, this is not just a piece of background biographical information. If untrue, it's arguably a BLP violation. Does that change the analysis?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Actors studio is quite reputable, the citation above looks essentially ok to me, but it might be a good idea to add the time into the video where the statement occurs (similarly to giving the page ina book). If an online copy of the video or its transcript exist you might add that as a convenience link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What about satisfying the "archived copy" requirement?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's available on DVD, then the "archived copy" requirement is met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The dvd is one option, another might the archive of the broadcaster (though that might be iffy in terms of access) or some public archive keeping copies of the broadcast in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wen Wei Po

Wen Wei Po is a Chinese newspaper based in Hong Kong allegedly with PRC government background. Currently there is a content dispute on Ai Weiwei here. My argument is, Wen Wei Po cannot be considered as Reliable Source based on this:Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, and Hong Kong Journalists Association Annual Reports Annual reports on the state of freedom of expression & media self-censorship in Hong Kong. Please advice. Arilang ^talk 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(I'm one of the editors involved) That study was conducted in 1996. That was 15 years ago. How...how is that useful, apart from being a historical record? For all we know, it could be even more pro-China today, or less. Secondly, that survey says that it is (quote) 'Pro-Beijing Chinese-language daily founded in 1948'. I can say the same about most Western media, they are 'Pro-Western'. It has, 'allegedly', PRC background (according to Arilang). That is not solid evidence. I mean, BBC has UK government background and we are not questioning that... Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All nations control their media, but mass media corps are still taken as RS at wikipedia even if they are openly propagandist such as the VOA or Radio Free Asia. If you find another RS which disagrees with Wen Wei Po than you should attribute what each one is saying within the text.Passionless -Talk 07:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point exactly. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "allegedly PRC government background"? That could mean anything from being accused of supporting the government to having some direct relationship of control with the government. You are insinuating the latter, but I see no proof of it. Quigley (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a table:Table 14: Media Credibilty of local media organization at Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, where Wen Wei Po ranked 24 out of a total of 29 media, almost at the bottom among all of them. I would be very surprised to know that Wikipedia would accept a media with such a low Media Credibility in Hong Kong to be WP:RS . Arilang ^talk 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, 1996. I'd be very suprised to see one source from 15' years ago used as evidence to classify a major newspaper as unusable on Wikipedia. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The table is based on a survey of journalists, which is subjective, and not based on objective criteria such as tabulated errors in reportage of facts. Quigley (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq, there is no need for you to be surprised, in case you don't know, Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China has been there since 1949, 60 years ago. Arilang ^talk 09:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how that relates. One is a government department and one is a private company. Government departments exist as long as the government does and is controlled by the government, its aims usually stay the same. A company, on the other hand, can change hands however often it is needed to and the aims of it can change anytime. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• • User Zlqq, please have a look at Google news, a link provide by Jimbo, and you can see that the term "Beijing backed" is being used extensively. Arilang ^talk 01:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It not an issue of a paper being "pro/anti western" or "pro/anti chinese", but whether the paper essentially heavily influenced or controlled by a totalitarian government. If that's the case such a newspaper should be avoided if possible and when used only with intext attribution. It also depends what kind of information is sourced, some largely undisputed factoid or POV about Ai Wei Wei.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Reporting on Ai Wei Wei's alleged crime confession even without an intext attribution as it was done in the original edit (linked diff) is definitely a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, user Kmhkmh. Arilang ^talk 10:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No proof has been submitted so far that Wen Wei Po is controlled by the Chinese government. Also, many people would disagree with your insinuation that the Chinese government is (today) totalitarian, or the usefulness of "totalitarian" in classifying a political system. Even if the Chinese government were "totalitarian" (which, by dispassionate examination, it seems today not to be), what is the essential difference of a paper being "influenced by" a "non-totalitarian" government versus being "influenced by" a "totalitarian" government? Both governments' interests can be just as nebulous, just as undemocratic, just as contemptuous of human rights—but the promotion of these rights is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Furthermore, what does it mean for a paper to be "heavily influenced" by a government? Many newspapers in many countries take pro-government stances (as many newspapers take anti-government stances), and even more newspapers lazily rely on the government as a source for information on what they could investigate independently. It seems that the crux of the issue is not of a newspaper being sympathetic to a government, but of a newspaper possibly being sympathetic to a government that we don't like. Quigley (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• This argument, and the evidence presented so far, does not go to source reliability. FOX, the propaganda arm of the US Military Industrial Complex, is a reliable source for wikipedia purposes. Please read the top of the page and follow all the instructions including giving the statement for which the source is disputed. You ought also to be aware that the totalitarian thesis is utterly discredited in academic circles, and, is at least 50 years behind the state of sociological theory and historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Would user Fifelfoo care to explain Table 14: Media Credibilty of local media organization at Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, where Wen Wei Po ranked 24 out of a total of 29 media, and yet accepted by Wikipedia as Reliable Source? Arilang ^talk 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What "totalitarian thesis"? Fox is quite often not a reliable source either and depending on the context cannot be used as as such.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we conclude that user Fifelfoo is into self imposed disqualification from this discussion ？ Arilang ^talk 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No we can't and there is no need for a personal overtone. But no matter how one views the difference between media in free and totalitarian societies in general and between publicly owned media in both systems in particular, it is rather obvious that the old edit without intext attribution and qualifiers was clearly a no-go. However the source might be used with intext attribution and qualifiers (like "according to the Hongkong based newspaper Wen Wei Po the Chinese government charges Ai wei wei with the following crimes...."). The corrected version currently in the text seems ok too.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help RS/N editors if any of the article's editors here read the top of the page and follow all the instructions including giving the statement for which the source is disputed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not one of the article's authors, i.e. you're adressing the wrong person. However diff link containing the info specifically requested by you was given right in the first posting anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My apology to user Fifelfoo for my rather rude comment aimed at him. Arilang ^talk 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60." This means the author, article, date, page run, newspaper, location. The diff listed in the first post does not contain a full citation of Wen Wei Po, nor does it indicate the statement Wen Wei Po is being used to support. If editors wish the help of RS/N, they could provide the information required by RS/N editors, on RS/N itself. If they choose to provide diffs, they could provide diffs which are indicated textually on RS/N as meeting the requirements of RS/N to investigate source reliability, "This diff contains a full citation, link, the statement supported: [diff]." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Wen Wei Po attack editorials

• 廿四味：艾未未是个什么东西, and it's google translation:[53]

• 廿四味：假艺术家的真面目, the google translation:[54]

• 艾未未真面目：五玩艺术家－－五毒俱全, and it's google translation:[55]

That's not an attack editorial. It's just a normal comment piece. Not every anti-Ai Weiwei article is an attack Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• 香港社会所不了解的艾未未, and it's google translation:[56]

And that is even less of an attack piece. Most of it actually quotes sources from other newspapers and comments on that.Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Editors can see the kind of language used by Wen Wei Po's editorial board to mount a bias and give-him-everything personal attack on China's famous artist. Could Wikipedia accept this kind of content? Arilang ^talk 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • They are all comment pieces, and they are not randomly attacking without evidence/source/references. Most newspaper have comment/opinion sections. Refer to what I said in the section above about Guardian and stuff. Also, maybe you want to use the word 'criticise'? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• These aren't connected to a statement in the article, or a proposed statement: RS/N can't feasibly judge their reliability for a particular statement. Zlqq2144's points about op eds are useful. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just like to confirm with Fifelfoo, if I am to use intext attribution and qualifiers (like... Wen Wei Po's editorial board called Ai Weiwei as "dog feces garbage", "cheap propaganda prostitution trafficking", etc etc, and provide Wen Wei Po's editorial as source, would that be OK? Arilang ^talk 03:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If you did that, then you would be providing an original translation from the Chinese, and a misleading one at that (translating idioms literally). That is why policy prefers English language sources (which we do have for the stuff editors originally wanted to attribute to Wen Wei Po, since many English language reliable sources have since treated Wen Wei Po as a reliable source by mirroring its content) and also policy prefers reliable translations to translations by Wikipedians such as yourself. (Machine translations are the absolute worst). Quigley (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Within Quigley's admirable qualifications, on inspection the first source has a by-line of 梁立人. None of these are by the editorial board, they're individually signed opeds. You'd be better off seeking English language published appreciations of Wen Wei Po's editorial position on Ai Weiwei if your interest is the position of Wen Wei Po's editorial board position on Ai Weiwei. This also provides a secondary evaluation of the matter. As a purely fictional example: "The Manchester and Wyong Daily Star (Wyong, NSW) described Wen Wei Po's editorial attitude towards Ai Weiwei as one of public celebration and character building." (Brian Brianson, "Hong Kong newspaper praises controversial artist", The Manchester and Wyong Daily Star (Wyong, NSW) 32/13/2011, p. 7.). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I google 梁立人 [57], and according to Chinese Wikipedia, 梁立人 is a pro-Beijing writer, his articles often come up on Wen Wei Po, 東方日報 and The Sun (Hong Kong). Arilang ^talk 04:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his articles often come on 东方日报 and The Sun (Hong Kong), not Wen Wei Po (per the third paragrah in the introduction). And according to the long list of articles he wrote (of about 20+), he wrote 4 for Wen Wei Po. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Wen Wei Po as an RS. He writes opinion articles, not news articles, and his articles are not the reference I used in the Ai Weiwei article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, shouldn't Wen Wei Po be regarded as Tabloid#Tabloid journalism style media, more into gossips and rumors, instead of serious news reporting? Arilang ^talk 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion=/=Tabloid. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei is being kept, somewhere, no one knows where, one day when he comes out free, and he will send lawyer's letters to whoever calling him "dog feces garbage", I am sure of that. Arilang ^talk 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this:[58], RTHK reported that, four public survey had been conducted in 1997, 2001, 2006, 2009, by 蘇鑰機 of Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Wen Wei Po is ranked near bottom on the media credibility scale in all four occasions. My question is, should a media that has nearly zero credibility be accepted in Wikipedia as WP:RS? Arilang ^talk 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It was based on a public survey, and the essay was the opinion of 1 person. The survey itself, is not solid evidence either. It is the opinions of 600 people, which frankly, isn't a lot. Also note that although Wen Wei Po is ranked quite low, the whole survey spans from about 5.6 to 7.3 -- less than 2, in a survey of 1 - 10. There really isn't a lot of difference. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The challenge of Hong Kong's reintegration with China

Publisher: Hong Kong University Press ISBN13: 9789622094413

Despite their low credibility and dismay circulation in Hong Kong, these mouthpieces are well-financed by advertising revenues from the PRC companies...Wen Wei Po has received more funds...Both papers print many Xinhua-initiated commentaries under pseudonym aimed to criticize and intimate China's critics.[59]

Arilang ^talk 12:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that Wen Wei Po is a pro-Communist Party of China newspaper, and even though I would tend not to trust it on that basis, that is not the same thing as saying it can never be cited here. I can find various references to it in Western media which identify it as being a pro-Beijing or pro-Communist Party newspaper when the Western media discuss what the newspaper has written. For example: The New York Times, referring to the charges against Ai Weiwei as reported in Wen Wei Po, calls it "a Hong Kong-based newspaper with close ties to Beijing". Reuters calls it "a Hong Kong-based newspaper under mainland Chinese control". The Telegraph calls it "Beijing-controlled". The Associated Press called it "a party-backed newspaper in Hong Kong". The New York Daily News called it "Beijing-backed". Inter Press Service said Wen Wei Po "is known as Beijing's mouthpiece in the territory". The Washington Times called it "a pro-communist newspaper in Hong Kong". So if Wen Wei Po's coverage is relevant to a topic, it should be allowed to be cited in Wikipedia, but normally it would be advisable to indicate that it is a pro-Communist Party of China newspaper to give context to its claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get the continuing extensive discussion above, as far as the article in question is concerned, it is imho settled that the original edit triggering the debate was incorrect and needed to be changed (which however has happened long ago). It should be obvious as well that in doubt (and if available) other more independent/neutral newspapers should be preferred to Wen Wei Po (there are plenty throught the world) and ideally an english language newspaper as well (if available, rather Wen Wei Po possible parroting the official chinese position, it might better to use the english service/edition of Xinhua or similar). All of that however does not mean Wen Wei Po can't be cited at all, although other sources are preferred, it still can be cited with an intext attribution if it makes sense in a particular context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both User:Metropolitan90 and User:Kmhkmh's comments, which about conclude this discussion. Thanks again. Arilang ^talk 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)