Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 139

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 145

iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com

Source: iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com

Discussion: Cydia Talk about use of iClarified.com in Cydia. I'm also wondering if these sources are appropriate anywhere else surrounding topics of Apple devices.

Content: "In addition to offering software to install, in September 2009 Cydia was improved to help users have the option to downgrade (or upgrade) their device to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple"

ihackintosh is a blog by a group of three students. iClarified.com does not even have an about page, but WHOIS page indicates its a personal website. Another editor argues that these sources should be admissible, because a few authors of books published through O'Reilley Media suggested these as good sources in their opinion.

It was just that "here are some good sources to check out" and the like. According to WP:SPS, it reads that "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."

Evidence presented me is that possibly reliable sources simply issued opinions as they're "good places" to visit, but the persons behind the sites or the sites themselves have not met the criteria above. So far, it looks like they fall under personal webpage and personal blog category. I'm looking for interpretation on if these sources could generally mean more than such.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this for more opinions! Just to note, I'm only interested in using iClarified, not iHackintosh; iHackintosh just happened to be mentioned along with iClarified in one of the books I was looking at. I also don't think that iClarified would be a reliable source for Apple information in general, just useful as a secondary source for a piece of uncontroversial technical material about jailbreaking when only a self-published primary source is otherwise available. (This feature wasn't immediately notable when it was released; it became more important later, so there are better sources available for later details but not much for the initial release.) Also, for transparency: I work for the company that makes this software, although I'm not paid to edit. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate what these sources are suitable for, if at all in general. iClarified, a site that does not provide an about page, a proper business mailing address or the author and its WHOIS inquiry appears to support my evaluation of this source as a glorified personal website. Though it has sourced information, it looks like an aggregation site with one-man job editorial. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide the sources we are expected to check against.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect (blog) - can we use the website as a source about itself?

I've (twice now) added an edit to this article concerning items it sells on its online store - mugs and t-shirts saying "Islamophobic and proud of it". It's been removed twice by the same editor with the claim that we can't use the blog's website itself as a source for what it sells as it is a primary source. The editor gives other reasons at Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog) but if you read the talk page from the top it looks more like an argument over whether the blog is Islamophobic or not, with the editor who is deleting me saying " does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". That's a different issue of course as are the other reasons he gives for deleting me, but his main reason still seems to be his claim that we can't use it as it is a primary source. Note that we not surprisingly are already using the website as a source in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This a primary source so it better to use it in conjunction with secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've done that. Ironically, a source that the editor reverted me insists, rightly, is a reliable source, was part 2 of an article, and part 1 leads off with a statement about the mugs and t-shirts. But what is the difference between what I added and the two sentences in the lead "A condensed version of the weblog is available in English.[3] The blog's self-declared goal is to bring news to a wider public attention which it perceives to be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media due to a pervading "leftist political correctness."[4]" which are both sourced to the website?

The problem is in using of primary sources its deciding what important and what is not i.e WP:UNDUE of course a stated goal of organisation is very relevant to the article but if the organisation notable enough the secondary sources should have discussed their goals but this goes beyond the scope of this board. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would actually have to say no on its use as a primary source. It is a blog and really has no editorial oversite. Per WP:PRIMARY:"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". I took a look and this really does not meet the criteria as reliably published, which is why blogs are generally not used as primary sourcing unless as part of the subject of another source. Sometimes an RS will not mention a primary source itself but just the facts from it, so a reliably published primary source would add value. If you were to find a secondary source that mentions this site, it probably still shouldn't be used as a primary source in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost now. Are you saying we can't use it as a source for what it sells in its online store? Are you saying we need to remove the sentences about its self-declared goal and that it has a condensed version available in English? Surely this is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and is actually covered by WP:SPS:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Doug. I have such huge respect for you and feel a little odd disagreeing with you, but stating what they sell and using the site as a primary source is unduly self-serving.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't normally do that, but given the context of a debate over whether it is Islamaphobic it seems reasonable. But, as I said, I found a reliable source stating that they sold the mugs and t-shirts. In the context, I don't think it is self-serving, and certainly not as self-serving as the frequent use of an organisation's website as a source for the organisation's beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If the content is acceptable, then they are a good source for it. For example, a list of journals published by a society is good content; a list of t-shirt colors from a retailer is not. In the middle, of list of major product lines of a major company can certainly be sourced from their website-. What would be self-servicing is a list of product reviews, if used without any further search for one that might be less favorable. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

www.un.org

Hi,

I have two questions related to the United Nations website :

1. Is this a reliable source to provide geographical and political data regarding a country, such as its borders, its capital, its population, ... ?

2. At worse, in case of controversy on the matter (let's think about Western Sahara claimed by a lot of people), is not the UN's point of view one of the highest due:weight regarding the way wikipedia must display information ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this board rules you should give specific case where you want to use it and in what article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrike,

Well. I think it is more neutral if the case where it would be applied is not given but we may assume it is good for Western Sahara, Tibet, Israel/Palestine and South Ossetia/Georgia.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the website in question. The information you are seeking to find an answer to specifically and the articles you are edting that this is needed for. No assumptions please. If this is a broad and general question, it may not have an answer as we can't paint with a broad brush here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

eg this one.

But the reliability of a source should not be considered for a given point. It would mean it is examine a source case by case, which is no sense. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"un.org" has been accused of simply following whatever the Generral Assembly deems to be the truth on any given subject -- and is citable as the "UN published position". This is not necessarily exactly the same as "fact" unfortunately. Where disputes exist, the UN is known occasionally to "take sides" in territorial disputes, names of capital cities, etc. Collect (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for such a statement ? And why is "following whatever the GA deems to be the trunth" is not reliable ? Pluto2012 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually -- one of the perennial fights on Wikipedia is "Palestine/Israel Anything" and thus anything the UN prints relating to that topic (among others) is instantly going to be opposed by someone. Need more examples? Collect (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Although "going to be opposed by someone" is not the same thing as "unreliable". On the assumption that this is about I/P, the UN does not necessarily get the last word on matters of fact, but information stated in WP articles as fact which is inconsistent with information available from the UN should probably not be there. Pluto: if you think this discussion is likely to help then good luck, but I disagree. Formerip (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It is reliable for the opinions of the UN. That is not the same as being a reliable source of disputed "facts." For example - "is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" Would you use a UN publication as a source to make it a statement of "fact" to be placed in Wikipedia's voice? Collect (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, Collect, but, if so, all I can say is re-read what I said above. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How claims that what is on the UN website is unreliable ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would expect it to be a reliable (if rather unexciting) source for most topics. Is there some specific piece of content here, where editors have doubts about the validity of the UN as a source? bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power)

I am wondering if A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power) by J. Evetts Haley is a reliable source for an uncontroversial statement in John Douglas Kinser: "He owned Butler Park, located across the Colorado River in Austin.[2]" According to a September 1987 issue of Texas Monthly (a reliable source) discussing the book: 1) "It was the most controversial book ever written about a Texan, and although it fell quickly into obscurity, it became a cause célèbre of the 1964 election." 2) "At almost 7.5 million copies, A Texan Looks at Lyndon had become the best-selling book of any kind in the country and the most successful political book of all time." 3) It was self-published... "Haley says no publishing house would touch it". 4) Haley carried a vendetta against Johnson and "Historians today dismiss the polemic as a venomous propaganda piece..." I'm not sure how to reconcile this with WP:SPS. Given the book's relative notability, it this something that can be used in other sources, too? Should in-text attribution be required? -Location (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not using a notable source can give neutrality problems, and lead to us not reporting everything, but if a source is known to take an unusually strong position then we can attribute to it as a specific opinion, or even mention that it controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a neutral statement, the argument would have to be that the book is so irresponsible that nothing in it could be believed. This may well be the case. But, looking at the article, there are other aspects to the article even more disturbing: only 1 of the 5 references is by a reliable mainstream publisher, and a statement that the jury was stacked, and that a particular named person corrupted it, is attributed to a book by an author promulgating a JFK-LBJ conspiracy theory. The article is also self-contradictory: the first paragraph says his killer was convicted of first degree murder-the last says the tainted trial prevented conviction on that charge. Given the events described, neutral news sources should be available for it. Though the person is known only for having dated LBJ's sister and getting killed by a former boyfriend, there are political implications that might make him notable if they are reported by RSs. If better sources are not forthcoming, I will nominate it for AfD . (If any of the participants were still alive, I would already have deleted it as BLP) DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with all of this, and was merely making a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE. #1 and #4 stood out immediately as violating SPS, I thought there might be an exception on this one (due to the notability of the book and the "blandness" of the assertion), and I wasn't sure how to deal with the "Barnes and Noble" publishing reference in #3. Only #5 appears to be "reliable" for an attributed statement (but not enough to establish notability of the individual on its own). Location (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

SkyVector

Hi everyone. I have a concern over a SkyVector source on List of airports in the Okanagan, which I am planning to take to featured list status. A peer reviewer suggested that SkyVector could be unreliable, and I am now questioning this noticeboard. I personally do believe it is reliable, but, again, am not exactly certain. I was hoping that the reliable sources noticeboard could help me on this. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBrandley 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think they're a reliable source? According to the site's About page, "SkyVector.com was founded in 2005 by a web developer who was learning to fly." Anyone can create a web site. It seems like an WP:SPS to me. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did, however, find a favorable article in Flying Magazine[1]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

cuban-exile.com

Is http://cuban-exile.com/ a reliable source for material in Operation 40? More specifically:

1. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0034.html is a reliable source for "A letter dated 8 February 1961 signed by Felipe Rodriguez of the CIA, lists the leaders and men of "la COMPANIA DE INTELIGENCIA Y RECONOCIMIENTO (Operacion-40)". This letter also has names and information as to member status of death, prison, of various Bay of Pigs Invasion participants. (Letter obtained from Brigade 2506 Headquarters.)[5]"?
2. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0035.html a reliable source for "Among the names listed are: [snip].[6]"? I have omitted a lengthy list of names due to potential BLP issues.
3. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0042.html a reliable source for "Other members are reported on the freighter Lake Charles that retreated without landing any attackers.[9]"?
4. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_351-375/doc0355.html a reliable source for "In a 9 June 1961 memorandum[10] to Richard Goodwin, historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote: "Sam Halper, who has been the New York Times correspondent in Havana and more recently in Miami, came to see me last week. He has excellent contracts among the Cuban exiles.... Halper says that CIA set up something called Operation 40 under the direction of a man named (as he recalled) Captain Luis Sanjenis, who was also chief of intelligence.... But the CIA agent in charge, a man known as Felix, trained the members of the group in methods of third degree interrogation, torture and general terrorism. The liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40 was to 'kill Communists' and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right wing dictatorship, presumably under Manuel Artime.... The exiles believe that all these things had CIA approval.... Nice fellows."?

Thanks! Location (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No as its an advocacy website which admits to cherry picking the documents it's posted to further its campaign (from http://cuban-exile.com/menu1/purpose.html "One purpose of the Cuban Information Archives is to provide primary source materials pertaining to Cuban Exile activities as they pertain to their struggle to wrestle Cuba from Fidel Castro ... The documents presented here are overwhelmingly anti-Castro related ... The need for anti-Castro propaganda and the misunderstandings between Cubans and the U.S. authorities can be seen in DOCUMENT 032 ."). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume this would fall under the Questionable sources clause of the WP:RS guideline. Off-topic but related to this, I've seen conspiracy-related websites post government documents released under Freedom of Information Act (United States) in an attempt to support various contentions. Do you happen to know of any other relevant guidelines that address the posting of government documents (information that is generally accurate) by dubious sources? Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That website is not reliable for such claims, and drawing such claims from primary sources (even primary sources from a reliable archive) would be unacceptable Original research. Please have a look at WP:HISTRS for how you should write historical articles from sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Location (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fragment view" in Google Books for short statements of fact

Someone objected to these sources in Astronomical naming conventions (I have added more sources):

A comet is named after up to its first independent discoverers, up to a maximum of three names, separated by hyphens.

References

• Comet 105P/Singer Brewster, discovered by Stephen Singer-Brewster, should by rights have been named "105P/Singer-Brewster", but this would have led most readers to believe it had been a joint discovery by two astronomers named Singer and Brewster, respectively, so the hyphen was replaced by a space.

References

I believe that they are adequate to source these short statements of fact. I coaxed these texts out of Google Books after many efforts. I can't find out the author and article title for some of these refs, but they are from journals and books that are reliable in the field of astronomy. Anyone willing to spend a few bucks can verify all the references.

They are not isolated sentences, I have fuller quotes in a list that I have been compiling for months, and all sources support these statements.

Should I remove the refs where I can only see fragments, or can they stay? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My objection was to the "title unknown" citations, especially the one with the made-up journal name "The Strolling astronomer" and no URL link. And why do we need these multiple sources for statement of fact that's largely irrelevant to our naming conventions? Your edit summary seemed to be trying to justify the cite as being copied from article space, but you had just added it there, too, where I removed it with similar objection. I just noticed that my questioned revert was in article space; I was thinking I was editing a page on WP naming conventions, which is not the case; in any case, my objections are the same. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fragments aren't sources. If you haven't read the source, you can't quote it. And the source is the minimal unit of comprehensive communication (the chapter, section, article, pamphlet). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly the case though, since we do permit the use of archive services such as Wayback Machine and Highbeam. The question I suppose is whether Google snippets provides a valid archive utility? I see no reason to oppose it, since the use of Google Books preview is common, and the Google snippets seems to be an extension of that service i.e. it does seem to provide an accurate reproduction of the text. In the case of the "unknown title" source, ultimately Google snippets does provide enough bibliographic details (journal name, volume, year, publisher, and even a page number) to verify the RS status of the source and the veracity of the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the veracity is not so much at issue. We just don't need extra flaky cites for info that's already cited in accessible sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the archive is not preserving the text in full invariant and complete it isn't an archive and you haven't read the source. Fragments are never acceptable as original research is required to interpret their meaning. Snippets are not texts Betty. They are incoherent ramblings of a capitalistic search engine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Books Preview doesn't preserve the text in its entirety either, which is in prolific usage on Wikipedia, so common practice doesn't seem to require the full text to be verifiable. I don't have strong views either way, but I don't see why the snippets should be treated differently to other partial archives. They should be treated consistently. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The consistent treatment is that if you haven't read the work in full, don't cite it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if every book reference is attributed to a book the editor had read in its entirety. I think the key point here is that there needs to be enough context to be reasonably sure that the claim is supported by the source. Reading the whole book may be a good idea if you are quoting someone on climate change, but perhaps not necessary if you want last week's football score. I work on the snooker articles a lot and have a huge almanac of 80 years worth of scores at my disposal; however, if I want a particular score of a particular match I just look up the match, and a snippet of that book would serve the same purpose provided it were an accurate archive. The nature of the claim often places different demands on a source, so while I wouldn't go ahead and say you can use partial archives for everything, I don't think they should automatically be discounted either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't read it in its entirety you shouldn't cite it: basic principle. Obviously it doesn't apply to reference books. I could source an etymology to an etymological dictionary, but I haven't read the whole dictionary. Your snooker example is like that. In the astronomy case, cites should be to real documents, not fragments. If you know the document's contents well enough, cite it, if you don't, don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The full work in an otherwise citeable reference work is the article or item, "The" Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Ed.; Janedaughter, Robert, "Cult Agricultural Economics," Historian's dictionary of the American–Vietnam War AGE Scholarly Encyclopaedia; Brianson, Susan, "Object #445930a" Online Astronomers Compendium of Scholarly Star Observations; "Random versus Nobody (1997)" The Authoritative Dictionary of Men Punching Other Men For Money Boxing's Best Press. Correspondingly the article in a journal or newspaper, the chapter is a collection of chapters or coherently organised chapters of a single author book of considerable length. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see the sense of at the very least having access to, skimming, and spot checking the majority of the source, in order to avoid citing a (long) embedded quote of somebody other than the author, a "bad example" example, or counterargument out of context. I've run into that sort of unintentionally bad source use before. And don't cite a source where full attribution (actual title, author, publication, page, publisher) is not available, because that rather badly impairs verification. Enric have you already tried Questia and (via library online) Ebsco and other whole-text book resources? Or WP:RX?
  As an aside: "Read it in full or don't cite it" - whose "basic principle" is that? Where did that notion came from? It's not in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Citing sources or WP:REFB. It seems nuggety enough to merit its own shortcut. Do tell (rests chin on palm). --Lexein (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Read it in full or don't cite it" is a basic principle of research, and has been repeatedly referred to in the past regarding snippets on RS/N? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked, and it doesn't answer my question. Anybody else? --Lexein (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --Jayron32 00:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool - doesn't say I have to read the whole source in full, thankfully. Whew. --Lexein (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NOR? Sources must "directly support the material being presented". If the snippet is too small, and the context is not clear, you might run into one of the problems listed by Lexein. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeking strictness here; I often look things up in books via Google books and cite them even though I can't always see all the pages. But making up a journal name and citing a snippet is silly. All the more so because his reason for doing so is to drag a dispute from WP space into article space, by piling on the evidence about the IAU calling for hyphens in official comet names, which is not really the disputed part of the dispute anyway... Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that using a source that does not have all the information seems odd....it isn't against policy as other editors can fill in the missing info. I will say that Betty Logan is right. Google snippets are acceptable as they (and Google previews) are only presented as a convenience and are not the actual source. If an editor admits that they only found a snippet and are using it it, as long as the snippet is enough to show the relevence there is not real issue. What would be an issue is if the snippet clearly does not support the claim. Then one would need to be clear that the snippet itself does not support the claim...and here is the odd part...if you don't have the source yourself...how can you claim the actual source doesn't?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the abstract for one of the quotes [2]. Now I know the author and title of the article, and I have most of page 116. But I still don't have access to the full article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: as per WP:VERIFY and in particular WP:NOENG, I suggest it would be a reasonable courtesy to provide links to English search results on English Wikipedia. Three ([3], [4] and [5]) of the six references originally provided in this section result from searches within the Spanish language version of Google Books. Would the original poster consider using the Google Books citation tool to both Anglicise the URL and, as an added benefit, provide citation consistency? --Senra (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I fixed the URLs here, and now I'll fix the citations in the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not a scholarly work, and can use sources in a less formal way than a scholar would. Betty is probably correct that most of our books citations are to excepts in GBooks; this is actually an improvement over earlier years, when they were mostly based on someone seeing the title and thinking it would be relevant. Obviously one must be very careful with excerpts, because the context is often significant. There is a difference between when GBooks provides preview of full pages in a book, and when, as for in-print books from some publishers, only a single sentence is returned by the query. I would be very reluctant to use such sources--especially single sentences-- as the only basis for a controversial or negative part of a BLP. And, as said, when one does use GB as the source, the reference here should both give the bibliographic information on the original book, including the page number of the selection used, and a statement like (as seen on GoogleBooks, [link[) What makes GB even usable is it For some in copyrtright books from some publishers, it does not, and then I would be especially careful. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nazi claim on online talk show

Article on Johannes Letzmann currently claims that one was a "Nazi sympathizer". I removed the claim due to poor sourcing with the reason given on comment line. Historical overview about meteorology at Graz can be found here. Now the claim has been restored without much of explanation. I'll ask one who added the claim to provide exact context where the claim is taken from. Even if the claim is there on the talk show, this is likely a rumor related to the fact that Letzmann moved from Estonia to Germany during the time when Nazis were in charge, but escaping from war and having a job in a German university during that time yet doesn't make one a "Nazi sympathizer". I find this claim being a serious attack which can't be in a biography without a reliable source (where the claim was taken by one who mentioned it in a talk show) on Letzmann's political views. 88.196.241.249 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a clear understanding whether or not WeatherBrains is a reliable source nor do I feel like listening through a 98 minute podcast to find out who actually made the comment. Given the absence of sourcing elsewhere, the claim could likely be removed under WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. At the very least, a contentious claim from a single source should be attributed. Location (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk shows are RS for almost nothing at all. Including here. Collect (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited program is a weekly show hosted by meteorologists, led by James Spann. The guest, Harold E. Brooks (a prominent world expert on tornadoes), discusses European weather studies beginning at 46m30s, the Letzmann discussion begins around 47m35s and the Nazi references occur from 49m40s - 50m15s. Nikolai Dotzek, a German colleague of Brooks (now deceased), found the evidence when reviewing Letzmann's papers. It's a brief mention in the article of biographical information that is highly relevant to his postbellum career trajectory. Evolauxia (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the directions. Brooks says Dotzek went through Letzmann's papers and found that Letzmann was "probably a Nazi". Brooks did not offer any specifics as to what Dotzek found in those papers. Even if he did, I think more would be needed for a contentious claim made with second-hand information. Location (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just listened to it myself and come to the same conclusion. The second hand reporting by Brooks on what Dotzek noted would need much better sourcing to make this claim. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

However, if the facts of his career are documented with somewhat greater detail than the current article, the reader can draw his own conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Sage Journal a reliable source?

I am just checking to see if sage journals (http://online.sagepub.com/) is a reliable source?

From what I have read it seems to be a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals therefore I am assuming it is a credible source of information. Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, Sage is a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals that are likely to be RS for us. That doesn't exclude the possibility of questioning a particular journal or a particular article. Andrew Dalby 10:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I made a small edit to a page a few days ago and while i was reading threw the talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times. The odd thing is that diffrent editors appear to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times.

Most of the section was based on sage publications and I just wanted to see if sage was a credible source of information before I took any further action.

Thanks again for the quick reply--CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• In more detail: Journals vary. For any major publisher, the quality will vary. (A publisher friend whom I trust tell me that publishers often informally think of them as A , B, and C; myself, I'd add a D and an F.) Many SAGE journals in the social sciences are excellent or very good; the ones in other subjects vary quite widely--I would not make the same judgment as Andrew without specifying the subject field and the journal. The customary objective measure for a journal is impact factor as compared to other journals of the same type in the same subject, but it is a subtle measure with great limitations and needs to be applied with judgment. It needs to be used in conjunction with less objective factors, such as which selective indexes include it, extent of library holdings, whether it is the publication of a scientific society & just which society, reputation among experts, a check on just which journals and which authors cite it, quality of the authors, & quality of the editors, all of which are also complicated factors with limited validity requiring judgment.

You asked earlier about Springer , and their journal Current Dermatology Reports Many Springer journals are excellent,though relatively few are the leading journals in their subject. Many are mediocre, a few less than that. Current Dermatology Reports is new in 2012, and therefore does not yet have time to have built up a reputation or get an impact factor. I have a certain degree of skepticism about new journals in an established field where there are already many; as libraries can't afford the existing one, why make things more difficult without a very good purpose?

But more important, within any journal, quality of articles vary; even the best journals have a few articles that never get cited. Again, the only objective factor is citations of the individual article; again, this needs to be used together with less objective factors, such as reputation & affiliation & other publications of the authors, and expert judgment of the particular article's actual content.

And there's a common misunderstanding about Reliable Sources. There is a continuum between reliable and unreliable sources. No source is absolutely reliable for everything==they all have their purposes and consequently their limitations; no source is completely unreliable either--they all have a use for some purposes, if only to show popular misconceptions, or the fringe views of their author, or what their author wishes to have said. The presumption at WP is that any article in any peer-reviewed journal is a good source for any topic in its field, but this is not always the case for almost any journal, just as it is not the case for any other source. What articles in which journals do you wish to cite, and for what purpose? (as the instructions at the top of this page say, it is necessary to be specific.) DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's reliable, if only because from experience they have a 3-peer review of all submitted articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem described by CR.ROWAN (talk) is connected with the way Sage "publishes" journals online. I have come across similar deletions by editors stating, categorically, that what the reference said was not in the reference. It was, but they had only read the abstract, not the journal article itself. Sage (and other journal publishers) rarely make the whole article available free of charge online and frequently post just the abstract; if you want more you need to purchase or subscribe. Most university students (in the UK at least) will have institutional access via their libraries, but for mere mortals a payment will be required for full articles in almost all cases. It's worth checking back to see if this is the case. Remember that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not verifiablity online and for free. Emeraude (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

At issue is:

1. whether Mitchell Bard's credentials as follows, as well as his notability/accolades/recognitions as listed here meets WP:RS (note that, like many of that article's particularly political (Mideast Conflict) sources, he is often being cited as a biased source in accord with section 3.7 of WP:RS, in order to give both sides' political viewpoints, with the disputed source being firmly on 1 of those political "sides".) and other issues on the Talk page about whether publications from the AICE group he's related to are a self-pub source & if so, do his credentials make him exempt from the SPS rule for the reasons on the Talk page that are quotes pulled from the WP:RS rules, which allow recognized experts to be self-published? Please come and post your reasoning on the Talk page.

2. Feel free to also review the rest of that article's sources --and especially those @ the bottom of the page that I've called out-- for WP:RS also, if you have the time & interest.

3. Whether Nableezy or I violated edit-warring rules, given his 3 reverts & my 2 on 12/23-12/24, as shown on the History page. (pls also note: Nableezy was involved in another dispute with user cptnono commenting: "Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back...") I realize this an arbitration/behavior issue not specific to WP content, but the WP:RS dispute led to him making 3 reverts & me making 2.

JH Robbins 72.48.252.105 (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tagging of self-published sources

I stumble across various self-publishing companies such as Trafford Publishing and iUniverse quite frequently. In List of The X-Files episodes, is it appropriate to tag a Trafford book in the bibliography (i.e. Kessenich, Tom (2002). Examination. New York: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-55369-812-6.) with {{Self-published source}}? In Bohemian Grove, is it appropriate to tag an iUniverse book in the bibliography (i.e. Hanson, Mike. Bohemian Grove: Cult Of Conspiracy, iUniverse Inc, 2004) with {{Self-published source}}?

My tag of the former was reverted with the explanation: "while this is an accurate tag, i'm not seeing what its purpose is. unless the accuracy and validity of the source is being actively questioned why should we tag it with something?" My impression is that the tag is to alert other editors to material that does not have editor oversight and may not have been checked for accuracy and validity, and therefore may need to be eliminated or replaced with a better source. (I will invite the other editor here for feedback.) Location (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is valid to tag any book by Trafford or iUniverse with the tag, but the book may nonetheless be reliable, depending on the reputation of the author in that particular subject. In many sci-fi related fields, some experts self-publish. The same is true of many fields of popular culture and local history. This particular title is advertised as containing interviews with key figures in the series, which may be usable, and the authors own critical opinions, whose value depends on his reputation. That's something I cannot judge in this subject area. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag as it seemed to me like a cleanup tag (like {{dead link}} or {{refimprove}}) with no stated aim—it wasn't actually challenging any information as dubious or claiming the source was unreliable, in which case I'd have left it up and started discussion. To me it's just stating up front what the link to Trafford Publishing already does, that the book is an example of vanity publishing rather than having been printed by a more academic house. I think tagging these things without actually challenging them seems to say "this is wrong but not in any actionable or specific way", which is a route I'm not sure actually achieves anything. I'd be happy to work on finding a replacement source if the one in question is considered unreliable, I'm just not convinced of the merit of what seems at first blush to be an unactionable cleanup tag. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that I have no reason to challenge any particular piece of information, and in retrospect it does seem as though this particular author knows what he is talking about. I do think accepting SPSs can be problematic for many articles, though (i.e. see below). Location (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Thanks for the reply. Kessenich does claim to be "an award-winning reporter and author", so I think that would give him some credibility. In the case of many conspiracy writers, they have a reputation for being experts in various subject matter by other conspiracy writers so I'm wondering how that would be addressed. Location (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• The tag is ok, but comment in Talk that you're researching the author, and leave a hidden comment by the tag in the article to See Talk. It is worthwhile to investigate Hanson's and Kessenich's cv and reputation to determine reliability, as discussed in WP:RS. Have they authored other works? Articles in industry magazines? (sci-fi zines?) Works been reviewed in other RS (Kirkus reviews, NYT review of books, etc.)? Cited as authoritative by anyone (Google Scholar, etc.)?
• I've done this exercise for two sources while editing Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (search for "rationale"), discussed, and written rationales for their restricted use: Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC/Sources. Then, if the author is arguably reliable, I'd remove the tag, and replace with a "rationale" link to a page under the appropriate Wikiproject. --Lexein (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's some info about Kessenich link. While he is self-publishes, it seems that he has an editorial background and has experience in publishing news.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I've found some legit newspaper articles he wrote here and here, among others (he's wrote quite a few). So he is a published writer, and not just boasting on his book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Rasul Jafarian (Also Rasool, or Rasoul)

This is what I find as his short bio in an independent history related website:

Rasool Jafarian studied at the Hozeh Elmiyeh Qum[Islamic Cleric School] where he also received his PhD in 2005 in Islamic History. He is currently Director of the History Department of the Pazhooheshgahe Hozeh va Daneshgah institute in Qum and manager of the History of Iran and Islam Library in Qum. His research interests include the Shi'i world, the Safavid era and contemporary Iran. He has published extensively, including the following books: Tarikh Tashayoh Dar Iran (1997); Safaviyeh Dar Arseye Din, Siasat Va Farhang (2000); Maghalat Tarikh (13 volumes) (1997-2006).

When looking on Google Scholar, even though I do not find any papers published by him in English (perhaps because he does not know the language), I am able to see academic publications that cite his works: 1. (PhD thesis Michigan University: search for "jafarian") 2.(journal paper: click on "Download This Paper" ) 3. (journal paper: requires subscription, but his name appears in Google Scholar link provided earlier).

My question is whether I can refer to him as a scholar in matters related to Islamic/Iranian history, even though I know he is definitely a believer and for examples uses honorifics for religious figures.--User 99 119 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. The religious views of scholars should not affect the reliablity of their facts in academic writing. TFD (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

source at White privilege

There is a source being used at this article that appears contentious. It is published in what is, to all appearances, a peer-reviewed journal, though the article has a distinctly personal slant. It was initially tagged as self-published, though it is clearly not. I suppose the question is along the lines of, does the personal tone disqualify it as RS, or does the peer review process qualify it as such?

discussion is here

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly unusual for academic journals (of which this is clearly one) to publish what are, in effect, opinion articles written by experts in which they argue for their viewpoint on a topic. This article is explicitly presented as being an argument by the author (the first sentence of the abstract reads "This article represents my attempt to turn the gaze and demonstrate how Indigenous Studies is controlled in some Australian universities in ways that witness Indigenous peoples being further marginalised, denigrated and exploited."), and should be treated as such rather than as a work of disinterested scholarship. As such, it's a reliable source for material on the author's opinions but probably not much else. The author appears to be well qualified to comment on the topic and her views may warrant inclusion in the article, but they should be presented carefully. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dog-gonnit.com

Could you tell me if you feel [6] would be considered as a reliable source, please? It is used in Tamaskan dog which I recently nominated for deletion. I know most of the other refs used are not WP:RS as they are facebook, forums etc but I wanted to check before I make further comment about the article as I don't want to make myself look even more like the inexperienced idiot I most undoubtedly am! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS is a start. The site authored by "3dog" is clearly a self published source. The layout shows its an obvious key word stuffed SEO spam site. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Savage Love

The "Savage Love" article about Dan Savage's advice column has been expanded recently with material based entirely on Savage's writings. I think it is proper to require at least one WP:SECONDARY source per section so that minor points are not highlighted as major. There is some edit warring there—new eyes are indicated. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Are "poetic journals" a reliable source for encyclopedia articles?

The article Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.

My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.

Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past[7][8], and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material.[9]

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors of the Journal of Renga and Renku is an accountant.[10]. It's new and probably quite nice, but I don't see how it could be a reliable source. And she was an editor of SimplyHaiku.com also, which casts doubts on that one. I'm not sure what the third one is. The default for sources is not reliable, so I'd argue that it is unlikely that these are reliable and that to use them someone would have to make a good case that they are. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sources to not have to be scholarly. Published poets, particularly professional poets, writing on the history of poetry are a potentially usable source; certainly they are reliable for opinions in the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But what about when an accountant writes about Japanese literary history? Simply being a poet (or claiming that title for oneself) doesn't lend legitimacy to one's views an area that learned scholars have been researching for decades. Also, the views of non-notable poets (as defined by the GNG) really don't need to be given significant space in Wikipedia articles, I should think. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the point I was trying to make, obviously not well enough. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We then have to inquire why such a journal would publish an article by an accountant. Perhaps he is a recognized expert by the criteria of the editors of the journal. And obviously the reputation of any specific poet when writing about poetry is relevant also. Is the journal known for publishing what anyone sends it, or is it carefully edited for quality? [([Wallace Stevens]], for example, was a lawyer for an insurance firm, and preferred that position to a chair at Harvard.) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for that would seem to be that it's not an academic journal that puts emphasis on accuracy or reliability: it's an outlet for poets (professional and amateur) to publish their own original poetry. Additionally, it came up in the article in question, but are we allowed to say "In recent years ... renku have been written in French, Croatian, Swahili, etc. etc.", and include links to one renku each from said poetic journal as "sources"? This seems to me like it violates WP:NOR in its original assessment of primary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The journals are not apparently known for publishing articles by respected literary historians (they do on occasion print interviews and non-academic articles by scholars, though). However, they have also published similar material by hack authors like Jeffrey Woodward who only pretend to know what they are talking about but make embarrassing gaffes regularly. My main concern is that a few users have taken what were previously well-written but under-referenced articles about classical Japanese literature, and replaced much of the content with information about modern, apparently non-notable poetry in English. (I'm not sure if I should shut up about this, though, since the user primarily responsible for this has interacted with me negatively on Wikipedia before, and researching the background of these journals I think I accidentally found out the real-world identity of the user.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indie shuffle

Is [11] a reliable source for this BLP[12]. Thanks. Note that it is the only source in the article - maybe this guy isn't notable enough for us anyway. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here might be WP:NEWSBLOG in that the bottom of the page states "Indie Shuffle is a member of SPIN Music Group, a division of BUZZMEDIA." The statement within the Wikipedia article gives the impression that the album has received many notable, favorable views and I'm not convinced that one non-notable blogger's opinion is sufficient to support that... or the overall notability of the subject. Location (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources for Max Lugavere the person, however. Fast Company Vogue Italia. --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute.

Source: Australian head of state dispute - a well-sourced Wikipedia article.

Article: Head of state

Content:

There is an ongoing debate in Australia and in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch or the local viceregal representative—actually is the head of state.

Discussion: As the wikilink to the Australian head of state dispute article is provided, is there a requirement to also provide the many reliable sources in that article when referencing it in another article? An editor is removing this material, saying,:

1. There is no such dispute
2. not supported by attributed source
3. not RS

I see this as vandalism, given that the dispute exists and the statement is reliably sourced, albeit at one remove. --Pete (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you add a direct citation to support the material, which appears to be what Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) is asking for here. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, could you provide the wikipolicy for this exact situation? It's a simple matter of existence of something. I look at Tide and I see several mentions of Gravity, none of them sourced. We don't need to - Gravity is well sourced. If Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) says "there is no such dispute", when the wikilink demonstrates otherwise, I get the impression he hasn't clicked on the link, which is why I call "vandal". --Pete (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles. If there is a dispute over who was head of state of Australia or Canada, then it should be simple to use a source from that article to source the claim made in other articles. The specific policy is WP:RS. TFD (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Which section, precisely? --Pete (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with TFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, please don't falsely state an agreement was reached here, as you did in your restoration edit & edit summary at Head of state. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised the subject here. Two editors suggested I add a source to the para. You concurred with TFD's advice. I complied with the advice tendered as per my request. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, a Wikipedia article can not be used as a source. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be using the Wikipedia article as a "source" so the use of wikilinking to extant articles is proper, and is not a violation of WP:RS. [13] National Geographic is RS for QE II as "chief odf state". As is the CIA world factbook [14] . in fact, every source I found says QE II usChief of State of Australia. [15] Encyclopedia of World Consitutions states succinctly The queen or the king, acting through the representative the governor-general, is the Australian head of state. BTW, I noited the "Duke of Normandy" excursion on the article talk page -- the custom for many hundreds of years is that the toast is to the most closely related title to the place where the toast is made. On the Isle of Man, the customary toast, indeed, is to "The Lord of Mann, Queen Elizabeth II". If no name is given, then the toast is just to "The Lord of Mann." Ditto in Lancaster (explained to me in depth there, as a matter of fact) and in the Channel Islands (told to me by a Jersey resident). This does not make the local title "higher", nor does it remove the title "Queen" where the name is given, it simply states that the monarch has a peculaiar and direct connection to that place. Pre-WW II, if one were in India, one might toast the "Emperor of India, King George VI", because that was the closest direct title he had in India. In London, one would not toast "The Emperor" because that was not his closest title to the place where the toast was given. Simple explanation to the weird discourse there. Collect (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Which version should stand? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a debate over whether the Queen or GG is Australia's head of state; the Queen technically holds the job, but the GG has always enacted essentially all of its functions and the Queen has (apparently) made it very clear that she'd only over-ride their actions in an extreme situation (for instance, in 1975 she chose to not act when the GG sacked the government on dubious grounds). As such, there's a long running debate among Australian political scientists and the like over who should actually be considered the head of state, regardless of what's specified in the Constitution. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Officially - HRH QE II is "head of state" for Australia - and by her own decision she assigns the functions of "head of state" to the GG - but that does not mean that she is not "head of state" as a "defined office". "Plenipotentiary" is a neat word. Collect (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But which is correct at Head of state? Skyring's version or the version pushed by myself & others? We need more participation there. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the dispute is admirably sourced. Perhaps discussion as to the dispute, rather than the sources, could be taken to the article talk page? --Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to establish that it is reasonable to identify the Head of State of Australia as Queen Elizabeth II, but that there is reasonable grounds to also mention the ongoing argument on the topic and to include a link to the Australian head of state dispute article. That would be giving both sides of the argument reasonable coverage wouldn't it? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the sources Collect cites, Elizabeth II is the head of state as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Reliable sources seem to exist that say there is a dispute about this (the sources are here: Australian head of state dispute), it should then be assessed what's the relative weight of these "dispute" sources to determine the weight given to the dispute. If the dispute sources are marginal in the grand scheme of things, the queen should be mentioned as head of state with at most a tiny mention in the article body that links to the dispute page. --Dailycare (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ancestry24.com

Hi! I'm wondering whether this page[16] (or, more specifically, this one[17]) meets reliable sources criteria. It is used in a BLP (Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Ancestry) and I don't think it qualifies as reliable (not to mention the fact that the content it supports is trivial). Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We actually have a stub article on it: Ancestry24. I can't find many other sources relying on it. It seems to be mostly the project of one person, Heather MacAlister,[18]. Now it has gotten a collaboration and favorable reports from The Witness (South African newspaper), [19], and MacAlister seems to have been a consultant for a genealogy TV program,[20] but unless we find more than that, I don't think it quite makes the bar for a BLP. Especially, as you write, since the content being supported is trivial - a family tree, when only the last person in the tree is notable. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Film Essay On The “Bullet Time” Scene In “The Matrix”

Would anyone consider this reliable?

http://scis.nova.edu/~rbuckley/Film%20Essay.pdf

It's been published under http://scis.nova.edu/ which is a well-known university, but I'm not sure if an essay in the university archive works. It's old, and I can find no way to access this from the root link of the university now. So I'm not sure if it's cited or peer-reviewed or anything of that. Can it be considered scholarly monograph? I wanna know if it's reliable. I only want to use one sentence in "The Matrix (film}" article:

"Linear interpolation was used to fill in any gaps of the still images to produce a fluent dynamic motion."

Any suggestion on how to archive the pdf , BTW?

Another source is http://www.sbc.ac.in/voice/bullet.htm

I'm using it for the same article. What I want to use is:

"To cope up with the problem of camera rigs, these stills are scanned and enhanced by computers to get a real time view of the scene. The computer generated "lead in" and "lead out" slides are filled in between frames in sequence to get an illusion of orbiting the scene. This method of enhancing the bullet time is called interpolation." Anthonydraco (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me both sources are reliable, the first is a book written by an academic and second source has the editorial board.As I understand the policy, you can cite both to the content.Justice007 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll use them then. :D Anthonydraco (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

the first source is totally unreliable

it's a term paper in a university class and nothing more. That it is deposited in the university archive means nothing whatever; that is not a standard of either adequate peer review, or any other discrimination or statement of quality. How this can be called a book I do not know--if it were a book by a member of the faculty we'd accept it, but we do not accept student term papers. The second item is a magazine article in an Indian film magazine--I do not know the magazines quality, but it appears to be responsibly edited, so it would do. DGG ( talk ) 03

59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Anvil

Is this a good source for the new member's name? Cause many sites say they're now a four piece but don't mention the member's name, but here it does.

"Sunday October 21, 2012 we play our first ever live show as a 4 piece. It is with great honor we welcome our new comrade, Sos to the fold for this special ritual."

The only other places I can find his name is their twitter page and facebook, but those aren't allowed as sources. But I don't know if I'm allowed to put the name on the member list instead and NOT mention in the body. I have no idea. Because I must put his name there but there's barely sources, this is the only one which quotes the band.

BlastBeat4 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In most instances*, the band's official website would be a reliable source for the names of the members of the band (and if the band has an official twitter feed, twits on their feed about who is in the band would also generally be reliable for that particular claim). *if however, the site is making extraordinary claims (such as naming Bill Clinton as their drummer - we all know he would be the sax player), or if the band is in a contested break-up, then the official site would not be a reliable source for such a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Theses

Hi there, I want to write an article on a Mexican religious group called El Buen Pastor(The Good Shepherd). However, most sources only mention this group in the context of it's "parent" church La Luz del Mundo, from which El Buen Pastor broke off in 1942. I have found two sources which provide value information on the group, but they are both theses. The first is a dissertation by historian Jason Dormady, "Not just a better Mexico" : intentional religious community and the Mexican state, 1940-1964.[21] Dormady later wrote a book titled Primitive Revolution : restorationist religion and the idea of the Mexican Revolution, 1940-1968[22] which closely resembles his thesis, but omits this information, perhaps because it was irrelevant (nonetheless valuable). The other is a tesis de licenciatura (bachelor's thesis) titled Catolicismo y evangelio al este del estado de Puebla[23] by Sergio Luis Contreras. This thesis provides excerpts from El Buen Pastor's official history, and one of the thesis adviser's Elio Masferrer Kan is (in my opinion) an authority in the field. The director Carlos Garma Navarro is also (in my opinion) an expert in the field. Dormady uses La Luz del Mundo and independent sources to describe the schism that took place in 1942, while Contreras uses El Buen Pastor and independent sources. Using both Dormady and Contreras would ensure a high level of neutrality on such a sensitive topic.

My question is therefore: can I use these two sources in the article I want to create? I believe El Buen Pastor church meets minimum notability requirements. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If the only sources you can find are a Bachelor's thesis and a dissertation, I would be a bit hesitant to go forward. In the La Luz del Mundo there's a section on the 1942 schism already. Do you think you would have a lot of material to add that couldn't fit within the parent article? TheBlueCanoe 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We have in the past usually accepted doctoral theses. I would be reluctant personally to accept those at a lower level, but we have sometimes done so,especially Master's theses for topics that tend not to be covered elsewhere, such as local history. A bachelor's thesis would depend on the reputation of the school and the advisor. From the information you provide, I'd consider both sources acceptable for the purposes you suggest, DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find better sources I decided to inquire about this. I was planning to write about El Buen Pastor's beliefs and practices, but perhaps it is too soon to write an article for this. I guess I'll try to add relevant information from other sources to the parent article. Thank you both for your assistance. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I just noticed Dormady does include some details in his book, I'll try to add material from there into the La Luz del Mundo article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS applies for Christian Science healing?

Does (or how does) WP:MEDRS apply to claims and reports of healing achieved through Christian Science practices?

I have raised a query [24] on the talk page concerning this.

The para in question is here (result of multiple edits over time):

Although the church and its founder make these statements, in the United States, it is the individual's choice what type of care he or she may undergo. Some members deviate from this advice, and the negative outcomes regarding children can be found in the media. Despite negative outcomes due to deviation, any total is still far below[original research?] that of some medical alternatives (prescribed drugs) which are considered some of the deadliest[52]. Defending the record of Christian Science, Robert Peel questions the claim by the medical establishment to be the exclusive authority on healing. He writes that "nosocomial illness – an umbrella term for a whole catalogue of infections acquired inside the hospital – has proved fatal to some patients who entered the hospital for treatment for a very minor ailment."[53] Peel cites a 1978 estimation that of "32 million persons admitted to American hospitals each year, about 1.5 million develop some kind of nosocomial infection, and 15,000 die of it."[54] (See also Iatrogenesis.)

The sources in question are:

• Weiss, Rick. "Prescribed Drugs' Toll Is Among Deadliest". Washington Post. Retrieved 27 December 2012.[25]
• Robert Peel, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987, p. 24

I appreciate there is a difference between relating historical reports of spiritual/miraculous healing, and making statements about medical efficacy — the query is more how that line is drawn, particularly in regard to sources used, for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Context Problems, Misuse of Reliable Sources, Disruptive Editing, Biased Sources in article on Christian Science

More eyes are needed to bring Common Sense [[26]] to the article on Christian Science. There is plenty in every section of the Talk Pages to indicate what is happening. In my view, 3O is not being heeded, and emerging consensus is being ignored. I am of the opinion that disruptive editing has been a recurring problem in this article. I read here that Wikipedia articles on religion draw partly from the sacred texts of that religion, as well as reliable secondary sources. I also read that the reliability of a source depends on context. I am finding that the most reliable sources have been misused in the article, and discussion in the talk pages about that seem to be disregarded. Particularly these sections of the Talk Pages to start. [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]]

If one looks into the footnotes of so-called "reliable sources", it is obvious that the those sources hold a biased opinion of Christian Science medically, theologically, scientifically. A balanced viewpoint should emerge, but a biased viewpoint should not be coming through in Wikipedia's voice, which it is in this article. Sources which accurately describe Christian Science have been objected to by several editors, and reliable sources have been used out of context. Friends whom I have sent to the Talk Pages (who are not Christian Scientists) have remarked that it isn't right what is happening with this article.

There are too many instances in the article of what I am describing to focus on specific instances. What I am hoping for is for someone to go in and take an overview of what has happened. If there is a better place for me to post this, I am open to advice from someone outside of the present discussion: LeviTee (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ray McDermott & Ida Oberman article "Racism and Waldorf Education"

This article is available from two sources: WaldorfCritics.org and WaldorfLibrary.org

I think it would be an excellent source for use in Waldorf education, specifically in the section Waldorf education#Racism controversy. However this article and particularly this aspect of the subject is highly contentious so I want an opinion on the suitability of this source before using it in the article. In particular I am concerned that the article is not (that I can find) published by an academic publisher but is hosted on highly partisan websites (although the sites in question are on opposite sides of the pro- v. anti-Steiner controversy). The article is, however, an addendum to a paper the authors published (with other collaborators) in a more relaible source (Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02354381 (I don't know how to make that into a link here)) and (as discussed in the article itself) this article was in an earlier draft intended to be incorporated into that main paper. The main paper itself is already cited as a source in the WP article.

To use this source I would introduce it in the context of the main study conducted by McDermott et al into the Milwaukee school and say something like:

McDermott and Oberman discuss Steiner's teachings that humans fall into different races with different places in the evolution of consciousness and different mental and spiritual abilities; cite a study showing that many followers of Steiner consider him infallible; report observing a display of racist attitudes from representatives of the international Waldorf community; express concern about the possible prevalence of racist attitudes amongst some Steiner-Waldorf teachers; and urge the Waldorf movement to tackle racist issues in Steiner's teachings.

However the authors also report that the Milwaukee school they observed (and produced their main report on) not only did not display racism but was actively confronting racism (which they also credit Waldorf educators in Black townships in South Africa with doing) and cite with approval efforts within the anthroposophy and Waldorf communities to confront and reject racism.

John Stumbles (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A DOI can be turned into a resolvable URI by prepending http://dx.doi.org/ to the DOI, so your link would be [31] - however, this does not seem to work - so something is wrong somewhere.

I have (for my sins) been editing the Waldorf education article for a few weeks. Bear in mind the article is on probation and subject to an Arbitration Committee ruling, so care is advised when venturing into controversial areas. In my view, the two sources you mention, being from anti-Waldorf and pro-Waldorf sites, simply will not do — especially for a topic as contentious as racism.

I believe there is some peer-reviewed work by Peter Staudenmaier on the topic, which might prove more fruitful. However, in my personal view the BBC News report currently included in the article is enough on this topic, which is not a very meaty one anyway, and has become a battlefield for pro- and anti- campaigners. I think having much more on racism in this article might run a risk of being WP:UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

EA WorldView

In Talk:James H. Fetzer, an editor wants to know if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html is a reliable source for James Fetzer's views regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WWWJDIC?

The article Kuroneko currently cites Jim Breen's dictionary[32] as a source for the meaning of a phrase in the Japanese title. Reliable sources don't translate the title (the English title is a shortening of the Japanese title Yabu no naka no kuroneko), but WP:NCFILM says we should provide a translation anyway. The title has two meanings in Japanese, a literal one, and a figurative one that is overwhelmingly more common, but that is not the issue here.

It was mentioned that WWWJDIC might be WP:USERG, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Jim Breen is a recognized expert in Japanese language studies, and his dictionary is one of the most widely-used J-E dictionaries. His website is also his official homepage as a Research Fellow of Monash University. The dictionary also claims to be copyright the "Electronic Dictionary Research and Development Group".

What does everyone else think about this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on this project: The WWWJDIC dictionary is based on the underlying jmdict dictionary. This consists of entries submitted by users as well as entries made by the above-mentioned JW Breen. Entries are currently reviewed by a "team" of editors including JW Breen. None of the current reviewers are native speakers of Japanese. The dictionary has been in creation since 1990. Current entries supposedly are reviewed and require references, but many of the older entries were added unreviewed/unreferenced. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Further clarification: I went to WWWJDIC as my source for this because WP:NONENG says that English-language sources are preferred to non-English language ones, and because JoshuSasori has indicated elsewhere that he doesn't speak Japanese. The same information can be found easily in Kōjien or Daijisen, but a good J-E dictionary seemed better. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 you are hilarious. I've never indicated that I do or do not speak Japanese, but inspection of the edit histories of Kaneto Shindo and Yasujiro Ozu should clue you up. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Japanese ability is entirely beside the point, but you indicated that you don't understand Hepburn romanization or Japanese long-vowels when you stated that you had "NO IDEA"[33] where the idea of spelling Japanese people's names with macrons came from. Anyway, whether it is you or some other reader, some Wikipedians don't understand Japanese, and so English-language sources are generally preferable to Japanese ones. Although maybe not when providing etymologies of words. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The operating project, EDRDG, is run by Monash University, a reputable Australian university, and primary author/maintainer Jim Breen is not only notable enough to have his own WP page, he's a Senior Research Fellow at Monash's Japanese Studies Centre and his scholarly work (incl. much about WWWJDIC) has been published extensively in reliable sources. The dictionary and its predecessors JDIC and EDICT have been actively worked on since 1991. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database, and WWWJDIC is described as "reliable and close to comprehensive" by sources like the Japan Times.

All that said, sources like Kōjien are still a step above WWWJDIC in authoritativeness, but for anything even vaguely modern or slangy WWWJDIC's quite often as good as it gets. Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. - not ridiculous, no. The Jmdict dictionary (used to be EDICT) is generated from content submitted by users, so in the normal English sense it is "user generated content". Whether to apply WP:USERG is the discussion we should have here. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database - probably Kanjidic, not EDICT. reliable and close to comprehensible - LOL, I think you meant "comprehensive". Anyway I am sure you mean well, but Wikipedia may be reliable and it is certainly close to comprehensive, but Wikipedia isn't a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's own standards. Do you want WWWJDIC to be able to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? That is the problem. If I submit an entry to WWWJDIC tomorrow then it will change what it says for a particular entry next week. Thus I believe the cautions of WP:USERG apply. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not comparable to Wikipedia. Yes, WWWJDIC takes contributions from the public, but they don't just show up automatically, there's a professional editorial process for approving any changes. See [34]: "Incoming entries are all checked", and that's not WP-style random peer review, but actual editorial review.

Also, your point about changeability is a red herring: any page on the Web can be changed at any time without notice, and that's what tools like WebCite are for. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The WWWJDIC can be considered a user-generated site. It states plainly: Users of WWWJDIC are welcome to submit amendments to the dictionary files, and also to submit new entries. I have submitted new words & definitions, and I have submitted additional definitions or pronunciations to existing words or kanji. That said, the provider is supposed to add a reference that can verify the new word/definition, and new definitions are annotated if they have not been confirmed by Jim Breen (or his staff, I suppose). So, user generated, but also based on established dictionaries, and also I believe quite respected among Japanophiles. Concur with User:Jpatokal. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the review/reference/multiple editor system is a recent improvement. The bulk of entries were submitted before any review/reference/etc. system was put into place. There are errors being discovered in old entries all the time. I think caution should be exercised. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is not the same as whether it's correct or not. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that EDRDG consider a Wikipedia page to be a valid reference for dictionary entries. JoshuSasori (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to [35]? The only recommended references are various dictionaries, all they do is state that you can also "include" a WP article. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It also might be pointed out that the WWWJDIC-definition that JoshuSasori was continues to challenge was is yabu no naka (don't know how to link WWWJDIC entry but [36] is a carbon-copy), which virtually matches that of Kōjien and Daijisen. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this about dictionaries for translations to English from Japanese (and vice–versa), or is this about Japanese dictionaries of Japanese definitions of Japanese words? Confusion? Kōjien would be the best for the later. Kenkyūsha's would be the best for the former—that is again, for translations to English from Japanese. IMHO

WWWJDIC has to be used in context, evaluated for the specific WP statement it is put forward as a reliable source for and that specific part of WWWJDIC evaluated for reliability. WWWJDIC has itself many sources, and cannot be evaluated as one lump, as reliable or unreliable. Confusion? For one example for Buddhist words, WWWJDIC, set to its Buddhist dictionary setting, sources its entries directly from another source, the reliable, scholarly Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (DDB), which needs to be widely, often and well used as a source, in addition, when words have both superficial plain language meanings, and notable Buddhist more subtle, philosophical, meanings. ——--macropneuma 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's about WWWJDIC. The precise issue in the article is not under question here (it was resolved when I found a report on a lecture by a notable researcher at Hosei University that made the exact point I was making). Of course Kōjien is more reliable than WWWJIC in general, but when they include the same information, WP:NONENG says we should use an English source. Most J-E dictionaries do not give straight definitions of Japanese words/phrases, but rather list some possible translations. Being able to cite an English-language online source that gives a straight definition would be nice. Therefore, we are trying to establish (and hopefully set a precedent as to) whether WWWJDIC can be used as a source for Wikipedia in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Only sometimes, due to its mix of its own sources, reliable and unreliable—depending on the context of the statement it is put forward as a source for and on the context of the source WWWJDIC has itself used. Not in general as a blanket reliable source. ——--macropneuma 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But if entries, no matter where they are sourced, are reviewed by a panel of experts before being put online, mightn't that put WWWJDIC over the line into "reliable"? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the entries are reviewed by the panel. In the past i've put in a few test additional translation entries which changed the emphasis of a translation (then i removed them) and seen translations by other people under entries for words which i've done scholarly study of in my specialised, study field: 自然農法, which are not the best translations by any means—also obvious by reference to Kenkyūsha's and so on without even my special scholarly studies—and must not be used as reliable sources. It's a pity, and i think great Jim Breen will better the system to become much more robust in reliability, soon, or perhaps already has—since it's been a year or two ago for me.

I've used it as an ancillary source (as a second ref) after the first most reliable source (ref), eg. Kenkyūsha's. It is better to go to beyond WWWJDIC to its sources and reference those instead, eg. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and numerous others.

For EDICT (Jpn–Eng General) and the default setting of: "Special Text–glossing", which automatically and conveniently incorporates a decision tree choice of various DICTs, depending on your input text—including the often helpful ENAMDICT (person's names)—they are not blanket reliable in my 10+ years of experience using it and IMHO. For these, it is better to dig deeper by repeating the search.

First the most general search you want.

Then, if that was a composite "Special Text–glossing" or "Expanded Text–glossing" setting, then break up your text into sections according to the different dictionaries it has used to output the result.

Sequentially set it to each one of those dictionaries' individual settings and input each of those sections of your text;

for each of those dictionaries' results dig deeper into the history of the translation source within WWWJDIC, often per single words/compound words, as there are not so many long phrases whole translations.

Hence, is that specific translation a reliable source or not? If it was altered by a member of the public without in turn providing sources as basis, and without in turn then getting reviewed by the panel of experts, then no. If it is in turn based on a reliable source then ok. If it is a name ENAMDICT output when it should have decided to use EDICT to translate its meaning to English, then no, and then you have to take that text back as input to specifically set EDICT translation and then repeat the history check again.

When needed i've regularly done this specific checking of this source (each word/compound word) for reliability.

It sounds too complicated when written in description here, but it is not too complicated when we get used to it.

For quick edification, such as in WP talk posts, and quick checking one's memory recall, it's fine amongst others, such as my Mac's (free) built–in, great big Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus linked directly to the great big Shōgakukan (Daijisen±) E<–>J, Japanese and Japanese synonyms dictionaries. For editing here in WP the Mac Shōgakukan<–>Oxford is much more convenient than WWWJDIC. If someone (hasn't a Mac and) is lazy for all this WWWJDIC reliability checking, the most convenient and best sources would be to have: Kenkyūsha's and Kōjien, big hardcopies (or computer software) on one's own desk (or desktop). I wish I had, for even more reliable sources and more convenience. I have access to them in the Uni. library. I hope that helps people in general here. ——--macropneuma 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I might add for my summation, capsule, that in my humble 10+ years of on & off experiences with WWWJDIC, the emphasis of it is on the digital dictionary technologies, not so much emphasis on the highest standards of lexicographical scholarship, as certain dictionaries we've already mentioned above, and including we all know the Oxford English. This is emphasis, and no criticism of Jim Breen or WWWJDIC at all. i perceive, of course, that emphasis to be his purpose and emphasis too; so WWWJDIC is very well fit for its purpose (to me), and i think very fit for Jim Breen's purposes; which are not the same emphases as WP's most reliable sources, purposes. Why, we needn't be (emphasising) using a less reliable source, WWWJDIC, when we can use the widely acknowledged, most reliable, best, sources, we've cited above; and put the WP sourcing emphasis on those. There's no reason not to use WWWJDIC here when fit for the purpose, just not everywhere, generally, reliable. Thanks elvenscout742 & co., for me, at least, a stimulating discussion. ——--macropneuma 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Second last sentence added for to be sure. :) ——--macropneuma 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, irrelevant, false positive and reply.

I'd like to thank Macropneuma for explaining what I was trying to say much more clearly than I did. Thank you. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Let us not believe it—Your wider than this section WP actions, including disgusting conduct in my presence, odious personal attacks of me in Japan Project a few days ago, extraordinary ingratitude ..., breaches of policy and edit warring against my edits in talk page(s) and so on, show that is a false positive written here for ulterior motives, while all these disgusting actions have been going on until this minute on other pages. Put yourself on the outside and sycophancy will not work, does nothing for me, either. Only constant good faith, competence, humility, respect, maturity and honesty suffice. ——--macropneuma 14:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You can start by starting contrition—admitting when you're wrong (and in those cases, clearly, everyone sees that, already—and who can be bothered. Not ur mama!).

I'm not trying to imply finishing this discussion section, in my summation, capsule, above, just my version of my summation, so far, not closing off the section, and my little, genuine, thanks, i also learned certain key things. Anyone having more to say, please, i mean to be encouraging you, in good faith (&c.) ... . ——--macropneuma 15:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this discussion is supposed to conclude whether WWWJDIC is a Reliable Source(tm) or not. Allow me to posit the following two conclusions:

1) WWWJDIC is, generally speaking, a sufficiently reliable source and can be used as a reference for Wikipedia.

2) In case of controversy or doubt, the definitions in other Japanese dictionaries (eg. Kojien, DDB) are considered more accurate and are preferred over WWWJDIC.

In other words, we "assume good faith" for WWWJDIC, and fall back to non-English sources when in doubt. I'd like to work in some mention of preferring WWWJDIC's sources (eg. DDB) over WWWJDIC itself, but not quite sure how... Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lane / R. Andrew Kiel

Mark Lane is probably the first Warren Commission critic and one of many controversial figures in the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts. Lane's views are supported by many other critics and rejected by various debunkers who have called him "unscrupulous"[37]. A sentence in Mark Lane (author) states:

"After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment."

This is a close paraphrase of page 162 in "J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War" by R. Andrew Kiel who, from the little information I can find, "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio"[38] and has supported other conspiracy-oriented individuals[39].:

"After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission. He published a convincing indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the twenty-six volumes of the Commission's Report. Despite the fact that the majority of Mark Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well as from interviews from those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published."[40]

I have voiced a challenge to the word "ignore" in the above context in that it implies "intentional disregard", and have suggested that it be changed to either "not interviewed" or be attributed to the original author. Although there appears to be consensus for this change in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), one editor has insisted that it is a proper reflection of a statement of fact (per WP:YESPOV) and suggested that the issue be raised here. So...

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of fact that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?:

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of opinion attributed to Kiel that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?

Given the contentious nature of the claims made by Lane (and reiterated by Kiel), which choice of wording is appropriate?

Thanks! Location (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the details of your edits are separate from the issue of reliablility. This board should be concerned with the status of the book. As you say, the author is not an established expert and the publisher is at best not demonstrably in the "vanity" class [41]. It has already been pointed out by another editor that it is, as it were, on the borders [42]. Paul B (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors

Location claims that Press TV cannot be used to establish notability for Jim Fetzers outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint that the Sandy Hook massacre can be blamed on Israel. Press TV is the main and official news agency of Iran, and Veterans Today is an american-based website that also carries Press TV stories and its contributors, but thus also carries stories approved by the government of Iran. Both have been noted by ADL and Washington Post as carrying wildly anti-semitic anti-israel propoganda. It is hard to document Fetzer if WP disallows two of his most important outlets and source of supporters with similar viewpoints. Kourosh Ziabari was deleted because it was claimed that his many contributions to both outlets were not "notable", and a similar case is being made for Mark Dankof who similarly appear on Press TV and American anti-war websites. If these writers are acting as stealth propgandists for a hostile nation-state, it impossible to document them if they are to be deleted simply because they have been ignored by mainstream pro-Israel western media, yet heavily promoted by pro-Iranian pro-Palestine outlets. Redhanker (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I posted your concern in the thread immediately preceding this one. The issue is one of using reliable secondary sources for Fetzer's opinions versus primary source material. Location (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[Cross posted from Talk:James H. Fetzer for clarification.] The Veterans Today source explicitly states: "Posted by Jim Fetzer" at the top. Regarding the Press TV source, it is primary source material. On this, WP:BLPPRIMARY states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Per the discussion at WP:RSN, let's see if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html fits the requirement of a reliable secondary source. Location (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out to User:Redhanker who is trying to use Gilad Atzmon's opionion on a WP:BLP that he cannot promote a non-WP:RS source as WP:RS just because it supports his view on an issue. I've certainly seen all these sources deleted instantly when others tried to use them as critics of Israel. I have been waiting for him to respond on the Richard A. Falk article on his removal of an Atzmon quote about Falkf and wondering if I was going to have to bring this here, but I can see he already is here on the same issue. CarolMooreDC 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As well as Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Iran Press TV conspiracy theories. Location (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait til after the holidays to get NPOV 3rd party opinions on this. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a problem of sourcing, but of original research. I've commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wash. DC NGO reports and papers reliable 3P-sources?

Are the reports and other publications of established NGOs such as this Foundation for Middle East Peace RS? For example, he is a very short report consisting solely of statistical data settler demographics --Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The FMEP was already discussed in the board.Please search it in arthives.Editors didn't reached any consensus regarding the reliability of this advocacy organisation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt exactly accurate. The settlement stats are reliable and FMEP is often cited by other reliable sources. A collection of involved partisans sought to disqualify it, the same partisans that routinely cite such sources as terrorism-info.org.il or WINEP. It is a fine source to use, attribute it if some of those partisans give you any trouble. nableezy - 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that nableezy, I hadn't read the entire log of that discussion.

I will use that source and cite it, as you suggest. If someone has a specific objection based on facts, let them raise it.

Why is Shrike pointing to that discussion and saying it wasn't resolved?

I'll leave this quoted comment for others that haven't read it, at least it makes it clear that there was a consensus that it could be used, subject to challenge on a case-by-case basis, at the very least.

Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Sources aren't either reliable or not. It depends on what is being sourced. In this case, it looks like a reliable source for something like "in 1998, between 75 and 80 percent of settlers..." unless this is at variance with other sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Speech by UN Ambassodor- primary or secondary source?

Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [43] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [44].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That webpage is the webpage hosted on the UN website for the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the UN, and the article can be found under the link for NAM Statements By Malaysia.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

For what it's worth, I don't find the arguments for excluding this NAM/UN source based on its nature and notability at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source very compelling. The same arguments could probably be applied to many of the ~2236 links to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs currently in article space. Having said that, scholarly secondary sources are preferred and there's the settler colonial studies journal which has a number of articles that may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The question of WP:UNDUE is beyond scope of this board.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's the Non-Aligned Movement's analytic and evaluative claims about "the situation in the middle east, including the question of Palestine" based on whatever sources they used to come up with their assessment. So it seems like a secondary source to me, but even if you treat it as a primary because it's an official document, a statement by the NAM hosted on the UN site, I don't think there is a problem including material from it as long as it's "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". The source makes several statements about what NAM apparently regard as settler colonialism in the oPt but I'm not sure that the content in the diff that was added is what I would have sampled for the article, not that that is relevant to the RS question. It seems to be being used in a similar way to many of the thousands of instances of Israel's MFA. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone can demonstrate that this source is not authentic or is an inaccurate reproduction of this speech, I think that it's reliable as a primary source. Primary sources are allowed, although secondary sources are often preferred, especially when establishing weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Best source for reliability concerns

Regarding the following:

• The original article published by http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com: CIA Cover-up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.csmonitor.com: Ph.D says JFK asked CIA about UFOs
• Re-published by http://www.foxnews.com: CIA Cover-Up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.msnbc.msn.com Is that JFK memo to the CIA about UFOs real?

I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [45][46]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lifeslittlemysteries.com is the sister site of space.com which syndicates its stories to news outlets like CSM, Fox, and MSNBC. The real question that you have not answered in this notice is how the source will be used. In terms of best practice, I always use the original story, but many editors do not. Also, syndicated stories may not always be published in their original form. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The source discusses a theory put forward by a self-published author in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#NASA conspiracy, but it does appear to be properly attributed to distinguish opinion from fact. WP:WEIGHT may be an issue, but I have no specific challenge. I was wondering if it was better to use the original source, and it sounds like from your comment that the original source is reliable and OK to use. Location (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare the original article to the syndicated version on the major media sites. If you find a direct match (and you'll need to look carefully because often times the editor will remove or change entire paragraphs) then in this case, use the major media site. I'm recommending this because most people may not have heard of "lifeslittlemysteries.com" and if the entire, full version of the original piece can be found on a major media news site, then name recognition will avoid any arguments for removal in the future. Of course, you don't have to do this, I'm just trying to cover all of the bases. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

At the minimum, cite the reliable sources (such as Christian Science Monitor). If you still want to cite Lifeslittlemysteries.com, add a article page comment explaining why you used this cite. Include a link to this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Consumer Reports a reliable source?

In these two recent edits [47] [48] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage” [49]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source: Consumer Reports [50]

I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [51]. Puhlaa (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't say "the public," but you could give the percentage of "45,000 readers" who made the assertion. I will follow the rest of the discussion on the Talk Page of the article, which is at Talk:Chiropractic#Removal_of_sourced_info. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you're not allowed to editorialize. Reading the source and creating your own interpretation to reach a conclusion is original research. The source says ~45,651 or so readers responded, and of those 38% or so used chiropractic and 65% or so self reported as helpful. The public or even the sample population did NOT consider Chiropractic the most helpful. It's a aggregation of self-reported anecdotal evidnece. Even the article clearly reads " Respondents based their opinions on personal experience, so the results can't be compared with scientific clinical trials. And our results do not take into account the power of the placebo effect, the tendency of people to find even simulated or sham interventions helpful.". Read the Popular Press section in WP:MEDRS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no editorializing; the source found that ~65% of respondents that tried chiropractic said it helped; only ~50% of those who tried medication, yoga and pilates said it helped. Hence, the source concludes that "Chiropractic outperformed all other treatments and medication was equal to yoga and pilates." Moreover, the findings of the Consumer Reports survey are consistent with mainstream peer-reviewed research [52],[53] and [54], which also suggests chiropractors achieve high patient satisfaction. Further still, no sources have been presented that contradict these findings.Puhlaa (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Puhlaa "forgot" to mention that he is a chiropractor engaged in a revert war to keep the article on chiropractic sympathetic to his business interests. This is not the only source he has misrepresented, and reverted edits which remove the misrepresentation. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a reliability issue at all. Consumer Reports is a reliable source by any reading of the policy. The only thing here will be presentation in the article. I don't see how this is much different other things we use all the time. How many articles reference presidential approval ratings? How do those differ from this? So, in my mind, this doesn't really belong at RSN, but more at WP:NPOVN.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. CR is a reliable source for consumer opinion, consumer opinion is not a valid measure of validity, so to assert consumer reports as a source for validity, fails. That is what Puhlaa is trying to do, just one of many instances where he seeks ot present an idealised form of chiropractic that does not reflect the real world. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, in this specific case, it's about consumer opinion. CR, as a whole, often conducts their own testing and are considered a RS source and neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, though I would tend to draw an even more restrictive line. CR's annual survey is an online, voluntary survey open to all of their subscribers. It looks like they got roughly forty thousand responses, from a total circulation of about seven million people. There's going to be a significant amount of self-selection going on there, which may skew the outcome significantly. CR does not indicate any attempt to account or correct for this effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A question... From the comments above it seems that there have been some editors who call the Consumer Reports a reliable source for a discussion of consumer opinion; No editor has yet called Consumer Reports an unreliable source. If Consumer Reports is thus considered reliable according to WP:RS, it seems from the comments that the next step is then to assess the quality of this specific survey published by Consumer Reports to decide if it is good enough for inclusion in the article? There have been some editors who have criticized the methodology of this particular survey, or the way the results are presented by the source. My question is, does Wikipedia provide guidelines or policy on how we are to critically evaluate the quality of this specific survey, or the way these authors have presented their data, so that we can assess for bias that could disqualify this specific report from inclusion in the article? If not, how do we determine if the criticisms of this specific CR report presented above are enough to warrant exclusion of the specific Consumer Reports survey? Puhlaa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Reports is clearly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If there are flaws in CR's methodology, have these alleged flaws been covered by other reliable sources? If not, I would think that in-text attribution ("According to Consumer Reports....") should be sufficient. Readers can accept/reject CR's findings based on the reputation of the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone disputes that CR is a widely-known, widely-read, generally-reliable source for their in-house evaluations of products and services; their own opinions on products and services are often worth including in our articles. I would be much less confident in asserting that they are a known, respected, or necessarily competent surveyor of consumer opinion. A voluntary survey involving a very small, self-selected fraction of CR's subscriber base just doesn't scream 'reliable' to me. (Organizations which do professional opinion polling don't report raw data for self-selected populations—they strive to avoid, to detect, and/or to compensate for over- or under-sampling of particular demographics.) The same survey that Puhlaa is pushing here also found that chiropractic treatment "helped a lot" for 41% of people who tried it to treat their allergy symptoms, and for 47% of people who tried it to treat their cold and flu—which strikes me as something of a red flag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, they are a reliable surce. The whole hair splitting about consumer test vs polling organization is a dodge. What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight and neutrality, not about the reliability of the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift, The text in question, sourced to Consumer Reports, has been in the article for years. The original edit that removed this longstanding text from the article [55] said "This is just opinion" in the edit summary. I restored the text [56]; my edit summary indicated that the information was sourced and should not be deleted. I brought the discussion here because I was quickly reverted [57] and the edit summary told me to "please read MEDRS". Here I have multiple editors confirming it is a reliable source, but some criticizing the methodology of the survey and some 'dodging' the subject (as you indicated). When you say "What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight...", are you suggesting that I should take this to the NPOV noticeboard instead? I don't want to appear to be forum shopping, I feel that I have endured enough 'subtle' personal attacks just for challenging this deletion of sourced material. The editor that reverted my restoration of the longstanding text said "please read MEDRS", so forgive me if I seem confused as to what to do next. I am open to clear advice please. Puhlaa (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A self-selected survey doesn't really show you anything. If you took the question "Is Barack Obama a good president?", and posted up a web survey, you'd get very different results depending on if you posted your link to the survey on The Drudge Report vs. The Huffington Post. We'd generally exclude such results altogether. To actually be putting in numbers, you need scientific, double-blind studies, with patients who got "real" chiropractic treatment, vs. a placebo (something that would seem like chiropractic treatment but actually is not), and evaluate how many of the "actual" group vs. control group evaluate their treatment as effective. I don't know if such a study has been done, but that's the type of thing you're looking for with MEDRS. An anonymous, self-selected web survey isn't even close. Consumer Reports is great, and reliable on a lot of things, but not on this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Only 2% of respondents used Chiropractic treatment to treat an allergy, 41% of whom found it effective which is only about 1% off all respondents. This source obviously fulfills our verifiability policy. I get the feeling that this is more of a WP:NPOV/WP:IDONTLIKEIT dispute than an actual verifiability issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, the findings of this Consumer Reports survey are consistent with multiple peer-reviewed sources in mainstream medical journals that have also found Chiropractic care to rate higher than other back pain treatments for patient satisfaction [58], [59], and [60]. The results are also consistent with another Consumer Reports survey done a couple years earlier [61]. Moreover, no source has been found that contradicts any of these findings. IMO, this is not a discussion of treatment efficacy that needs double-blind RCTs to answer, but one of satisfaction with care, which seems to be well suited to survey analysis.Puhlaa (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

{od}A list of outdated primary sources doesn't carry much weight. Per wp:MEDRS, we look for peer-reviewed, current, secondary sources (ideally systematic reviews) as the best choice for medical assertions. The Consumer Reports piece is neither peer-reviewed nor secondary. If no comparable MEDRS existed, it might be of interest, but that is not the case. We have Cochrane systematic reviews such as PMID 21248591, PMID 20393942, PMID20640863. How could we justify the use of lower-quality primary sources to challenge them? Just being a reliable source isn't the point. We want the best available reliable sources. This doesn't come close. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

LeadSong Dog, you may be mistaken about the topic of the text and thus the relevance of the sources. The very well-known secondary sources from Cochrane that you list are all discussing the efficacy of spinal manipulation compared to other treatments. No sources discussed here ever contradict the current scientific consensus that spinal manipulation only achieves equal outcomes to other back pain treatments; no longstanding text that was deleted challenges this scientific consensus either. As I tried to clearly state above, this discussion is about the deletion of text discussing patient satisfaction from a section of the article entitled "Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage". In the absence of any secondary sources on the topic of patient satisfaction and the absence of any sources at all that contradict the above stated list of primary sources from mainstream medical journals, I think that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS make plenty of room for inclusion of this material. If you are aware of any secondary sources that deal with patient satisfaction, then they would indeed be the preferred sources to use, as you suggest. I am fairly familiar with this literature and am not aware of any secondary sources that discuss patient satisfaction, or any source at all that suggests chiropractic patients are not actually more satisfied with their back treatment than other patients. In the discussions of treatment efficacy in the article, under the section "Effectiveness" the Cochrane reviews you list definitely get the most weight!Puhlaa (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So what evidence do we have that the methodology used by CR is valid, if there is no secondary review? In any case, the CR article does not support the statement as put. It makes no assertion about "the public", it speaks about "respondents" or "of those who used [treatment x]". The explanatory "Guide to the charts" section says: "The red bars represent the proportion of readers using a treatment for a condition who said it “helped a lot.”" It does not address "satisfaction" and certainly does not address whether anyone "considered" chiropractic to outperform. We use secondary sources to do that sort of interpretation for us. If no secondary source thought the survey worth commenting upon, who are we to infer it to be significant? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

LeadSOngDog, based on the comments above, I don't know that editors here agree with your sentiment that we need a secondary source, which discusses the consumer reports survey methodology, in order to call Consumer Reports reliable. I am also not aware that it is a general standard that things must be covered by secondary sources to be included? The WP:MEDRS standard, as far as I am aware, says that no lower-quality sources can be used to contradict higher-quality sources and higher-quality sources are preferred when available. Also, I have asked for clarification above, but it seems that there are no policies in place to guide the assessment of individual reports from sources that are generally considered reliable. As CR seems to be generally considered reliable here, it is odd that editors keep bringing-up specific challenges of the methodology of this specific report? In response to your criticism of the wording used, at the respective chiropractic talk page, the original longstanding text that was deleted has been modified to now read: "A 2011 consumer report survey of 45,000 readers found that chiropractic outperformed all other available back and neck pain treatments." The text: "chiropractic outperformed all other treatments" is a direct quote from the source, the rest of the text has been added in attempts to adequately attribute and qualify the source to appease editors who don't like the methodology of this specific survey. Finally, there is another consumer reports source that asked subscribers directly about patient satisfaction [[62]]. It, like every other source that exists on the topic, found high satisfaction for chiropractic patients relative to all other forms of therapy. Would you be more content if we only included this older (2009) survey, and not the newer (2011) survey that uses the words "outperformed"? [[[User:Puhlaa|Puhlaa]] (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, not terribly useful, for much the same reason: the sampling methodology is not even stated, let alone peer-reviewed. Wikipedia does not need to include everything that anyone ever publishes on a topic, we can wait for someone to produce a useful source on this aspect. To be explicit though, much of what Consumer Reports publishes is reliable for some purposes, but not everything for all purposes. These popularity surveys don't cut it for several reasons, from the methodology on. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ma'an News

Ma'an News Agency is a wire service founded in 2005 and is located in the West Bank and Gaza. I would like advice on the reliability of its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as I noticed it was being used in Operation Pillar of Defense.

Ma'an's chief editor was described as "batshit insane" and liable to "spout[ing] out the craziest theories every once in a while" in emails published by Wikileaks, which it says are from the Stratfor Global Intelligence Company. The emails also described Ma'an's chief editor as a staunch supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and reported that he promised a group of Palestinians that they would liberate Jerusalem with military honour. Ma'an's English editor has clarified the objective of the organisation, writing on its website: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement...In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."

Ma'an has published repugnant antisemitic opinion pieces. This one, recently published, states that it is a historical fact that Jews are cowards, universally hated, a nation of conspirators, are worse than feeding vampires, and that the curse of God compels them to continue with their deceit and violence. An excerpt has been translated here.

Nor does it seem overly concerned over the accuracy of its news articles.

Ma'an provided a sanitised translation of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination, and published unchallenged outlandish claims, such as "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.

It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.

Ma'an queried whether the Itamar massacre was in fact perpetrated by Israelis and later reported that the IDF had arrested all the Thai workers inside the Itamar settlement in relation to the murders. No other regular news network ran with this story and the Jerusalem Post noted that Maan did not provide a source for this information. Ma'an then published an opinion piece reflecting on Maan's reliable reporting that it was in fact a foreign worker that had perpetrated the Itamar massacre and that this had stymied Israel's "planned international campaign". (Excerpt translated here.)

This was all bogus. The IDF had raided the West Bank town of Awata hours after the attack suspecting that the assailants had come from there. Itamar's mayor responded that the settlement did not even have any foreign workers. Two Palestinians were arrested for the Itamar murders and confessed to the murders. Their feats were praised on Palestinian TV.

Ma'an published a crazy conspiracy theory that Palestinians were being attacked by non indigenous pigs deliberately released by settlers into the Salfit area. The Ma'an article cited the report of the "Applied Research Institute" to substantiate these claims - yet, the organisation's report were quoting Ma'an's stories, so in effect, Ma'am were quoting themselves to support their own bizarre claims.

Finally, the way Ma'an and other established news organisations report events is often at odds.

• AFP - "The Israeli air force pounded targets in the northern Gaza Strip early on Wednesday, without causing casualties, following rocket fire on southern Israel, sources on both sides said. Palestinian security sources confirmed the strike had hit a training camp in Beit Lahiya which was used by militants from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the ruling Hamas movement."

Maan - "Israel launched an airstrike overnight Tuesday on the northern Gaza Strip, Ma'an's correspondent said. The strike targeted Beit Lahiya and caused material damage to several homes, with no injuries reported. Israel's army said it targeted a "terror tunnel in the northern Gaza Strip."

• Maan reports that "a man died... from injuries sustained in an Israeli attack". AP describe him as a "Gaza militant" killed in airstrikes "launched in retaliation for rocket fire from Gaza."

An editor has pointed out that Ma'an's stories have been cited by the BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Does this however confer reliability on Ma'an when it has not been cited by regular news networks?

Arutz Sheva, a pro-settler media organisation, has also been cited by the Guardian and the NYT. The Palestinian Media Watch has been cited by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Russia Today, Jyllands-Posten and the Sydney Morning Herald among a host of international media outlets. It has been cited by Hillary Clinton and PMW's director has addressed parliaments about its findings.

Yet, editors have generally refrained from using PMW in wikpedia's Israel-Palestine topics when it has not been cited by other media because of its slanted objective. Is this not similarly the case with Ma'an? Ankh.Morpork 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am similarly concerned about ma'an being used as a source at Operation Pillar of Defense. Note that there is no evidence that ma'an ever withdrew its claims that were contradicted by RS's. The lack of such acknowledgment is evidence that ma'an is unreliable. Another point worth mentining is that ma'an publishes diatribes not merely against Israel, but specifically against Jews. Many of the leading RS's cited in Operation Pillar of Defense carefully distinguish between actions by governments and actions by specific populations. Thus, rocket attacks emanating from Gaza are described as emanating from Hamas or other militants, rather than attributing them to populations. ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source of information at Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This entire post is predicated on a user wishing to remove one of the very few Palestinian sources used in an article replete with Israeli sources, including voice of the settlers Arutz Sheva. An attempt to distort these articles even further by denying any voice to Palestinians. How that is allowed is rather beyond me. Additionally, there is a BLP violation in the above by calling, on the basis of a leaked email by an employee at Stratfor, a living person "batshit insane".

But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC,^[63][64] the Guardian,^[65][66][67] al-Jazeera,^[68][69] and the New York Times.^[70][71][72] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.

Finally, I must object to the continued misuse of this board by AnkhMorpork. As can be seen in his past attempts to disqualify entire sources that just so happen to not be Zionist in tone (eg here), he is refusing to actually link to what is being used as a source and is instead seeking to remove from Wikipedia an entire news organization that just happens to be written by Palestinians. Just happens of course. If an op-ed being racist or otherwise objectionable is cause for not allowing news stories from the same outlet, then should Yedioth Ahronoth be removed because they hosted an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey.? Should the Jerusalem Post be disqualified because they printed an op-ed that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? Of course not. But that is the argument made here, that because an organization published a single persons opinion as a single persons opinion that is somehow objectionable that their news reports are unreliable. That is an asinine argument, but if it is accepted here then we'll have to go about deleting any ynet or jpost link on these pages as well.nableezy - 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here user:Nableezy is following the familiar pattern of changing the subject when things are not going his way. This is a discussion of ma'an, not Yedioth Ahronoth. Feel free to file a complaint against the latter but stick to the point: how can ma'an be called reliable when it systematically distorts the truth and apparently never corrects its misinformation? Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you have no opposition then to use Arutz Sheva INN?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Compare how the NYTimes treats the two. Arutz Sheva: Arutz Sheva, a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Maan: Maan, an independent Palestinian news agency. You think they treat them the same? I suppose Arutz Sheva can be used if you qualify it as representing the view of the settlers, but beyond that the comparison fails. nableezy - 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment by User:Nableezy above argues that Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". This is a questionable position (though perhaps one that accurately reflects the procedures at ma'an), and it misses the point. The point is that news sources need to be reliable in order to be cited in wiki. I object to User:Nableezy's attempt to change the subject to a discussion of "neutrality". I don't know how many "palestinian sources" there are, but I do note that User:Nableezy wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there. Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable should be barred at wiki regardless of whether there are few of them or many of them. User:Nableezy further seeks to discredit a fellow editor by accusing him of attempting to suppress "non-Zionist" sources. I object to this violation of WP:NPA by User:Nableezy. Tkuvho (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What? wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there? Where the hell are you getting that from? Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable????? Maan represents Hamas now? Says who? Provably unreliable? Says who? Please dont make things up and expect people to believe you. And dont lie about what I wish to do. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a source that supports Nazi-like anti-Jewish comments can be considered reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem with ma'an. Its antisemitic diatribes are amply illustrated in the translation sourced in the original post. As I mentioned above, the specific criterion of apparently never withdrawing false claims (namely, claims contradicted by RS's) also points toward ma'an's unreliability. Tkuvho (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not continue misrepresenting the situation. This isnt ANI, there is, or should be, an expectation that evidence be provided for your position. I know that is an uncomfortable thing for you, but please try. Oh, and BB, you never answered my question. Is a source that supports commentary that says Palestinians are wild beasts who have an innate yearning to kill reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news? nableezy - 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some quotes from WP:RS:

• How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. - Maan is regularly cited in other reliable source
• "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact Maan was established in 2005 and is a news wire service that is regularly cited by other

If somebody has some evidence that our verifiability policy or reliable sources guideline call for the above to be washed away due to users not liking a frickin op-ed they published, by all means provide it. nableezy - 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your biased advocacy is getting a bit annoying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI report filed for that lie. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here User:Nableezy fails to take into account the fact that the problem with ma'an is not merely the antisemitic piece they saw fit to publish (that is indeed "not liked" by a majority of editors that have expressed themselves here, though User:Nableezy's position on this is so far unclear), but rather the systematic distortion of fact by ma'an, and the apparent absence of a correction when they are caught red-handed with their fantasies. Tkuvho (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who would refer to such a vile, racist piece of garbage simply as "an op-ed" obviously has their own agenda to push - and if the news agency has made no statement disavowing it, then it's clear they must agree with it. That forfeits any alleged "reliability" of that source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment And the only one I shall make here, this news source is racist, prejudiced and quite simply shite. I would feel uncomfortable using it to wipe my arse. Any newswire which will send the hideous shite they send is not a news service, it is a propaganda outlet, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsupported assertion. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In a comment above, User:Nableezy wrote the following concerning the rabidly antisemitic piece published by ma'an: An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. I imagine Amazon dictionaries adhere to a certain standard of civility. The fact that User:Nableezy apparently seeks to justify the ma'an piece on the grounds of it being "op-ed" is surprising, to say the least. Tkuvho (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOOOOO, I did not say the op-ed should be used. Stop distorting what I wrote. I specifically said that it should not be used. What I have said is that the existence of an op-ed, regardless of whether it is racist or not, does not impact the reliability of NEWS REPORTS. Jesus Christ. nableezy - 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This thread is exactly what I meant on the talk page about people trying to use this project to carry on their own quarrels. What article are we talking about? Please give full bibliographic details of the proposed source. What statement is it meant to support? ON NO ACCOUNT (I never shout) mention other completely different sources that are perceived to have the opposite bias. Reformulate the question correctly and you may get one or two uninvolved comments. If you are unwilling to do that then I will report one or more of the participants in this thread for trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, you did state the name of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the dispute began over this source being used to say that a Palestinian fisherman was killed by Israeli forces. That material is supported by several other sources, including AFP and Haaretz. But as far as the on no account ..., sorry, couldnt help it. Users are seeking to disqualify a source on the basis of an unrelated op-ed. If that is allowed then it should be applied consistently. nableezy - 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Use AFP and Ha'aretz for that statement alongside or instead of Ma'an. My impression was that Ma'an is somewhat over-used in the article. WP:RECENT applies; the most significant developments will be picked up by the international press, and these are the ones that are most likely to be incorporated into the historical account when that comes to be written. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They are used alongside (well AFP is for the moment). nableezy - 19:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the same type of case as the preceding entry on this page (see comment by Dan Murphy I quoted). If editors have a problem with an op-ed piece they should address that piece specifically and any other such pieces on a case-by-case basis, and not try to designate the publication as a whole as not an RS.Ubikwit (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world, I have seen factual errors numerous times in many of the world's leading newspapers, this does not mean we should not use these news sources ever again. If you think the source is wrong in a particular case use other sources to show that it is likely wrong and remove or attribute the statments to the disagreeing sources so the reader can make up their own minds. And I must add that the OP is ridiculous for claiming that we should not use Ma'an because it was NOT bias unlike the AP article and his use of misleading quotes in that case is appalling. Sepsis II (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You write, I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world. Examples please--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant find the source op-ed online, but it is covered here and here. nableezy - 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe the amount of misleading claims being used to "prove" unreliability. Obviously certain editors hope no one will do the research to find if their claims are true or not. I’m not all that familiar with Maan news so have no opinion on it’s reliability but I do dispute the rubbish claims being made in an attempt to discredit it.

1. That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts.
2. Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?
3. Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used.
4. Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan.
5. Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report.
6. AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission.
7. Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades."

@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You write, That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX ..... Examples please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• A publication that publishes antisemitic articles is not a reliable source. Full stop.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What antisemitic article did Maan publish? The op-ed? And is a publication that publishes anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab articles also not a reliable source? nableezy - 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It was an op-ed not an article. No more anti-Semetic than just about anything written about Arabs by Daniel Pipes, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Khalid Durán, Judith Miller, Martin Peretz or Lewis Bernard. Wayne (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The opening sentence of the agency's Wikipedia article tells me everything I need to know: "Ma'an News Agency (MNA) (Arabic: وكالة معا الإخبارية‎) is a large wire service created in 2005[1] in the Palestinian Territories." Clearly... obviously... Ma'an utterly fails WP:RS and should NOT be used as a source of factual information about anything, let alone for coverage of the Middle East conflict. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What was it that makes this so obvious? The wire service or the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's see some example of this from other "reliable sources". I can't imagine a reputable news source publishing a piece like that, even as an opinion piece. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. This and this discuss an op-ed published by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey. That work for you? nableezy - 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy WP:Newsorg would seem to cover this: reliable for news reporting, but not reliable for opinion pieces. (But you really need to have a sentence to be sourced (and a source) to discuss anything in more detail on this notice board.)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AnkhMorpork (and friends) engaged in this kind of assassination of sources in the past, so much in a short period a couple of us threatened to take him/her to WP:ARBPIA for sanction. Using a bunch of questionable translations or direct links to Arabic speaking sites is particularly obnoxious. (I only read the first few sources and got disgusted.) I think I'll have to look more carefully at what s/he has been up to the last couple months. These kind of generalized attacks for partisan purposes are divisive and destructive. CarolMooreDC 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deeming Ma'an News unreliable is utterly hypocritical. As Nableezy has demonstrated above, if we're going classify news sources as unreliable because of some op-ed they published, then let's go ahead and throw YNET, JPOST and Times of Israel into the chipper as well. I've used Ma'an numerous times. It's particularly useful for intra-Palestinian politics, some of the less talked about violent incidents in the Pal. territories and information or obituaries on notable Palestinian figures. Ma'an has also been shown to offer extra facts and details for major news events involving Palestine that are covered by the more international sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt its reliability regarding intra-Palestinian politics and Palestinian personalities. It is its claims about Israel and the Jews that I am concerned about. Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks seem persistent and the behavior unchanged even warnings. Somebody should file some sort of action aimed at putting an end to this continual waste of time and effort.Ubikwit (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

This whole discussion is probably going to an arbcom. --Hinata talk 22:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not have to, the conclusion is not foreknown, and that end ratifies this discussions failure. Even if this source is declared reliable, which definition it fits, that does not mean that every utterance they publish has carte blanche placement rights. Don't treat every editing dispute as an extension of the Israeli / Palestine debate, nor get caught in the exact folly that makes that debate so intractable. Best yet accept Jesus in your lives which will really get you moving along towards the truth. --My76Strat (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For PFLP says fighters will continue to strike Israel, it's probably a reliable source. For A Palestinian man was killed and three others wounded by stray gunfire as gunmen in Gaza fired in the air to celebrate the ceasefire deal, maybe not. To support About 40 Palestinians were injured, I wouldn't trust it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Our NPOV policy allows you to hold your own prejudice to reach your conclusion. We do not teach POV, or bias our work. And we don't, or at least should not, cater to a POV. I may respect your reasons for doubting credibility of a source, but not allow that respect to censor the source. Being clear, we could not present this kine of contentious information in Wikipedia's voice. With in line attribution we can state that "such and such source stated ... " if it is itself relevant. But heck, everyone here already knows all this, probably much more, so I am probably wasting my time. --My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, that is the problem in a nutshell! However, not being one to write nutshells, rather tomes, here is my take on it. I doubt if there were a settler newspaper that claimed to "deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of living" as a settler on land Palestinians claimed as their own, it would be considered reliable for information regarding Palestinians. Or would a newspaper that carried op-eds claiming that Palestinian Muslims (rather than 'Jews') are universally hated conspirators, worse than feeding vampires and cursed by God to be deceitful and violent would be considered reliable about Palestinian Muslims? Could a paper that would publish such tripe be accepted as reliable about the people they clearly despise and by whom they feel victimized? No trustworthy news organisation would ever publish something as racist as that revolting opinion piece in Ma'an. It is something that you would expect to find on Stormfront - never on a respectable media outlet. This, in combination with its documented inaccuracies demonstrate its total unreliability with regard to Israel/Palestine situation. Opportunidaddy (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why the hostile reaction. I honestly don't get why people get ticked on things relating to is Israel. This dispute goes far back before this agency was ever conceived, and it is closely linked to that 1964 war. Palestinian Israel related articles are under sanctions too if I remember. --Hinata talk 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit User:AnkhMorpork gave a different reason for calling Maan News unreliable:

And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false

He seems to think that israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability, and anything that differs from them are false. When your perspective on reliability is so one-sided, you are bound to create a lot of conflict on a project that has a diverse user group. PerDaniel (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

He never said "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability." Cease henceforth from creating strawman racist arguments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally rediscovered this November entry still on this noticeboard's talk page: Recourse when partisans "converge" against source?. If these individuals would ask about specific information ref'd from the source in specific articles that would be fine. Obviously, that is not what they do. Haven't had a chance to see how many times it's been done since that November entry. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: Your accusation that I am creating "strawman racist arguments" is without any base in reality, and a personal attck. I never accused User:AnkhMorpork of "saying" that "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability.", I just observed that he treated them as that when he wrote

And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false

No matter how much you try to change the discussion, the fact is that he measured how true or false a report was by comparing it to israeli reports. This does not bode well for his ability to understand WP:NPOV. PerDaniel (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question reformulated to re-start constructive discussion

The question I think we are being asked to rule on is this:

In Operation Pillar of Defense, is this report reliable for the statement On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone.?

The above is the way that a question on RSN ought to be formulated.

My opinion, based on WP policies and guidelines is, yes, it is RS for that statement. The report is based on an interview that the family of a dead man gave to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. We have no reason to doubt that the family gave their side of the story in that way. The Ma'an report in this case is consistent with an AFP report, also cited. The Israeli Navy view is also included: that the fisherman approached the exclusion zone from land and not from the sea. There does not seem to be any disagreement that the fisherman was killed and another man wounded.

The general character of Ma'an is only relevant to the extent that it affects the reliability of this particular text to support this particular statement in this particular article. It seems pretty clear that Ma'an carries a bias, which is typical of newspapers and news magazines but not typical of news agencies. Ma'an does not have the level of reliability of AP, AFP or Reuters. I do not (yet) think that, taken as a whole, it is an extremist source. The excerpt in Arabic that has been posted here is viciously antisemitic. It does not seem to be typical of material on the website, at least not on the English version. (The most recent article in the Analysis section is This Christmas, remember Palestine's Christians by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as far from extremism as you can get.) The article in Arabic does not appear on the English site. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable As I said above, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). In this particular case, other reliable sources have reported this incident, such as The Jerusalem Post, so I'm not even seeing anything contentious with this content or the source. That people get killed in a war is hardly an extraordinary claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and take issue with your argument. In all the sources you proffer, Ma'an is not used for anything `in which its reliability or neutrality is a concern. They are not used for a factual happenstance, i.e. the Israelis killed so and so or the Arabs killed so and so. They are merely used for quotes they claimed were given to them and the quotes are mostly uncontroversial. Their neutrality or reliability is not a great concern in these instances because the person being quoted can simply deny they made the statement and make Ma'am look ridiculous. On the other hand, in the instance of a factual happenstance, especially as it relates to the Arab-Israel conflict, their reliability and neutrality is a matter of concern because they can modify the "facts" to suit their POV. If no sources can be found that quote Ma'an for a controversial factual happenstance this would reinforce the majority position that they are generally unreliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and also recall the fact that ma'an apparently does not withdraw its false claims (contrary to a specific WP:RS criterion), nor distance itself from ludicrous "op-eds". As far as other media quoting ma'an, I would suggest the following compromise: agreed that established RS can be cited as quoting ma'an (presumably relying on independent checking by the RS themselves), but avoid sourcing information based on ma'an reports itself, similarly to the current status-quo with regard to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Tkuvho (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:

• Sources don't have to be neutral in order to be reliable. Lots of sources have a bias. The Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias and the Washtington Times tends to have a conservative bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See Wikipedia:V#Neutrality.
• How would determine whether a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking if not by examining how it's perceived by other reliable sources?
• I disagree that saying someone was killed in a war is contentious and how do you explain the fact that is that it's been coroborated by another source?[73]
• I'm sorry, but I don't see a strong argument why this particular source is unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable I don't see any reason Ma'an News Agency would lie and if they erred I'm sure 14 Israeli newspapers would point out the error. And I don't see any proof reported by WP:RS that they have not corrected any important - as opposed to trivial - errors. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable As per

The Ma'an news agency, which is a fairly reliable source of news about both the Gaza Strip and the PA, has lost its server for the time being. The site offers an apology to its many readers and promises to come back soon.' The Jewish Press November 14th, 2012.

This is a patent bid to deny wikipedia sourcing to an organ which comprehensively covers one side of the conflict, whose version of events is notoriously underreported. Many other mainstream newspapers, and academic works one can check at Google Books, use it and attest that it provides fairly reliable information on the area. (2) Mainstream sources largely do not cover, out of disattention, neglect or indifference, much of what happens in that area, if it only concerns some Palestinian tragedy or injury. To endeavour to invalidate Ma'an is to try and deny wikipedia to reference anything that doesn't come from the major western and Israeli news sources. I.e. this is one more attempt to ensure that the systemic bias of Western reportage is maintained on wikipedia. The actual case, of the gaza fisherman, is ridiculous. They are shot at and have their boats impounded, while in their own legal waters, every other day, as dozens of googlable articles and books would underline. It ain't big news in the West or Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable enough. It doesn't need to be impeccable or unbiased (as if there is such a thing). What I'm not seeing is any reason to doubt that the information that the source is being suggested to support is inaccurate - quite the contrary. Formerip (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-formulation rejected

The above post disregards the fact that the page Operation Pillar of Defense contains numerous quotes from ma'an, not merely the one mentioned by User:Itsmejudith. Therefore the reformulation they proposed is inappropriate. Meanwhile, User:WLRoss (Wayne) addressed some of the substantive issues involved, and deserves a response, even though ultimately his comments fail to refute the facts about the unreliability of ma'an, as I will show. User:WLRoss claimed that:

1. "That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts."

Unfortunately, this comment fails to address the substance of the contention of the unreliability of ma'an. A virulently antisemitic piece published by ma'an undermines its reliability. If Fox is similarly unreliable, User:WLRoss is free to submit such a contention at this page.

2. "Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?"

Here User:WLRoss seems to suggest that one pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (PMW) slandered another pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (ma'an) by falsely attributing an antisemitic tract to the latter. Frankly, this interpretation fails to convince. If indeed the original text disappeared from circulation, it is more likely due to the fact that it reached unintended readership and created an embarrassment for ma'an. If this is true, then the fact that ma'an suppressed the piece rather than disavowing it is yet another indication of incompatibility with WP:RS.

I see that this comment by User:WLRoss concerns "Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination" rather than the antisemitic article, so my comment above does not apply.

3. "Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used."

Note that the most reliable source cited by User:WLRoss as giving specific per capita figures is the World Bank Report, which cites a ratio of about 3 to 1 (more precisely, 3.2 to 1). This is still very far from the ma'an estimate of 70:1. User:WLRoss tries to defend ma'an on the grounds that ma'an did not specify their source. However, not specifying sources is indication of unreliability, and is not an effective defense.

4. "Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan."

Here User:WLRoss's description of the ma'an piece as "speculation" is inaccurate. ma'an did not describe its text as speculative, but rather as definitive fact. Anyone who re-reads the entry on the Itamar massacre with an unprejudiced eye will probably describe the ma'an piece on it as a total fabrication, not a speculation. This is another indication of unreliability. I would also be interested in some specifics on User:WLRoss's claim that "other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan". If these "other networks" reported the misinformation based on the ma'an fabrication, then this would undermine the contention that being cited by "other networks" is indication of ma'an's "reliability" (a contention contrary to fact).

5. "Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report."

To recall the facts, the said report alleges that dangerous pigs were released into palestinian territory so as to hurt the palestinians. A reliable news outlet would probably have sensored such a "report". If ma'an publishes a properly attributed claim that martians landed in gaza, would User:WLRoss similarly argue that this is called reliable reporting? Hard to believe.

6. "AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission."

Here I think User:WLRoss missed the point. These are not separate targets, but rather the same target. The "homes" that ma'an mentioned were the training camps. AFP did not omit anything. ma'an distorted the truth, providing further evidence of its unreliability in covering Operation Pillar of Defense-related news, similar to PMW that is generally acknowledged as unreliable.

7. "Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades." "

If these facts are accurate then this is indeed a weak point that does not contribute to the case for unreliability of ma'an. However, the combination of the other points is more than sufficient to put ma'an in the same category as PMW.

8. "@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne"

Thanks for pointing this out. I used the term "avowed" incorrectly. What I meant to write was "open", as in "ma'an's open antisemitism". Namely, ma'an published an openly (and ludicrously) antisemitic piece. This is surely indication of unreliability of a news service in what concerns its coverage of Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable by itself for this: On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone. I don't doubt the report is true, but the reason I accept it is that it's cited to AFP, not that Ma'an reported it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that judgment. What in WP:RS supports your position? nableezy - 16:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Which extremist views? From an op-ed or a news report? How does publishing an op-ed, extremist or otherwise, impact the reliability of an outlet's news reports? What in WP:RS supports that view? As far as widely acknowledged as extremist, by who is that widely acknowledged? nableezy - 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given a reasoned opinion on when this source is likely to be reliable and when it isn't. If you're going to get belligerent about it, I'm not going to discuss it further - a big part of the reason I don't work in this area much. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Belligerent about it? Excuse me, but I am not being belligerent about it. You've given an opinion, I am asking for the reasons. And I am doing so politely. You wrote that publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist is why you feel that the source is not reliable. I am asking you to back that position up by both addressing the question on what position that they have published that is widely acknowledged as extremist, and further how WP:RS supports the idea that even if that were true that they would not be a reliable source. nableezy - 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are rejecting my re-formulation as a question about whether a source supports one statement? That is at odds with the established methods of this board. I strongly suggest that we do look at the Ma'an references one by one. If you do not like that approach then please post on this board's talk page explaining why you wish us to overturn our usual method of one query at a time. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted at ANI for attention, since my efforts to try and prevent the content dispute spilling over here are not working. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your usual method is applicable to usual sources. But this a highly unusual source which publishes vituperative racist slurs. Since you regard this as inconsequential, can you state what statements you would consider significant when assessing a source's general reliability. Ankh.Morpork 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question concerned the doubts about the WP:RS status of ma'an, and the contention that it is no more reliable than the related service (PMW) which is generally regarded as unreliable. The original question is a legitimate subject in its own right, as illustrated by the numerous concerns cited above. Moreover, a number of editors expressed an opinion in favor of declaring ma'an to be unreliable. I suggest we focus on this general issue. Certainly individual items need to be discussed as well, and I appreciate the proposal by User:Itsmejudith. However, the proposal has the (perhaps unintended) effect of eliminating from consideration certain items that are relevant. If you focus the discussion on the fisherman, there is no room left for discussing ma'an rabid antisemitism. Concerning this topic, it was pointed out above that the antisemitic piece did not appear on the English site of ma'an. However, this is precisely the problem. A news service that tailors its material according to the intended audience is itself of questionable WP:RS status. Tkuvho (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to pose a question about PMW, whatever that is, please pose it. We consider sources independently of each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing off topic discussion

The truth on pigs? I tried to research the pig situation and came across an interesting CNN article here which seems to suggest that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged the pig problem. Namely, after making the pig claim, the article goes on to say that Barak called the attackers "hooligans." Does Barak know more than we do, or does CNN know less than we do? If anybody has any relevant information this would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) How is this sub-thread relevant to this board? Please explain, or move it to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be a question about reliability of a source. Tom Harrison Talk 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) If CNN got its information on pigs from ma'an, and if this information is as fantastic as it seems to be, then this is evidence that the fact of ma'an being cited by CNN does not support ma'an reliability, on the contrary. Tkuvho (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. A source can be reliable for statement X but not statement Y. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC) And from which policy do we derive this opinion? ► Belchfire-TALK 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC) @Belchfire: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explicitly states this: "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." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I understand that User:A Quest For Knowledge feels that ma'an meets the requirements of WP:RS. However, the discussion above indicates that a number of editors disagree. It is not clear why it should be obvious that ma'an is more reliable than PMW, which is generally avoided in sourcing articles. User:WLRoss accepted the framework of this discussion, and made some substantive objections. I responded in detail above in what is hopefully a similarly substantive way. I would encourage you to participate in the substantive discussion rather than attempting to redefine the debate away from the issue being discussed, which is the reliability or otherwise of ma'an. ANI reports do not contribute to a substantive discussion. Tkuvho (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Have you read the instructions at the top of this page? I suggest that you do so. We rarely make blanket statements of reliability of a source. Everything depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I agree, and I am similarly not looking for a blanket statement. Nonetheless, PMW is generally avoided in sourcing wiki pages, and it remains to be determined whether ma'an should. If you feel there is a substantive difference between PMW and ma'an, please present evidence to this effect. But I can't see how one can resolve a substantive issue without addressing its substance. Given the kind of rhetoric User:Nableezy engaged in above, your choice of target of ANI report is surprising. Tkuvho (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) The top of this page isn't a Wikipedia policy. Again, what policy are you drawing on? ► Belchfire-TALK 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC) WP:V. WP:RECENT is also well worth considering in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, OK. That's about what I thought - you aren't basing that on any policy. This: ("We rarely make blanket statements of reliability of a source. Everything depends on context.") is a fictional construct that you've devised for the convenience of whatever argument you're trying to make. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I asked you a question at 20:22, 31 December 2012, could you please answer it? nableezy - 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)This thread is not about PMW. If you have a specific article, source and content regarding PMW that you would like to discuss, feel free to start a separate discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC) This thread is indeed about a specific article, namely Operation Pillar of Defense. This point was emphasized both in the original post by User:AnkhMorpork and in my response to it. Please re-read the original post. Tkuvho (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Please reread my comment. I said, if you have a specific article, source and content regarding PMW that you would like to discuss, feel free to start a separate discussion.(emphasis added). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Why not just collapse/hide this detour - either here or in a new section about whatever the topic is. CarolMooreDC 20:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [74]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it already blacklisted? For a couple years now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous that it remains on the blacklist for critiscm of Wikipedia,  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that's why they're blacklisted?Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely it is the blog-like nature that is the issue, not whether it criticizes WP? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Examiner is an WP:SPS and was being used to make claims about third-parties which is against WP:V. Specifically, its use violated conditions #2 and #3 of WP:SELFPUB. If there's a particular article that is usable as a source, that particular article can be white-listed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know it was black-listed, just that it is in use in a lot of our articles still. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion to black list the Examiner is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And the discussion on the spam-blacklist talk page that resulted in blacklisting is here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009#Examiner.com. I'll also add that examiner.com still appears in a lot of articles probably because pages on that site have been whitelisted many times, you'll see if you search MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for the string "examiner\.com", so any clean-up would have to account for the whitelisted entries. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SteveHoffman.tv

The site seems to be run by Steve Hoffman, a music engineer of some repute. An article from his website is currently being used at the article George Harrison (which will be nominated for FA status this week) to cite the following info:

On 12 November, the three living Beatles met for the last time for a luncheon at Harrison's hotel in New York, with McCartney flying in from London with his fiancee Heather Mills. The party laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired to leave the three ex-Beatles alone together for the last time.

While the info is definitely in the source cited, I am not certain that the source itself meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is in the format of a message board, for one thing, which raises some immediate flags. While I don't think Mr Hoffman simply invented facts that sounded nice, I am wary about citing his article if others doubt its reliability. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The top of that post says "British Mirror". I assume that that's a British newspaper? If so, why don't you just cite that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked, and I probably should have mentioned that I assumed it was a newspaper, too. I've checked, and can find no record of its existence, assuming Hoffman isn't referring to the Daily Mirror. If that is what he's referring to, their online archives don't seem to have it. After checking I assumed it was a name Hoffman gave to his original coverage of the music business (through his website, outside of a formal publication), but on second thought that doesn't seem too likely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's the Daily Mirror, which was officially published as The Mirror for a short time. The same report seems to have been published in several papers in the same stable (Trinity Mirror). See [75]. These are all basically reliable tabloids, but not excactly high quality sources (Birmingham Evening Mail; The People) . Paul B (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better source for the same article: [76]. Formerip (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the version from The People transmitted through HighBeam. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, Paul, I cross-posted and didn't see your link. Howeever, looking at your link, it's not the same article. Formerip (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, I've accidentally linked to the wrong HighBeam page. Still, the same report seems to have been published in several Trinity Mirror publications, Paul B (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, guys! Would you say any of those links/publications are high-quality enough for a Featured article? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In RS terms, the HighBeam/People link certainly cuts it. FA will also be looking at the quality of the content - you'll just have to see what people say about it when it goes up for review. Good luck. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The People is a daily newspaper, and absent of anything to contrary, we normally assume newspapers to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, guys! That's one of just a handful of sourcing issues left at the article, so I really appreciate the help. (I knew I should have signed up for one of those Highbeam accounts...) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Evanh2008: I maintain a "Reliable Sources Search Engine" that you may find useful in case you need more sources. A link to it is available on my user page, under "Tools I find useful". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would never trust the The People [77] (a Sunday paper, by the way) without a second source. Here are some recent examples: [78] [79] [80] [81] and a selection of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission on the grounds of accuracy [82] (the PCC is generally regarded as inadequate but not everyone wants to take on the People's lawyers in court) NebY (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NPR reference in War On Women

• Source NPR
• Article War on Women
• Content In Arizona, legislators passed a bill protecting doctors from wrongful birth suits. Under the legislation, doctors who don't inform mothers about prenatal problems would not be liable for malpractice.

The issue at hand is the second reference. The statement as presented above implies that the NPR reference is making a statement that the Arizona legislation would prevent doctors (in Arizona) from being liable for malpractice. Not only does the source not say this, but it actually contradicts this supposition by saying The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts .  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you perhaps suggest an alternate wording which does not make use of the word malpractice or clarifies that case of Arizona's case verses other states? Removing the second line requires the reader to click through to see a definition for a not particularly common term. Some of the confusion perhaps arises from the fact that others, like myself, might assume that "intentional or grossly negligent acts" includes all malpractice (and would have made this law rather pointless), but a quick look at Medical malpractice reveals that this is not the case. a13ean (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't make any such suggestion with respect to this source, because this source says nothing about malpractice with respect to the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assement? Though if you can make a suggestion on how to fix this, I'm all ears.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What does this source have to do with the War on Women? Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that this is part of the "War on Women"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually no where. Good luck if you try to delete it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several state legislatures have passed or are considering legislation to prevent parents from suing doctors who fail to warn them of fetal problems, which are sometimes known as wrongful birth lawsuits. Some of the laws, such as one proposed in Arizona, make exceptions for "intentional or grossly negligent acts", while others do not.(Both refs here)

I've always been a big fan of sticking very closely to sources when the subject is controversial, although it sometimes makes for dull prose. a13ean (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll throw it in and see what happens.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya and the Syrian civil war

I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war (English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).

Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.

--Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are comparing Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom? In Saudi Arabia you have a nepotist government where king's relatives do every government duty... --Wüstenfuchs 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that line of argument is unhelpful. Is there a particular piece of content which you think Al Arabiya should not be used to support? bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since Fox News was brought into this, I can't see why we would ever use it for British current events. Britain actually has its own well-respected news sources with a better reputation than Fox News. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And if one considers Fox News a reliable sources, then several of the reliable British sources are also owned by Mr. Murdoch. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

... and back to the original question ... Al Arabiya is considered to be an established outlet per Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, so, in general, considered reliable for our standards. That does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. In something as emotional as the Syrian civil war, in which most of the countries of the world have expressed support for one side or the other, it is hard to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Al Arabiya stated that ...". Please be specific as to what item of content in the article you are asking about, it is possible specific items may have more specific answers. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with above.

Moreover, regardless of the biases stated by their commentators, the news from Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and Breitbart.com are all reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I've removed the following from Conversion therapy for sourcing concerns:

NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity.

I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. Can some folks please offer input? Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The first part (NARTH repudiates aversive techniques) appears to be supported by the cites. The second part does not seem to be supported, since neither of the sources appear to mention anything about "appropriate gender identity", instead talking about "unwanted homosexual attractions" or "unwanted same-sex attractions". Formerip (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the correct venue to settle content disputes, FormerIP. The gist of the inquiry is whether the subject's own website is a reliable source for the subject's views and policies, and the answer is self-evident: of course it is. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong statements need strong sourcing. I think this is a great venue to see if what we are stating accurately reflects the sourcing available. Let's see what others have to offer. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to think whatever you would like. The verbiage at the top of this page states:

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.

and

This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

This noticeboard is to discuss the reliability of sources, not whether a given statement is supported by a source. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Let's see what other editors have to say, it may prove helpful. Insomesia (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything that comes here is a content dispute, obviously, and the question of whether a source is reliable for a given statement can't really be divorced from whether it contains words which support the statement. These sources don't contain wording which support part of the statement they are be used for so, to that extent, they are not reliable. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. There should be no problem divorcing the reliability of a source within a given context from the accuracy of specific content. The question is: can we look to NARTH's website (source) for information about NARTH's policies (context). The obvious answer is "yes, we can". ► Belchfire-TALK 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, well perhaps we can just agree to differ. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Letting NARTH speak for itself is a mistake. A better strategy is to find third party sources commenting on their position. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While having third party sources is always better, using this source is hardly a "mistake". @FormerIP, the issue you have with this source/statement is the "gender identity" phrase? I don't think the language is incorrect as to what NARTH purports to believe.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct in some sense, rosetta, although the wording presented above seems to confuse gender identity and sexual orientation, which are not the same thing. In any event, the wording isn't supported by the cites provided, where NARTH seem to indicate that they do not believe any sexual orientation to be inappropriate per se, unless an individual is unhappy. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a direct quote is best if there is any disagreement  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Do any non-NARTH or industry-controlled reliable sources support these assertions? Otherwise I think we should just leave it out. Insomesia (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Immaterial and irrelevant. For at least the third time, this discussion can only address the reliability of the NARTH sources within the given context. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually improving articles may need to take into account what reliable and impartial sources state. We aren't here to promote NARTH's views, controversial or otherwise. Insomesia (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page. [WP:IDHT]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We're already here so I don't see any problem asking uninvolved editors to opine. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Your seeing it is not really germain to the issue. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is entirely appropriate here. "Reliability" includes a discussion about accuracy, authoritativeness, relevancy and currency. This noticeboard is the correct forum. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the source can only be used to verify the view of the source, and should be clearly attributed, and any content verified by that should be neutrally worded. I do not see it as a reliable source outside of what I have just stated. Secondary or tertiary reliable source(s) should be used for other content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube

I'm wondering is YouTube a reliable source? Like YouTube videos of interviews with recording artists? A lot of YouTube sources are being used in the Brandy Norwood article. I've tried to remove them because I think it's not reliable but Brandy's fans who keep reverting my edits say it is. — Oz 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links:

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.

This needs to be evaluated on an individual basis - and for an interview, the first question is whether it has been uploaded by the owners of the material. If it hasn't, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, and shouldn't be linked too at all. If it has been uploaded by the copyright owner, the normal requirements for reliable sourcing then apply to the video - YouTube isn't the 'source', those responsible for making it are, and this needs to be assessed accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Most YouTube videos are not reliable. It depends on who makes and uploads the video. For example:

• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and BBC News uploads the video via their official YouTube channel, it would be considered reliable generally speaking.
• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and someone else uploads the video, it would not be considered reliable since the user could have altered the video. It is also, most likely, a copyright violation.
• If an unreliable source conducts an interview with a person, it's unreliable regardless of who uploads the video.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the replies. One more thing, this YouTube video (which is being used as a source in the Brandy Norwood article) was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan. Can it still be used as a source? — Oz 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. I'm not sure I've heard of Brandy Norwood, but if she's a star, you may be able to find other sources to use instead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, that last one is not reliable for the exact reason you mentioned: "was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan." I wrote a cute essay: WP:VIDEOREF Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

toshplumlee.info

Resolved

 – Now at AfD. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The "References" and "External links" section of William Robert Plumlee contains a link to http://toshplumlee.info/ , which appears to be a collection of primary source government documents obtained via the FOIA. Who is responsible for the website and gathering the information is not indicated, plus some of the documents appear to have comments "filling in" whatever information was redacted (e.g. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/fbi9o.PDF). Furthermore, the documents appear to be cherry-picked in that other primary source information on the subject can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). I believe this to be an unreliable source, however, I hope to obtain a second opinion on whether or not this could be removed from both sections of the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The external links are the least of its problems. This unsourced BLP should go to AfD. Trying to fix the link problem is like trying to put a band aid on someone missing their head. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at Afd. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Robert Plumlee. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like to send something to Afd until I can make sure that someone doesn't come back with the assertion that there are reliable sources. Location (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research by synthesis

Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for this question. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, my fault - I suggested Futurist110 asked here, when I meant WP:ORN. Lack of sleep does funny things to my brain... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I get the same way. Also my typing goes to heck in a handbasket.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Guardian article titled "Israel's colonisation of Palestine..."

Here's another from the I/P morass, attempted blanket dismissal of the Guardian in order to discredit this [83] article, as per discussion at Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine source to support "President Carter thinks Israeli policies amount to colonization of Palestine." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I gather that it could therefore be integrated with other RS that represent the same POV, correct? The issue relates to a debate that has evolved from outright denial of sources maintaining such a position to a debate about majority POV in relation to including a country on a list. When an editor introduced this source it was immediately and summarily dismissed. The content dispute is slightly more involved, but I won't delve into that any further here.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Asking if it can be "integrated with other RS that represent the same POV" sets off alarm bells about synthesis. The best way to use this baord might be to ask, "Is X a reliable source to say Y." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Guardian article is a fine source for President Carter's views on the matter. Tom is right that other sources may or may not be good. They would need to be considered individually.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the concern about synthesis. Thanks for clarifying the best practice for posing questions here.

The issue at hand is one that concerns precedence of a certain characterization (colonial), and the subsequent criticism of that characterization. I think that the precedence of the characterization (by the UN, etc) itself should suffice, but one editor has been dismissing the UN source, too, while pointing at other sources criticizing the characterization, when his dismissal of this article occurred. Please excuse this paragraph if it is beyond the scope of this board. --Ubikwit (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the Guardian article is RS for the view of Jimmy Carter. Additionally, it would be fine for the article on colonialism to talk about Israel, provided the content conforms to NPOV. But, looking at the talk page discussion, it seems a helluvalot more complicated, and establishing that you have an RS doesn't necessarily validate the edit you are trying to make. I will comment over there. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's personal website for bicycle related topics

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

---

I am wondering how extensively relying on Sheldon Brown's original research and self published source for various bicycle related articles, such as Bicycle_wheel. Would his website's contents be reliable source or should we only use it very sparingly? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's web site is well recognized as an excellent resource. Longer or more specific things should probably be attributed to him, but unless there's some sort of controversy on a specific point it's probably fine to use as is. a13ean (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not use it to source facts on anything but the figure himslef. Not for making statements or claims on unrelated issues and subjects. While he may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In what situation would it be appropriate to use him? Simple facts? What about his opinions which is just that? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On his own biography, but not when referencing facts on aluminum framing and parts etc. You would need something more reliably published. His own webpage may not be used to reference facts that are available from the other published sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the relevant passage from wp:rs is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic". Even Lennard Zinn, Technical Editor for VeloNews, cites Sheldon Brown repeatedly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." and : "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", Simply put, if the Homepage information can be shown or demonstrated to have already been published it may be acceptable if consensus agress, however if it is already published in a third party, reliable source than one should really use that and not the personal webpage of the expert. This is generaly meant for self published papers and journals not a "build your own" homepage. Care should always be used with references to make them as strong as possible and the Sheldon Brown homepage is not that. As I said, best used for citing content about himself.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Amad, you're not parsing that guideline correctly. It doesn't mean that only the self-published stuff that has been published elsewhere is reliable. It means that since Brown has been repeatedly published on the subject of bicycles, enough to be considered an acknowledged expert, then even his self-published stuff on that subject can be considered reliable. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 26 December 20:12 (UTC)

But where was any of his work published in reliable secondary sources on the subject? Commentary of a sentence or so in obituaries and columns do not count. I believe they mean authors who's work have been published in secondary sources, i.e. something he created that is relevant to the topic cited in a textbook or engineering journal. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article says: "Brown was a contributing writer for Bike World magazine (USA) in the late 1970s and for Bicycling magazine (USA) in the early 1980s, then for the trade magazine American Bicyclist and Motorcyclist from approximately 1988 through 1992. For several years until shortly before his death, he wrote the "Mechanical Advantage" column for Adventure Cyclist, the magazine of the Adventure Cycling Association.". --GRuban (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's website is very far from authoritative on the subject of web design, even though Sheldon did (at least at one time) offer his services in that field too. The difference is that reputable editors considered his bike-related writing reliable, but no-one ever (AFAIK) said that about his web design. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course Sheldon's site is RS for maintenance topics. He's the very epitome of a respected expert source within that field. Is there any instance (with cites, please) where we would begin to suspect the contrary?

For wheels specifically, I'd see Jobst Brandt as more detailed than Sheldon, but I don't know of any conflict between either of them, or other credible sources (and there's a whole load of hokum still talked about wheels). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see, can someone point out if the lack of dispute constitutes a personal webpage credible reference for WP purposes? What should we do with Brown's opinion pieces? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The sainted Sheldon is considered a peerless source by cyclists the world over. He was honoured by the Cyclists' Touring Club for his exceptional work (I have a scan of the certificate, which I was responsible for sending to him). Nobody knew more about the subtle art of wrenching. If you remove the cites I am afraid I will have to kill you. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're a few steps step closer to him than the public and your affiliation maybe WP:COI. "sainted"? come on. I also don't appreciate your threatening comment suggesting the action you will take if editors were to make edits you don't approve.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that that's sarcasm... a13ean (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if that isn't struck out it is a death threat. period. Reporting.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying into the thought that because Sheldon is published elsewhere that his personal selfbuilt homepage is acceptable as RS for facts on bike parts. We still require references to be reliably published....and this aint it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because you don't know the topic very well, I'm guessing. Google "AASHTA" (example: [84]). As Always, Sheldon has The Answer. I honestly cannot think of a more widely cited source online for bike maintenance, and I speak as a long-term denizen of the Usenet cycling groups. His chain cleaning technique is known as the Sheldon Shake. And no, I am not close to the subject any more than any other cyclist who has used his website is close to the subject. I trusted Sheldon's advice and appreciated the amount of work he'd put into building his site, that's all. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, Amad, but it's not a "thought", it's how Wikipedia:Reliable sources works. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you've interacted him and you're not looking at him from an impartial POV. Recognition in message boards does not count. It is all anecdotal. I think insertion of your personal trust him is inappropriate. So, what reliably published secondary source refers to it as "Sheldon Shake" ? You're closer to the subject than someone who has never had any interaction with him Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I, like many, many other cyclists rely on Sheldon's site for information. I emailed him easily three times over a five year period and I never met him. I am no more connected with him than I am connected with the Oxford English Dictionary by virtue of having used the book as a reference. A small number of people seem to be determined to find reasons not to use Sheldon's site as a source, which is just sad. How many bicycle mechanics have you heard of who got an obituary in The Times? Also Obit in Wired - "Sheldon Brown, Web’s Cycling Guru, Dies" - "Brown’s decidedly non-fancy website was a vital resource for cyclists, rich with hints on how to break in a Brooks leather saddle, technical explanations of the workings of 60 year-old internal hubs, and instructions on how to build a tandem from two old steel bike frames. Brown even lauded Shimano’s much maligned Biopace chain rings (a non-round chain ring once made by Shimano)" - there you have a reliable independent secondary source stating that Sheldon's site is considered authoritative. Chris Juden, the technical guru of the CTC, also references his site from time to time, and I have never seen any reliable source dispute the validity and value of Sheldon's information.

I have been asked if his site is endorsed by people like Halfords. That's like asking if Walgreens endorse the FDA as a source. Halfords are commonly known as "halfwits" or "halfrauds" among the cycling community, we are distinctly ambivalent about them. I don't know any cyclist who's ambivalent about Sheldon. Someone even made up frame stickers with "Sheldon Brown is my copilot". And no, the certificate awarded to Sheldon by the CTC does not count as a self-published source any more than any other award bestowed on anybody. Now, you're free to continue arguing the toss about this but the plain fact is that Sheldon is considered a reliable source. Picking a cycling forum at random, a search for Sheldon Brown turns up many hits. This is not even remotely contentious. It's not like Ayn Rand or Gore Vidal or someone, whose opinions are considered controversial, even Jobst Brandt has people who pick fights with him, Sheldon's site was and remains the fountain source of wisdom for many things. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care how many times you have contacted the gentleman. His self published homepage is not a RS for citing facts, but only for citing his opinion. Kill me. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I realise you're losing the will to live, but please can you explain more clearly why you do not think it appropriate to follow 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"? Do you not believe that Sheldon Brown was an established expert on bicycles? Or do you think WP:SPS is wrong and that self-published expert sources cannot be used for matters falling within the expertise of the expert? NebY (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As a neutral observer here... we seem to have two related, but separate issues: First we must reach a consensus on whether Sheldon Brown is considered an expert on bicycles... I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on this, but... if he is not, then his website would not be reliable; if he is, then his self published source can be considered reliable.

Second, (assuming he is considered an expert) we need to determine whether other experts disagree with what Sheldon Brown says about bicycles ... if so, then the information taken from Mr. Brown's website should be phrased as being his opinion (ie attributed to him), and contrasted with the opinions of the other experts. If not, then we can accept what he says at face value and paraphrase it as being unattributed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar, that's a clear summary and a roadmap for resolving this, in one brief post.

When it comes to assessing Brown's status as an expert, we are fortunate that he is dead. Eulogies abounded. This one for Adventure Cycling was written a few days later, so it talks of those obituaries and other reactions. It also tells us how he moved from having a high reputation in the comparatively small world of print journals about cycling published in the US to worldwide recognition, such that a web search for 'Sheldon Brown guru' brings up a heart-warming and inspiring chorus of praise. Sift it and you will find not just the blogosphere, but general newspapers and magazines in the US and the UK, cycling advocacy groups, companies that make money out of teaching cycle maintenance but recommend his free expertise anyway, and a busy world of online forums still referencing him. We're lucky none of those have latched onto this discussion yet.

Yes, we still have to be discriminating. Parts of his writing are minor facts and expert knowledge, parts are opinions and advocacy based on expertise. So long as we can agree that there is much of the former and have enough of an acquaintance with the subject to recognise the latter, we should be able to return to the articles and proceed in relative harmony. NebY (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar, that is precisely the point. Is Sheldon Brown considered an authority? Yes. We have reliable independent sources that identify him as such. Do other experts disagree with what he says? No, they don't. In fact other experts typically cite his website. Both these points are already addressed above, so it's not so much a roadmap for resolution as a clear message to Amadscientist to drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Since his work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", his self-published work is a reliable source for that field. But as ever, it's not the case that sources are either Reliable or Not; whether or not something is a reliable source depends on exactly what statement is to be sourced. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Some way above, we're told: While [Brown] may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage. At this point, it cannot be self-published, because a corpse is in no fit state to publish. Yes, it has editorial oversight (or "oversite"): This page tells us that "this site is being actively maintained, updated and expanded by his wife, Harriet Fell, and his close friend John Allen, co-author of most editions of Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics." This page is one in which we see Allen at work. (And who is Allen? This site explains.) Cycling for Dummies (a demographic perhaps not entirely unrepresented here) calls Brown a "great bicycle guru". The Urban Biking Handbook calls him an "authority on all things bicycle". Something titled 21 Nights in July: The Physics and Metaphysics of Cycling rather excitedly refers to him as a "bike mechanic and recently deceased genius". And he's cited in One Less Car, a book from an actual university press. And there's more of this kind of thing at Google Books. Yes he is a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. (And no I'm not related to him. Indeed, I first heard of him only a few months ago, years after his death.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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