Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Are These sources reliable

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

Claims of Cultural Suppression

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

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

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

Sourced: Amnesty International Report Human Rights Watch Report

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

Source:

Human Rights Watch Report

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

Source:

Amnesty International

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

Sourced from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. . Article 15 of the Iranian Constitution permits 'the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools... in addition to Persian'.". The first sentence is a wholesale generalization and here is a newsreport (with a reliable author) that contradicts the amnesty sentence: [3]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". Note, the wholesale generalization of Amnesty international. It uses "Iranian Azeris" as if they all think the same way.

• The second contradiction is that Amnesty does not understand Article 15 of the Iranian consitution. It states: "The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian. "[4]. Thus article 15 in the constitution actually allows only one language as medium of education for all government funded schools, that is Persian.
• Given that Amnesty international is not a specialist source and generalizes many times, and also it cannot verify anything in the ground, and tends to hyerbole, I would treat it as unreliable unless it has authors who are experts in the field. It uses terms not carefully and generalizes possibly the opinion of a few to represent a whole group. Most of the time though, it could just be a college student writing a report based on some organization that it gets information from. I believe unless the authors are known (both amnesty and the sources they get the information), then there is a lot of room for mistakes.
• Note there a Wiki article Criticism of Amnesty International: [5] "University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who spent several years as an Amnesty International USA Board member, claimed that aspects of organisational continuity and survival came ahead of human rights aims. He stated "Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."".
• Overall, I think if several full university professors have summarized a situation than it is much more reliable than amnesty international. I am not rejecting amnesty outright, but if sources from university Professors describe a situation in more detail, then amnesty international which has no author should not be given weight in an article. Only in articles where academic study of the subject is lacking than I believe amnesty might be a necessary option.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

@Khodabandeh14:

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

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

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

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

Here let me illustrate again. Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[6]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". It seems unlike amnesty, the guy in RFERL has done some field work. Note how amnesty generalizes the whole situation by speaking on behalf of millions of people. How does amnesty gauge the opinion of Millions of people? Amnesty has no author (who is writing the report) and lacks any specialization on the topic. If some sources contradict amnesty, we should give weight to the stronger source and not include amnesty as a weight issue. My main issue is that not only amnesty is making a gross generalization but there is no author who writes the report. It seems that an Encycloapedia should at least reference an actual author/writers (rather than vague organization) when it comes to discussing controversial matters. Until I figure out how amnesty international can gauge the opinions of millions and speak on their behalf, I find the report to simply be unencycloapedic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Azeri-rights protesters demand Khatami apology

Detentions after Azeri rights chants disrupt Iran rally

Ethnic Azeri bloggers imprisoned in Iran

Relatives say ethnic Azeri activist held without charge in Iran

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

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

• I have three questions:
• First is what happens when amnesty international which has no author contradicts other news sources and academic books with authors?
• Second can amnesty make a generalized statement when it contradicts other news sources that have authors(like RFL). Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[7]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". So which statement is correct?
• How can one verify the information of amnesty international when it does not get vetted through any peer review academic process? And does one used amnestry reports from say 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago and how much weight and space should they be given in an article?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Wikipedia , we are not going to push for ultra nationalistic and partisan point of views . As other editors have mentioned earlier , the reliable human right reports may be used only in Wiki articles that deal with corresponding title and not as a pressure tool in pushing for anti national sentiments . Don't know what was the reason , but user Tugrulirmak not only has especial points of views in Armenian genocide , but he wrote about my ethnic group in Iran(Azeri) as fishes ! [8] and in response of my objection he said he write it to "lighten up the mood" ! [9] . Anyway , we tend to edit in Wikipedia without prejudice and without tendency to push for Pan- ideas ... neither Pan-Turkism nor any other Pan idea WP:SOAP.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• There is a fundamental problem in my opinion when the user (Tugrumimak) called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." [10]. Note the said person is also not Iranian [11]. Wouldn't such a person have much more qualification to summarize about this issue than a random report from AI (which should be treated as a primary source that needs secondary analysis)?
• No one has answered my question though (I am asking some uninvolved in the article), when it comes reliability and claims, "exceptional claim require exceptional sources". When there is several scholars, professors in major universities contradicting AI or doing a fine job summarizing the situation, how does one treat something like AI which might get its report from fringe groups or contradict these sources? Doesn't WP:Weight go with the Professors/scholars rather than an organization which is not peer-reviewed and has been criticized by scholars [12]. I am not saying to dismiss AI, but on a topic which might have political fringe groups making claimns to AI, One should consider current scholarly viewpoints from universities and give them the most weight. Also AI is almost like a primary source (if its claim is valid and sometimes it is just a random report about something that could have been outdated by now) and secondary sources (peer-reviewed publications, professors , etc.) should make a summary. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

I have been objecting and challenging a biography written about a living person, Vito Roberto Palazzolo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo), written by a man called Don Calo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonCalo). The discussion has been happening recently at Palazzolo's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Answering_wikipedia.27s_requirements_in_BLP.2C_Verifiable_Sources.2C_Association_Fallacy_and_Lead

Personal motive

I have been gathering information on Vito Roberto Palazzolo for 3 years now with a view to writing his biography. I have nothing to gain by writing anything (in a book or in Wikipedia) idealizing him or getting him off the hook of his detractors. My single aim is to discover where the fire started that created the smoke, to wit: either Palazzolo was involved in illegal money laundering activities with the Mafia in 1981 and early 1982, or he is the victim if a conspiracy. I am looking at both options and both sides.

The subject

Apropos my plan to write a book: He is an interesting subject in many ways: as a Swiss Banker he was enormously successful and ran the fiduciary arm of one of the world's most prestigious banks; as a Sicilian he arrived on the scene at the bank when some of his inherited clients were laundering money (through Swiss banks) for the the heroin smuggling ring known as the "Pizza Connection", which was famously bust by Rudi Giuliani then Mayor of NY. Palazzolo was accused of many things in many courts thereafter, including money laundering, Mafia membership, drug running and even murder, but was never conclusively sentenced for anything except "dolus eventualis" in Switzerland in 1985, a conviction pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. But the allegations - from Sicily in Palermo - never stopped coming and pursued him even as far as South Africa where he lives now. There is even High Court narrative that mentions an unhealthy and illegal working relationship between Sicily and the Department of Justice in South Africa.

Conspiracy and transparency

What I am saying is that he is an interesting subject for a biography, highlighting many areas, as you can see. His life as a free man, however, defended by the rule of law (now in SA as well as Italy and the European Court of Human Rights), hangs in the balance. It is conceivable, that, given the court evidence over nearly 30 years, Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy and only an open and transparent rendition of his case, with all cards on the table, can either clear his name or indict him.

The media, Don Calo & Wikipedia

But that is not what he is getting in the media and so, by default, Wikipedia. Don Calo, who writes the Wikipedia biography of Palazzolo, uses only media articles as his source. Primarily scurrilous newspapers like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Independent. And so when people go to Wikipedia, the first port of call for knowledge about anyone or anything in the world, they get a biased, indeed, slanderous view of a man who, from the point of view of the High Courts in Switzerland, Italy and South Africa, is innocent. That may not be so but he must be given the opportunity in court, the media and at Wikipedia, for a free and fair trial.

All I am asking is that because this is a highly complex and long running affair, Palazzolo gets better treatment from Wikipedia. By which I mean specialist and comprehensive and fair, which one man reading the tabloid press, cannot do.

See below a few of the Points I have made in regard to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and fairness in respect to a living person.

Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.

Significant Coverage - In Notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.

Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.

Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.

Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.

Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.

Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.

Weasel words abound in Don Calo's article ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated")

Palazzolo “is regarded as a notorious Mafia ‘banker.’”

Palazzolo “is considered to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia.”

“The (FBI) considered [Palazzolo] to be one of the top seven in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra.”

Miss-use of Primary sources

Trial transcripts - We are advised not to use "trial transcripts and other court documents", because they are primary sources. Hard to understand how a court judgement, which is an in depth study of the rights and wrongs of any subject, and is not directly involved in the subject, is inadmissible.

Secondary sources - are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Surely then a court case, which analyses the subject (Palazzolo), is a secondary source.

Affidavits - Surely affidavits written by lawyers (who have to be professionals with integrity, by definition) about the subject, are admissible as secondary sources? There could be no more judicious and balanced document then an affidavit of this order.

These are just a few pointers regarding my contention with Wikipedia's article on Palazzolo. I have a great deal more on this subject, which is very complicated. What else would you like me to present to you and how can we lay this ghost to rest, because a living person is very insulted by the singular, one-sided, ill-informed line that Don Calo (Wikipedia) is taking.

Fircks (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has posted related requests several times on the BLP noticeboard, most recently here, where he was advised to express his concerns to the Wikimedia Foundation and said he would do so. He has also reportedly posted at WP:AN/I. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded here on the advice of Bbb23 (I suggest you take your contention to WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

I went into the Wiki foundation page and was informed that: "Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website". So I expressed my concerns by sending an email to info@wikimedia.org. I could post a copy here but don't want to take up too much space repeating my case. In the meantime I am discussing the article with Bbb23 and Don Calo, who has today weighed into the conversation.

Fircks (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearly articulating this general issue. It's something that we'll need to deal with in the policies and guidelines at some point. I've seen many instances where the media report accusations but not the subsequent exoneration. I think it's fair to use a court judgment as a source. I can see the rationale for not using civil complaints and criminal charges, transcripts, affidavits, etc., since those typically represent a point of view of one side or the other. But the judgment should be acceptable, and, I would think, weigh heavily in regard to establishing appropriate weight to views. But one would need to be cautious about making any interpretive claims. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Court filings such as complaints and docket sheets are completely banned as sources in biographies of living persons by WP:BLPPRIMARY, as they should be. Contrary to your statements above, affidavits also should fall under this ban. Any-one can claim anything in an affidavit, and they have no more veracity than complaints (which like affidavits are sworn in some jurisdictions). Judge's opinions are frequently argued to be banned under the same policy. I have argued elsewhere, and there is some agreement by other editors, that a judge's opinion (at least in a court of general jurisdiction) should be treated by us as a secondary source, as it represents the judge's synthesis of the witnesses and documents, much as an article in a mainstream newspaper or magazine represents such a synthesis of primary sources (except in many cases the judge's opinion will be in greater depth and more accurate). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your informed opinions. I realize that Palazzolo's case comes out of left-field, it is unique and requires special handling and to have been able to bring it this far, to you, is testament to wikipedia's credibility.

I know that trial transcripts are not allowed, according to your rule book. I don't want to hammer my case relentlessly but, given what has happened to this man, Palazzolo, and how it has happened, we have stumbled upon something both unique and important. When his story is written, Wikipedia and the given world view on people with unique biographies, will make up a large chapter. So I wish to point out that:

• What better judgement can you get on a person (good or bad) than a court judgement, which has to take in all views and circumstances and is utterly transparent? Is there a more balanced view? I would believe the interpretations of a high-minded Judge (with reservations about the infamous Italian/Sicilian judiciary),whose motive is justice, before that of a journalist, whose motive is to tell a ripping yarn (much of the time). And they don't come more ripping than the Mafia. Especially if it includes a multi-millionaire aristocrat like Palazzolo who, until that day in 1982, hadn't even got a parking ticket.
• What better rationale can be applied to a person than an informed affidavit written by an expert in his or her field and a world class lawyer to boot? Such an affidavit is a highly informed version of what the media writes up, as a secondary source, anyway.
• I want to interpret as little as possible, but give the bare facts of his case, in a manner that the newspapers do not. I would put both the allegation or charge, and the verdict. You must understand that Palazzolo has absolutely no fear of a transparent debate where they can throw everything they have at him, but this ongoing stream of allegations that come out of Palermo and ridden by the media and, sadly therefore, Wikipedia, is unbearable.
• Where should I go from here?

Fircks (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I am taking up a lot of space on these pages but this is a complex case, all for the purposes of getting a fair hearing (in the media, therefore on wikipedia) for a living man who claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. What if he is? Shouldn't you see and review his story? His democratic and legal rights rest on your shoulders. Shouldn't you do him the honour (as per your rules on BLP) of an in-depth study of his case?

Please look at this one. If it's proof you want, I have it, and there is no stone I will not overturn for the sake of justice.

Fircks (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your rhetoric here will make some Wikipedians a bit nervous, concerned that you view Wikipedia as an opportunity to right a wrong, and to do original research in the process. I'm not sure that this is a case where we can Ignore All Rules. You have support here for using the judgment, and for giving it weight. Beyond that, it's a slippery slope. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I see what you are saying, that Wikipedia is not a battleground for my crusade to exonerate Palazzolo. Which I understand fully, and neither do I want to do that. Perhaps my emotive language gave the wrong impression.

I am not interested in taking Palazzolo off the hook if he is guilty, or using Wikipedia as his personal bandwagon. But I do want to apply Wikipedia's rules as fairly as possible which, as you know, are descriptive and not prescriptive, are about the underlying principle at play, but NOT about wikilawyering, are NOT about rules so much as good judgement, etc. And their fixed star is a Neutral Point of View, which is the following:

1. Avoid stating opinions as facts
2. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts
3. Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views
4. Prefer non-judgmental language
5. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion

As it stands the article is:

Selectively factual and therefore slanted - Almost everything in it is seriously contested - Opposing views are barely mentioned - The language is highly judgemental, even if it contains disclaimers - Uncontested assertions as mere opinion? I don't understand what that means.

So, using your guidelines, specifically, Palazzolo is owed a fair hearing. By which I mean that every court charge must be written into his BLP, as well as the concomitant ruling. You can't pick and choose court charges, rulings or sentences at will. They must all be mentioned (in order) and so get a broad, balanced view of the subject. Often there are years between the charge and the final ruling, but no matter. Often there is a subtext to the sentence or the ruling, which helps to fill in the missing pieces in the jigsaw. Which is why I always stated that this is a long complex case that very few people understand, least of all journalists in search of Mafia type headlines, (for whom Palazzolo is a Godsend).

Without using emotive language I must somehow express the single vital fact that Palazzolo deserves a fair hearing. The reason being that this is no ordinary BLP. By which I mean his case is: Significant (requiring more than just a routine news report), Special ("where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong") and Exceptional ("When proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them").

Written mostly in High Court journals and lawyers affidavits, his case is unique and so, above all else, we need both sides of the story; one is the prosecution, and the other is the defence (and counter prosecution). Then let the reader decide.

Fircks (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. From "Understanding IAR" - "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." The better way gives both sides (prosecution and defence) of Palazzolo's story. The rules say that Judges verdicts and carefully worded arguments by lawyers are inadmissible in a wiki BLP about a contentious figure, but the tabloid press is OK. For which reason Wikipedia can say, "The newspaper said Palazzolo was convicted of drug smuggling." And Palazzolo can never say, "The Judge acquitted me of that charge (drug smuggling), and said it was crazy to have brought the charge against me in the first place." Etc, etc.

Isn't it high time not to IAR, but to ignore THAT rule?

Thank you...

Fircks (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We've given feedback on sourcing. If the issue is NPOV, then the appropriate noticeboard is WP:NPOVN. It does seem that the article is heavy with allegation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Have I been barking up the wrong tree? I've been doing the rounds, following all the rules, dealing with them each in turn, following advice and all the time all I ask is that wikipedia give Palazzolo a fair hearing. There has been a lot of discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#The_article_is_a_mess, for example. To date this has been my progress at Wikipedia:

• First I tried editing Don Calo's work (as did Palazzolo's lawyers) but he simply deleted our suggestions. I thought, hey! that's not supposed to happen at Wikipedia!
• So it became an edit war. Every time I answered Don Calo's allegation's, he deleted them and wiki editors, understandably, became vexed.
• So I agreed to leave the defamatory BLP as it was and seek help from the Foundation. I sent the Foundation an email but got no response.
• Then I got to this Reliable Sources page and we began a dialogue and I have been presenting you with the many reasons why Palazzolo needs fair treatment by Wikipedia.
• Now I head for NPOV.

OK, fingers crossed, because Don Calo's defamatory BLP remains intact and according to wikipedia's rules, that can't go on.

Thank you in any event.

Fircks (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Inside the Actors Studio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to Google Books

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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom House

Is it acceptable to quote Freedom House as a reliable source in the article Northern Cyprus? After much wrangling have managed to tone down the language to the following:

"Freedom House has classified the perceived level of democratic and political freedom in Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000 in its Freedom in the World report. [13]

However, I am still of the opinion that Freedom House cannot be used as a reliable source for the following reasons:

1. It is an advocacy organization concerning human rights.
2. 80 per cent of its funding comes from the government of the United States (the United States has military bases in Turkey, and Turkey has maintained a military occupation in the northern part of Cyprus since 1974).
3. The ratings that are being issued, concerning the quality of democracy (and human rights), do not appear to take reality in to consideration (for example, there is no consideration for the owners of the vast majority of land and property, as acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the displaced persons who were displaced during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and who are not allowed to return to their homes and who have no right to vote despite legally owning most of the land and property in "Northern Cyprus").
4. Even use of the word "perceived" which explains that the rating is based on perceptions and not the actual situation legitimizes a rating which has no bearing on reality.
5. Not even the enclaved are considered. The enclaved are christian Cypriots who remained in villages after the invasion (pockets of christianity within an occupied muslim territory) and their freedom of movement is severely restricted to the point that individuals who leave these villages for hospital treatment are not allowed to return to their homes by the occupation regime. More information about the enclaved can be read at: http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2880&subject=standalone  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do think that Freedom House can be used as a source in this article. Freedom House's "Free"/"Partly Free"/"Not Free" ratings are often cited in the media, not just in the United States but internationally as well. [14] However, that is not the same thing as saying that it is the last word on the subject. If other human rights organizations rate Northern Cyprus less free than Freedom House does, then those could be mentioned in the article as well. But I don't think the fact that some believe Freedom House may have gotten this particular rating wrong means that we should reject their use as a source (not necessarily the only one) on this topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Can http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org be cited as a source concerning the human rights of Northern Cyprus? It is another human rights organisation.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

    Freedom House is relatively highly regarded; they do seem independently-minded and I can't think of a sane reason why they would distort their rating of northern Cyprus in particular. None of those three points would apply to http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org - the clue is in the name and on their front page. Presumably the reliability of Freedom House was questioned because they do not wholly agree with your own assessment of the situation; nonetheless, they're worth using in the article. bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    • • My assessment is irrelevant. Freedom House has issued a rating that Northern Cyprus has a better quality of democracy and "freedom" than Turkey when the government of Northern Cyprus is under military occupation by Turkey (fully confirmed and disapproved of by the United Nations). Moreover, the displaced persons of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus who were the vast majority of the population of the territory that is now occupied by the Turkish military have no right to vote despite being the legitimate owners of the vast majority of the land and property (as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights). What I find difficult to accept is that there is an organisation called Freedom House (that is 80 per cent funded by the government of the United States which itself has military bases in Turkey) that ignores both the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights to arrive at an absurd assessment. Moreover, the terminology used in the rating, which is described as "free", ignores the fact that the displaced persons are not allowed to return to their homes or land (and this is enforced by the government of Turkey and the Turkish military). Freedom House discredits itself with this assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like one of our regular "admissibility" vs. "weight" disputes. I agree with Nipsonanomhmata that majority funding by the U.S. government (if correct) would put the independence of the organization into question, but it is being referenced for its own opinion, not an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, the best compromise is to cite it in the wording given above, balanced by well sourced opposing viewpoints. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I also suggest that it is noted in any citation that Freedom House is 80 per cent funded by the United States government and that this may have a bearing on the assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a general principle that statements about funding of an organization are made in some sort of way in order to discredit its statements. Meanwhile, "lobbyforcyprus" appears to be a substantially non-neutral viewer of Cyprus, as its name and content both indicate. [15] says: since its inception has campaigned against the invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing and destruction of the cultural heritage of 37 per cent of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. ... Lobby was founded by the UK-based Cypriot refugee organisations Ayios Amvrosios UK, Anglo Akanthou, Lapithos & Karavas UK and a number of concerned individuals, who believed that any settlement of the Cyprus issue should not legitimise Turkey’s illegal occupation of the northern part of the island and that all refugees must have the right to return. ... What Lobby stands for: As a cornerstone of Lobby’s campaign policy are the 3Rs: Removal of all Turkish troops Repatriation of all colonists Return of all refugees to their homes and lands without restriction or precondition.

There is no way that an organization with such a mission statement could remotely be considered a reliable source on the topic of freedom levels in northern Cyprus. Collect (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet Lobby for Cyprus does not receive majority funding from any government unlike Freedom House. Lobby for Cyprus represents the displaced persons of Cyprus and that is where they get their funding from. What you are saying is that the displaced persons of Cyprus, who are prevented from living in their own homes and on their own land by military occupation and are also prevented from voting from their own homes, cannot be considered independent but an organisation mostly funded by the government of one nation can be considered independent. So much for "freedom" and "independence". The only reason that you cannot use Lobby for Cyprus as a source is because it is a primary source. It is a primary source with the views of those that were displaced. However, Freedom House also has majority funding from a primary source that was involved in the steering of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Yet, Freedom House itself is not considered to be a primary source even though it is based in the same country that majority funds it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you making the assetion that the situation in northern Cyprus was directly funded and backed by the US government? I fear that this is a case where you seem to think WP:TRUTH is on your side. WP uses NPOV, however. Collect (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic. This can be discussed somewhere else if you really need to. Besides, we have already agreed that it is alright to quote Freedom House, even though it is 80% funded by the government of the United States.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that your primary issue with the Freedom House citation is its assessment of Northern Cyprus as "Free" and that your opposition to its usage as a source stems from that. There is a difference between a source being used to say "Northern Cyprus is free" and "Freedom House rates Northern Cyprus as free." The former would be highly POV and outside the scope of this particular source; the latter is acceptable and common. As it stands, the source is used properly and the sentence is in keeping with assessments on other Wikipedia articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose the usage of the source. On the contrary, I welcome the use of the source. However, I also think it is important to disclose conflicts of interest (and the fact that the evaluation itself is not an adequate, accurate, or reliable evaluation). In this case, Freedom House is 80 per cent sponsored by the government of the United States which has military bases within territory controlled by the Republic of Turkey. But it appears that nobody considers it necessary to disclose the conflict of interest. Nor is anybody prepared to note or highlight the numerous human rights violations by the occupation regime that have not been considered in Freedom House's assessment. Any article that fails to disclose the conflict of interest and indeed fails to disclose the long list of human rights violations is without a doubt an article based on a biased POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that it is unlikely that Freedom House is an unreliable source and it is biased because if it was biased, it would not classify Turkey as a "Partly Free" country. And anyway, the US has bases in many countries, and Greece is also an ally of it. If you want to highlight the so-called human rights violations committed by state of the TRNC, trying to eliminate the sources used is the worst way to do it. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Freedom House has a conflict of interest in this case. Moreover, it is classifying a country that is only recognised by the Republic of Turkey and was until recently evaluating the occupied territory as part of the Republic of Turkey. Moreover, Freedom House has ignored a number of human rights violations including freedom of religion, the right of displaced persons to return to their homes, the murder of protesters, continued ethnic and cultural cleansing. All of which have been ignored in their "Free" classification. The occupied territory does not have a free democracy. It is not possible for it to have a free democracy when the vast majority of the legitimate landowners and property owners do not have the right to vote. Freedom House's classification is an outrage. And yet, I do not mind if this useless source is used, as long as the conflict of interest and the human rights violations are disclosed. Moreover, it is outrageous that any Wikipedia Editor thinks that it is acceptable to wipe the human rights slate clean with a paltry Freedom House classification of "Free". The only thing that is "Free" in this case is the "getting off scott free" whilst all the human rights violations are wiped off the slate with one useless "Free" classification.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 09:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, please look at here. It has a score for every sovereign country, and some other entities such as Puerto Rico. The human rights reports are about the current situation in the TRNC, you would not expect from them to talk about the refugees in the south or in the north. They should talk about freedom of the press etc. The country does have a democracy, the landowners before 1974 are not citizens any more, and anyway, the Republic of Cyprus does not has a free democracy if it was as you said. And yet there are no murder of protesters, there are some arrest of protesters which swear. Moreover, you would not be able to find any source that states that there is an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing in the TRNC. And as you are so biased, you are trying to eliminate all the sources which classify Northern Cyprus as "free", but this is impossible. Anyway, no need to waste time in such things. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Freedom of the Press report does not mention Northern Cyprus. It is erroneous to say that Freedom House is not neutral. And this is just it classifies the free TRNC as "free". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is 80% funded by the government of the United States. It is an enormous conflict of interest. Moreover, the classification clearly is incompetent since it ignores a number of significant (the word "significant" is not strong enough) human rights violations some of which are long-lived and ongoing. But we have already agreed it is ok to quote Freedom House. But I strongly recommend that the conflict of interest is disclosed when doing so.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

see also the talk page

see also the "Holy Land Studies" website

my proposed edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wen Wei Po

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Wen Wei Po attack editorials

• 廿四味：艾未未是个什么东西, and it's google translation:[16]

• 廿四味：假艺术家的真面目, the google translation:[17]

• 艾未未真面目：五玩艺术家－－五毒俱全, and it's google translation:[18]

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

• 香港社会所不了解的艾未未, and it's google translation:[19]

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

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

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

I google 梁立人 [20], and according to Chinese Wikipedia, 梁立人 is a pro-Beijing writer, his articles often come up on Wen Wei Po, 東方日報 and The Sun (Hong Kong). Arilang ^talk 04:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What about this:[21], RTHK reported that, four public survey had been conducted in 1997, 2001, 2006, 2009, by 蘇鑰機 of Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Wen Wei Po is ranked near bottom on the media credibility scale in all four occasions. My question is, should a media that has nearly zero credibility be accepted in Wikipedia as WP:RS? Arilang ^talk 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The challenge of Hong Kong's reintegration with China

Publisher: Hong Kong University Press ISBN13: 9789622094413

Despite their low credibility and dismay circulation in Hong Kong, these mouthpieces are well-financed by advertising revenues from the PRC companies...Wen Wei Po has received more funds...Both papers print many Xinhua-initiated commentaries under pseudonym aimed to criticize and intimate China's critics.[22]

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

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

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

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

Roman emperors

Are websites

• http://www.roman-empire.net,
• http://www.roman-emperors.org, and
• http://www.roman-colosseum.info
  

reliable sources on articles about Roman emperors? Simple as that! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great post. Despite their similarly bland names, these sites appear to be quite different. In the case of roman-empire.net and roman-colosseum.info, I can't find any info on their authorship or editorial policy. In the case of the former, it appears from this that they accept outside contributions, which doesn't imply a high editorial standard. I'd say barring further information that I'm missing, these sites shouldn't be assumed to be reliable.

On the other hand, roman-emperors.org is run by historians. Its editorial practices can be found here. The articles are written by historians, and according to the site all articles are reviewed by the editorial board, which contains some very impressive names. It's been cited in dead-tree academic works. In terms of reliability, this one looks to be about as good as you'll find anywhere on the internet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

At first glance not being a professional I'd be reluctant to consider of them as references (though at the the first two might be quite useful as external links). As already mentioned in the posting above www.roman-emperors.org/ has however some editorial oversight by scholars and claims (most of its) articles are written by scholars, so you could consider it (barely) as a reliable web source, maybe slightly above a self published source by an expert author (see WP:SPS). So if you come across content sourced by it,I'd acceppt it at least temporarily as a reference, but try to replace it by a more reputable one if possible. If the site has a good reputation among historians though, which I don't know, it might be even acceptable without my current hesitation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Anent Roman emperors - the Seaby's coin references are very good. [23] they contain much material rather hard to get otherwise. Collect (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We seem to discuss with some regularity what kind of sources to use in historical articles. I hold with the editors who have said that the highest quality peer reviewed academic sources are appropriate in history articles, and would like to see WP:RS revised accordingly. Given the volume of writing about Roman emperors in Gibbon and after, and the amount of scholarly material certainly available in Google Books and elsewhere online for those who cannot get to a library, there is no reason to cite to lesser sources. There is a pressing need for clarification, as we have frequently to deal with polemical articles making quite sweeping assertions about events based on low quality sources (view the history at 1660 destruction of Safed for an example). Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that roman-emperors.org is a fine source. Its articles are written by historians in the field and reviewed by an editorial board consisting of historians in the field, and it has in turn been cited in one way or another in academic works.[24][25][26] It has other features that recommend it in encyclopedia writing as well, such as its great bibliographies and some very nice maps. As with anything, obviously it won't be necessary in the presence of superior sources (eg books and academic articles by these same authors), but for easily citing uncontroversial information about Roman emperors, it looks about as good a source as there is on the internet.

The other two sites should be avoided, however, barring us missing some very serious credentials on the part of the authors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jonathanwallace: I don't think that's a good idea, since it does not reflect reality in WP (and how many articles of an at least somewhat tolerable quality are created). Having articles only based on highly reputable peer reviewed academic journals is often just the (ideal) end state of an article and not its beginning. In particular many lay people constantly write articles on historic subject that are essentially correct and good enough for a first entry, those people are somehwat unlikely to use those peer reviewed journal only instead they use popular history books or popular history articles in newspapers/general interest magazines, on university websites, museum websites, websites published by reputable experts and such websites as www.roman-emperors.org. Now if we exclude exclude such sources from the get go, those editors will simply write unsourced articles or no articles at all, both of which imho is worse. If by being formally overly restrictive on sources we are pratically shutting down lay authors, we are turning into citizendium (not a good thing). Academic peer reviewed sources always have a priority and ideally a mature article should be based on them only. However for first entries should allow less than optimal (temporary) sources, the information of which can be assumed to be correct. Those resources then can/should be replaced by better ones as the article matures. Until that maturation (and a review by experts) is reached, we should be able to track from which the sources the content was created and provide some reasonable verifiability/reliability for readers (i.e. better having a content temporarily sourced with www.roman-emperors.org than not sourced at all).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Khmkhm makes a valid point. While the ultimate goal is to cite the best sources possible, we don't exclude the merely acceptable when that is what our editors can find. That said... it is never wrong to replace a citation to a merely acceptable source with a citation to a better source... especially when both sources support the same information. So, if a bit of information is cited to a reliable website (an acceptable source), and you can replace this with a citation to a peer reviewed journal (a better source)... go ahead. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanwallace. The objective of WP is to have informative, neutral articles for readers. Popular sources often emphasize interesting aspects, make factual errors, or promote non-mainstream opinions. Often they are not properly sourced. Almost every content dispute in which I have been involved has concerned the use of a non-academic source making extraordinary claims. TFD (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reliable source guidelines are what they are, and major changes are not likely to result from this noticeboard discussion. As to the original discussion, I think it can be agreed that www.roman-empire.net and www.roman-colosseum.info should not be assumed to be reliable, and I believe www.roman-emperors.org can be considered reliable as it has "a reliable publication process" and "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject", especially for uncontroversial material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1660 destruction of Safed was an eye-opening experience. A new editor created an account and with a professed agenda of righting great wrongs--Ottoman cruelty to Jews AND world belief in Ottoman tolerance--created six or so articles in twenty-four hours, sourced to blogs, readers' letters to newspaper websites, polemical non-fact checked books, etc. Some of these articles have now been deleted, while editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing the others. In the case of the Safed article, an unsourced statement made in one place that Arabs killed an entire Jewish population in Safed in 1660, proliferated to numerous other unreliable sources and became something "everyone knows" without being sourceable to any primary documents, or respectable secondary sources, anywhere. It appears the historical reality is quite different: the Druze, involved in a rebellion against their Ottoman rulers, sacked Safed, causing most of the inhabitants to flee temporarily. Moral: it is possible to create really polemical crap history using crap sources. A section of WP:RS clarifying preferred sources for historical articles would have been a really great help. Also, responding to Blueboar and Kmhkmh: There is no more work involved in finding sources about the Emperor Constantine on Google Books than is involved in finding them at ilikeemperorconstantine.com. Its the same effort. I don't think anyone will be deterred from creating or editing historical articles if our policy called for a little more rigor, and article quality would benefit greatly.Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between disputed and disputed content and that's exactly why i was talking about correct content above. Of course editors can not use any website (potentially crappy), but the may websites or popular exposee considered as correct/reliable for sourcing basic largerly undisputed content (not crappy). This is a completely different scenario from an editor using arbitrary (unreliable) websites or blogs or engaging in OR using primary sources. Also if there are disputes over content the requirements for (temporary) increase and in doubt only academic peer reviewed sources can be used, but again my posting above referred the large amount of undisputed (historic) content we already have covered and which we still want to cover.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jonathanwallace: And imho you are wrong for lay editors overly rigourous sourcing requirements does mean that there is significantly more work involved and there are access issues. Most academic peer reviewed sources require access to specific university librariers and online databases (usually being paywalled). Google books is great, but often does not provide a full preview and moreover it doesn't even provide access to the sources we want to have ultimately (peer reviewed journal articles, academic monographies). Also picking up random historic treatments in book form is hardly anymore reliable than various websites. Much of the historic nonsense spread overblogs and websites (as in the example you've mentioned) can be found in Google books as well. Why should a book by (reputable/reliable) historian X be anymore reliable than his website? That would be only the case if we restricted ourselves to a limited number of scientific publishers, but for arbitrary mainstream publishing companies, the (additional) editorial control regarding factual correctness is rather lax.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace, I agree with you in general: we need stronger and more specific sourcing standards. But in regards to the specific sources in question here, I stand by my above assessment. In regards to Google Books, I think roman-emperors.net is as good or better a source much of what you'll find there, as it also has its fair share of crap sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• We already have strong sourcing standards by example: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History which could be abstracted into a check list and result in policy much like WP:MEDRS. (WP:MILHIST editors would almost certainly offer opinion).
• If any article is MILHIST is has to meet a higher standard: Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• And IIRC, the History project transcludes WP:MILMOS and therefore WP:MILMOS#Sources governs all history articles at a MOS level. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Those "strong standards" are essentially the same as we have here anyhow just in a somewhat in a different wording and slightly more specific regarding for what citations are needed. www.roman-emperors.org would arguable qualify by their guideline as well. Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES starts essentially we referred to reliable sources, which ultimately brings us here again to answer the question whether a particular source can be considered reliable or not. There is no mention of a restriction academic peer reviwed source, instead it says "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians", which allows www.roman-emperors.org since it is largely published and written by reputable historians. It also allows for much (strictly speaking not all) of the stuff I'd outlined above (popular history books, popular exposees in newspapers, university websites, museum websites, websites of historians) provided their are written by a reputable historian. The only thing it may not allow if a popular history or article in a newspaper was written by (reputable) journalist consulting historians rather than a historian himself, but in connection with that it is also worthwhile to point out the quaote above says "should" and not "must".--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've consistently pushed for WP:HISTRS with much stronger standards. Would you like to collaborate? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends, I don't want stronger sourcing requirement if that means a restriction to peer reviewed publications only as a mandatory for an article start for the reason I've outlined above. If I have to choose between no article or a usuually correct first article about some historical figure based on a popular history book or a decent newspaper article, I go with latter and I'd strongly suppose any push by individuals in project to change that. I don't want wikipedia to be citizendium or scholarpedia, not because they are bad, but because so far WP intentionally has pursued a different less restrictive approach. Essentially we have competing models/methods to generate universal encyclopedic coverage and quality articles and while both approaches have their pros and cons, I don't see WP on the losing end so far and hence no reason to change our traditional approach. If the community at large decides to adopt another model, that is more like citizendium, scholarpedia or similar so be it, but introducing such changes indirectly through a backdoor of various subproject is something I'd oppose. If you want to change WP in that regard you should pursue that through the village pump and in discussion with the community at large.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No fear. I would suggest for HISTRS an escalating scale of sourcing requirements based on article quality and source availability. Stub and Start being open to any reliable source organised on any basis; C requiring article structure and presentation (even if not filled out) following magisterial sources and/or specialist tertiaries; B being as C but with the core of the article sourced to higher grade non scholarly RS; A as B but predominantly sourced to scholarly RS or exhausting the scholarly sources available in English / editor's relevant academic language; A also requiring a historiographical section if a review article / magisterial work with a historiographic introduction has been published. Primaries only used to illustrative purposes from C upwards. This preps articles under MILMOS to meet MILMOS B and MILMOS A which are transcluded into History projects in general; it also preps articles to meet FAC while cutting the problem of repeated FAC resourcing. But it allows interested editors without fuller access to greatly expand articles based on non-scholarly or freely available 19th century works. My primary concern for some time is that editors on Wikipedia have been acting as synthetic authors by patching together causative arguments and disregarding the theory, content structuring, and causative arguments available in widely circulating academic works. This suggestion would probably also require a recognition that some popularly published works are scholarly, and need to be aspirational in tone rather than disciplinary. Do you think this moves too far towards citizenpedia? I've been finding that FAC and MILHIST A reviews are catching a fair number of synthetically structured historical articles which have ignored the scholarly discourse in favour of a montage of snippets from RS; I am concerned that A level work outside of MILHIST isn't supervised by the same kind of active collegiate editorial environment encouraging high quality As as MILHIST. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A far as article ratings or reviews are concerned, I have no objections against higher ranked articles having more rigorous requirements for sourcing. My issue is/was with starting articles and the (minimal) requirements on sources for those. We probably have quite many (smart) lay authors who are carefully pumping information of popular history books, newpaper articles and external encyclopedias into new articles, that is a process i don't want to see hampered by overly restrictive regulation. This process usually doesn't create great articles but it does create acceptable articles being on par with most external general purpose encyclopedias (say britannica) and allows as us achieve a wide coverage of subjects relatively quickly. As far as the exact sourcing requirements for higher ranked articles are concerned, I don't have a particular opinion on that as I'm neither involved in ranking or review work in WP. However generally I'm a bit skeptical towards codifying too much (see WP:CREEP, WP:Bureaucracy). In the few FAR related discussion I've seen, I've noticed an imho unfortunate tendency towards form or formal requirements over content. For instance some authors make a big fuzz over sourcing every single sentence versus paragraph based sourcing (which imho is rather marginal thing) rather than actually checking the sources and assessing their quality. Cynically speaking one might say there's a danger that we focus too much on looking good rather than being good.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah—there's the danger of audit culture. Ideally, I'd like to see non-MILHIST history projects developing the fostering environment that MILHIST provides. I supplied six months of detailed citation quality reviews at MILHIST-A and, lo and behold, other MILHIST editors are doing it for themselves now. The educative process works. (A similar process occurred at FAC). This may be dot-the-i's stuff, but it is at the top order level of material. I strongly share your concern about encouraging content providers who read some kind of reliable source working on Stub Start C grade articles. I suppose that a firmly worded HISTRS would only be necessary if there's an increase in disputations over sourcing and sourced statements. If you notice an increase in disputed sourcing in the future, ping my page, and I'll draft a HISTRS that avoids audit/compliance culture that caters for all quality levels and for undisputed/disputed content areas and run it through the policy procedure. Our current standards (MILHIST-A, MILHIST-B, RS/Examples#History) are educative recommendations, and seem to work with RS/N as a back-up. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't participated above and I apologise if I am repeating something already said. Roman-emperors.org is very variable. Notably, some pages are fullish and have inline citations (e.g. [27]), some are sketchy and don't (e.g. [28]. Some are speculative, more like essays (e.g. [29]. That one does have inline citations, but years ago, when someone pasted it wholesale into Wikipedia, I began to check the assertions -- and found significant errors -- before I realised it was a copyvio). I would say that each article has to be taken on its merits, on the credentials of the author, on whether it gets cited elsewhere.

I'm not sure how active the site is. The list of pending essays is empty and was last revised in 2006 (whetyher that means that there have been no new pages since 2006, or whether the list has got forgotten, I don't know). Andrew Dalby 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Inline citation in academic articles are not necessarily as sign of quality or correctness of the content per se as the function of footnotes differ somewhat (mainly due to talking to a more specialized audience and the fact that TF is allowed). There is also nothing wrong with using essays as sources as long as the WP editor does that properly. If there are articles with important mistakes, they should of course be avoided and I agree that each article and author have to be taken on theor own merits. That however should be the case always anyhow, we should never give any larger reptubale source, author or publisher a blanket ok, even most prestigious journals may occasionally errors in articles and can contain outdated information. In other words credentials or author or publisher can only serve as preliminary sanity check, ultimately a WP-editor has to judge any source by its content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund

The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page? This being an example where they present their view on various accusations against them: [30] Miradre (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, opinions of organizations about themselves, and presented as their own opinion, are usable. IMO, we allow too many organizations to be cited for opinions about other organizations - frequently with fairly clear biases being shown at times. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (except for "unduly self-serving" which to my mind is a very ambiguous exception -- all statements about oneself are by definition "self-serving" in the first place). Collect (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the content issue that is at hand here specifically relates to the "unduly self-serving" exception. Miradre is lobbying for extensive rebuttals against critics of the Pioneer Fund. The first response (by myself) to his list of primary sources was a request for secondary sources to contextualize and properly weight the content. From there the conversation devolved into a predictable circuit of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. See the talk page for further details: [31]. aprock (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the best way to resolve this would be to seek guidance on the question of how one determines the extent to which an organization like the Pioneer Fund is allowed to defend itself against it's critics in the article. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere between "not at all" and "point by point argument, counter argument, and rebuttal". Likewise guidelines for inclusion criticism would also be useful. aprock (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problems with VDARE or American Renaissance (magazine) might be comparable to those with Pioneer Fund. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is - at what point is "I know it is a bad thing" allowed to become the standard for whether or not an organization is allowed some sort of defense. If we err, it ought to be on the side of "equal time" and not one of "they are bad so they do not get a chance to rebut charges." Collect (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a question of balance, correct use of WP:PSTS and avoidance of WP:UNDUE. The history of the Pioneer Fund by Richard Lynn is a primary source, so cannot be used, except in a few limited ways; accounts in books published by university presses, which have been reviewed in academic journals, are secondary sources. Policy is that WP articles are written using secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn's book was published by a non-vanity publisher. It has been reviewed by several articles in academic journals.Miradre (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite its name, University Press of America is not a university press. It does not appear to have an editorial board made up of academics. Their website gives the appearance of being for essentially self-published books. Lynn is funded by the Pioneer Fund and is now on their board, so his book is a primary source. Where are the reviews in academic journals? Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Their books have won numerous awards: [32] Most of your claims lack any supporting evidence and seems to be personal opinions. For example The Mismeasure of Man was not published by university press either. Many academic books are not published by university press but by publishers specializing in academic books. These are still not self-published books. Regarding primary source, see the section on secondary sources. A source may be both secondary and primary. Lynn writing on the time before he was involved with the Fund himself is a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A reputable academic publisher or university press consults academics about new titles: that is not an opinion, it is what happens in the real world. The book by Stephen Jay Gould is a book written for a wide readership and published by a well known publisher W. W. Norton & Company; it does not seem relevant to this discussion.

Lynn's history can only be used in a limited way in writing an account of the Pioneer Fund. In addition there do not seem to be any favourable academic reviews of the book (there is a 2004 essay by Neisser). But to return to the point, in writing articles about controversial organizations like the Pioneer Fund, secondary sources are recommended. Since this particular article is covered by WP:ARBR&I, even more care has to be exercised. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted Neisser, chairman of the American Psychological Association's task force on race and intelligence, certainly an expert commentary, did not dismiss the book or the Fund in his review. WP:ARBR&I is does not favor one particular side. We should be careful to include the views of both sides in order to achieve neutrality.Miradre (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I must again thank you, Mathsci, for taking up issues that has caused me to search for and find new evidence. Here is a new source from a book by Pergamon Press by a non-PF grantee. It mentions both Lynn's book and the Pioneer Fund favorably. [33]. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the Pioneer Fund is a controversial institution, any self-promotional material from them, their board or their grantees is counted as a primary source and can only be used in very limited circumstances. Individual notifications of the recent amendment to WP:ARBR&I were sent out, including one to you: the misuse of primary sources is discussed explicitly in Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that it was you who was mentioned and criticized in Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Mathsci_.28conduct.29 by the arbitration committee for your conduct, not I.Miradre (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, see the policy on secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY. A source by a person writing about the time before they were involved are secondary sources in that regard. See also above regarding the new source by a non-PF grantee. Thanks for helping me find this. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves". I am only talking about using this on the page about them in accordance with the policy on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre is continuing to lobby for the use of Lynn's history on Talk:Pioneer Fund.[34] He cites a book by Helmuth Nyborg as a positive review, which he claims is written by someone who has not received a grant from the Pioneer Fund. However, Lynn's history states (P 354), "In 1996 the Pioneer Fund made a grant to Helmut Nyborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark to study the effects of inbreeding in Daghestan in the Northern Caucasus of the former Soviet Union." So Nyborg is a Pioneer grantee. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Lynn's book now suddenly a reliable source since your quoting it? Miradre (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In limited circumstances: dates, names (in this case of grantees), grant sizes, etc. Here this discussion is not concerned with the use of Lynn to add content to a wikipedia article, but just about whether Nyborg has been a Pioneer grantee. And the answer is yes. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems there is a double standard where Lynn's book is allowed and a RS when supporting your arguments but not otherwise. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to ""Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No double standard whatsoever. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to use primary sources. An autobiography can occasionally be used to check facts, such as dates, but can rarely be used to write a WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographies are of course allowed in an article about the subject, with due attribution. Just look at the article on Obama. Furthermore, please review the policy on WP:SECONDARY. A person having personal involvement with a subject may still write a secondary source for the time before his involvement.Miradre (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That does not seem to be part of wikipedia editing policy. The Pioneer Fund involves a small group of researchers. For example here is a letter of personal support for Nyborg, while he was under investigation by his university, written in 2006 by the director of the fund.[35] Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy preventing autobiographies in the article about the subject as in the Obama article. Not sure what your letter is supposed to prove. Sources with a POV are not disallowed in WP if they are published in reliable sources. Are you disputing that Pergamon Press is credible publisher? Miradre (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of highly controversial subjects, such as the Pioneer Fund, an article which falls under WP:ARBR&I, particular care has to be exercised when using primary sources. Any accounts or defences of the Fund written by grantees or board members, such as Nyborg or Lynn, are primary sources, because of the context (not the publisher), and can only be used with great care. If a number of other editors challenge WP:UNDUE use of such a source, editors should comply with that consensus. Please read Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Advocacy. I don't think I have anything more to say. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBR&I does not favor either side. Since NPOV is important the PF should be allowed to state their view. Furthermore, please review the policy on WP:SECONDARY. A person having personal involvement with a subject may still write a secondary source for the time before his involvement. There seems to be a double standard, quoting Lynn's book as a reliable source when claiming that Nybord has received funding, but refusing to allow it when it presents arguments in favor of the book. But again, here I was primarily talking about the Fund's own material according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".Miradre (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You write "does not favor either side." Does that refer to some wikipedia policy? Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The point of asking this here is to get feedback from uninvolved editors. From the fact that Mathsci was sanctioned in the arbitration case linked to by Miradre, it's obvious that he's a long-time combatant in this topic area. It's not helpful that this discussion is being dominated by clearly involved editors. As far as I can tell, only one truly uninvolved person (Collect) has commented on this request, who has said that we should err on the side of giving an organization a chance to defend itself. Miradre, do you think that's enough of an answer, or should you get more feedback from uninvolved editors?Boothello (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry it doesn't work like this. One opinion voiced by someone here doesn't releieve you of the requirement of establishing consensus at the talkpage. If Mathsci is "involved" and a "longtime combatant" and should therefore be discounted then so is Miradre, and probably you and I. This is a place to get more voices in order to build consensus, not a place that overrides consensuses existing (or not existing) elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems best to keep to the point of this noticeboard (i.e. determining what is a reliable source, a primary source, a secondary source, etc), instead of discussing editors. There has been a much more detailed discussion on the talk page of the article. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it is enough of an answer. If any other uninvolved editor would comment that would also be welcome. That Maunus and Matsci with their long-time well-knowns POVs and involvement in this area would object was of course to be expected.Miradre (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pot, I may be a kettle but I am black and I am proud, you on the other hand seem to be in denial.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The original question was "The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page?" The first answer is that "they" should not be presenting "their" view: if done at all, it should be done by editors with no conflict of interest. The second is that the extent to which the accusations and their rebuttals should be presented is not a matter for this board, but, as stated above, the article talk page. The only aspect of the original question relevant here is, the extent to which the Pioneer Fund's own publications are reliable sources. They should be reliable for their own opinions (supporting statements such as "The Pioneer Fund's position on X is Y") and for noncontroversial, nonselfinterested data about themselves (although a consensus might need to be formed about whether such statements should be qualified by "According to the Pioneer Fund, Z") and independent sources for the latter would always be preferred. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Subject to WP:ABOUTSELF restrictions that the material should not contain claims about third parties or be unduly self-serving, and to WP:WEIGHT, I would agree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Byliner Original and Jon Krakauer

• http://byliner.com/ "Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way" by Jon Krakauer
• Byliner, Inc. is a new digital publishing company and website co-founded by John Tayman, Ted Barnett, and Mark Bryant. As editor of Outside magazine in the 1990s, Bryant published the magazine articles that would become Krakauer’s first bestsellers, Into The Wild and Into Thin Air. “Jon and I have worked together for many years,” says Bryant. “But it was always in the context of magazines. Byliner allows us to get a complex, newsworthy story like this out carefully but swiftly, to a very large audience, without the delay of printing.” [..] As exemplified by Jon Krakauer’s Three Cups of Deceit, Byliner Originals publishes works of compelling nonfiction, by great writers, that can be easily read in a single sitting. Byliner.com, which will have its more formal launch in early May, combines curated archives of the best nonfiction writers’ work with personalized recommendations, social bookmarking, and aggregated discussion—thus allowing fans of great storytelling to easily find, share, and discuss new and classic work by their favorite authors. [36]

Byliner purports in their press release to be a serious publisher run by experienced editors. Their inaugural work is an article by Jon Krakauer about Greg Mortenson. Mortenson was the subject of a 60 Minutes expose broadcast yesterday, and the Krakauer article makes similar allegations. Krakauer was an early supporter of Mortenson's foundation, and a respected author of non-fiction. If Krakauer self-published the article it would not be usable for assertions about the BLP, but I would think that it would be usable for assertions about the related charitable foundation. It is not self-published, but it is published by a source with no reputation good or bad, for fact-checking and accuracy. What do people think about using this as a source for the Mortenson biography?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• The press currently does not indicate if it is reliable by its website, a primary advertising medium for the press. It lacks an "About" page. It lacks manuscript submission procedures. The text itself has no information going to the capacity of the publisher to produce reliable sources. The quote from morningstar.com (which I can't view) indicates that this may be a vanity press for an ingroup. I'd give this an "Currently Indeterminate: Treat as Unreliable to be Safe" at the moment. Ask again if Byliner.com ever releases a full website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed the link and added a bit more - it's a press release.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Given the press release's emphasis on prior connections between the publisher and their first author, I have a strong suspicion that this may be a vanity press. I'd like to see their post launch site before making a final judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is now being reported in acceptable third party sources such as Wall Street Journal online], so can be referenced there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be referenced in a highly qualified way - the WSJ is mostly just reporting on the allegations, not confirming them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a short report by al Jazeera English now : [37]--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek as a reliable source

Related to this discussion at WP:AN, I would like to get the community's input on the reliability of Wisegeek.com as a source. Previous discussions can be found here and here.

Also, as part of this discussion, should links to Wisegeek be removed from articles? Links being links in the external links section and links in the references section. Previous discussions did not get much input, so the more input the better. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In February Google implemented a revised ranking system to,according to one account, "favor more authoritative content" and to lower the ranking of "'content farm' websites criticized for shallow content primarily authored to manipulate search results". The article goes on to say, "Denis Grosz' Conjecture Corp. owns the website with the biggest percentage drop in visibility, according to Sistrix. The website, WiseGeek.com, has had a 25 percent drop in traffic, he said." so apparently Google identified Wisegeek as being one of the primary "content farms" with low quality content created just to gain traffic. Their choice of article topics appears to be taken directly from the list of leading search terms. The article I have read there tend to be breezy, popular interest pieces with no footnotes. One major concern I have is that, given the low wages paid to writers and the lack of any expertise, they could draw much of their material from Wikipedia creating unacknowledged circular citations. However I have no evidence of that.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a content farm. As a source it's "meh" at best, and inaccurate at worst. It cites no sources, so there are two problems... we cannot further verify claims in secondary sources (and if we can, I see no argument for using the tertiary source over the secondary). Secondly there is a high chance some of the content is based on WP articles (obviously, no way of knowing!). Editorial oversight is likely to be low. It fails WP:EL, particularly as the pages rarely give anything "extra" to what we have in articles. And as a source it is right at the bottom end of reliability and usefulness. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've written at WP:AN about this, so I'll do just that: Wisegeek is a content farm that - if not visited from Wikipedia - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Wikipedia (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). I really don't see at all why we should ever use this site. --Conti|✉ 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I used wisegeek as a reference when creating this stub and can confirm that the information was acurate and reliable. Having said that, I believe that wisegeek does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. On the issue of removing the links, I think we should probably remove the links to wisegeek that are used in references, But I would say we should be careful about their removal. I would suggest adding a {{citation needed}} tag to material where the reference is removed as opposed to removing the material it references. I think wisegeek has accurate information but that it doesn't meet our reliability standard. Regarding links in the external links section, I have no opinion on that and they can be kept or removed, IMO. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As the site is basically a collection of articles which were written by non-experts in return for small payments it's not a RS. As these unreliable articles are heavily interspersed with ads its not a suitable external link either. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Hydroxonium's comment above, I took a look at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-distortion-meter.htm It's crap (I assume I saw the same content version). Whatever the route to achieveing this page, editorial policy, copyright, etc. the end results (from a sample of one) just aren't useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the AN discussion:

Freelance Writing Jobs!
We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.
wiseGEEK writers are asked to write at least five articles per week, or 20 articles a month, on average.
Apply now!

— [38]

• Definietly "manufactured for AdSense", albeit with a little more finesse than Demand Media. I agree with the concerns about lacking a reference list. The site also fails WP:ELNO convincingly, especially point #1 and #5.
• The article Will Beback refers to can be read here. MER-C 13:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source, because it is not written by known experts, nor does it have a third-party reputation for fact-checking and reliability, with the latter much more important. Paying non-expert authors to write articles, with income derived from ads, is not that heinous by Wikipedia reliability standards. While their model is slightly different, it's essentially the same model followed by reliable sources such as The New York Times, with the slight twist of the wisegeek ads being clickthroughs that directly benefit the author of that particular page - if I'm reading some of this discussion correctly. Newspaper articles are also not always written by experts in any field but journalism. And they have lots of ads. It's the fact-checking and reputation for reliability that are the bigger issues here. First Light (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Has a single not involved editor responded to this discussion yet? The point is to get outside opinions on the reliability of the source, not to rehash and reiterate the stances taken in the AN discussion. Silverseren^C 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm as uninvolved as is possible. This noticeboard is ideal for soliciting the views of uninvolved editors, though it usually needs more than 8 hours to attract several uninvolved views. Patience, grasshopper.... First Light (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above I don't see that the site passes the reliable source criteria in any way. I don't know that links ought to be systematically removed on sight, but they should certainly be removed once better sources are found (or if the material can't be found in a more reliable source). BTW I'm not involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not view wisegeek as a reliable source because there is no vetting of the authors and little editorial quality oversight. Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. Editorial policy isn't obvious, so there's no indication that it's any better than a single-user Usenet post. Copyright is also not clearly observed either. The purpose of the site is clearly ad revenue, not content quality. The note about paid writing (above) is hardly likely to attract good content either. How many red flags do we need here? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't look reliable to me. As an example, one of the links given in the WP:AN discussion led (with an extra click) to this page on "full retirement age". It says "In the United Kingdom, up until the mid 2000s, the standard full retirement age to receive a pension was 60 for women and 64 for men, ..." and I'd like to see a source for that information, which looks wrong to me; I would have expected to see 65, not 64, for men. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks outright incorrect.[39]   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion has now reached a consensus. As I see it, there seems no controversy at all about wisegeek links which are not directly used as cites, so I'm now going to do a quick pass down my list and remove any of the remaining wisegeek links that are not used directly as a cite, or are used as a cite where another cite is also given, or where the article is a medical article. I'll then revisit the more complex cases a bit later. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Herodotus: Secondary or primary source?

Are Herodotus's history books considered primary source or they are secondary sources? Specially when it comes to ancient Greece history?--Penom (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary source like the Bible, see this discussion here. You can use references "According to Herodotus..." but they should be filtered or balanced by what modern historians believe. The Histories, given that they preceded (and led to) the actual discipline of historical research, are more of a literery work with fantasical elements than an academic work of history. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So, by this definition medieval Muslim histories (e.g. al-Tabari) are primary sources for medieval Islam history. Or Pre-modern era Chinese histories (e.g. Gan Bao) are primary sources for ancient china history?--Penom (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they are both, they are a secondary source because you have the "historian" Herodot writing over historical events and they are a primary because current historian use him as a source. In this context it might be more helpful to distinguish between historical sources (herodot) and current (modern) scholarly literature on a subject rather than distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. Articles normally should be based on current (modern) scholarly literature of course.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is the usage. While the works were written as secondary sources, they can only be used as primary sources on Wikipedia. That is, they can be cited for what that particular work says explicitly, but not to comment on or interpret whatever topic they're discussing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the pre-modern source—of any pre-modern literary tradition—meets the standards of post-Ranke historiography then the source should be considered a secondary source. If it doesn't, then it ought to be treated as a primary source if credible or notable for its incredibility; and, if non-notable and incredible not used even for illustrative purposes.
• In the 19th century, in the West, historiography went through a major change related to Enlightenment conceptions about the nature of external reality and in particular the relationship in time between moderns and ancients. Even where Ranke's methodology has been rejected by other modern historians, they have rejected Ranke on Ranke's own terrain.
• Unfortunately there may be only a very very few pre-modern histories which meet this standard, and most of those are likely to be late 18th and 19th century Western histories. (But there was a great deal of "whiggish" crap back then, much as there's a great deal of pop-history written by half-brained journalists now). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia guideline or policy that supports this interpretation? Lambanog (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which is transcluded through all history projects; and, the nature of "scholarly" historical discourse as post-Rankean history; for the second, see any historiography book aimed at honours and postgraduate students, and practicioners. There's also the RS examples history section. These have stood fairly non controversially for a fair while. The HQRS requirement at FAC is also an indicator of what the "best" of wikipedia ought to be. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Sources like Herodotus can change their status from Secondary to Primary Sources simply with the passage of time... One (but not the only) way to determine whether this has happened is to see if the even older sources that the ancient secondary source cites (or refers to) still exist. If the even older sources that Herodotus refers to have been lost to us then, as far as we are concerned, Herodotus becomes the oldest (ie primary) source for the events described. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all pre-modern historical works should be considered primary sources, and few pre-20th century sources should be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi : Secondary or primary source?

Al-Masudi, a well-known historian in middle-east(born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Meadows of Gold should be treated as a primary source, and should not be used for any interpretive claim of any kind. We'd have to rely on the assessment of modern scholars to assess how reliable the work is on any particular issue. It could be used, with caution, to indicate what Masudi says about something or other. What is the context?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess your response was rather general to all contexts. But if you care to know, it was about his comment on eloquency of Ali and eloquent

proses left from him. Al-Masudi and a few other old-timers(who specialize on Arabic literature) have commented on this subject saying how eloquent Ali was. I wanted to know if I can directly quote those old-timers or I have to find someone from the new era who quoted them. P.S. Those old timers lived centuries after Ali.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For something like this, it would be better to use a secondary source giving this information, to make sure it's really important enough to be added to the already lengthy biography of this major historical figure. You can use a the work to say something like "The 10th-century historian Al-Masudi in his Meadows of Gold said xx", but we need to give regard to how much weight something gets in the reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi, like other old historical writings, is a primary source. Much of what we know their times is based on what they and others wrote, as well as archeological research, which has then been analyzed and compared by modern historians to determine the most likely version of events. Often these writers were eloquent and they writings improve articles. TFD (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TFD and Cuchullain, should be treated as a primary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Segal

Hi, I am having issues with WLU on appropriate sourcing. He/She/They deletes info and says it is not allowed without "helping" in any manner. I would like to know if this source is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzanne_Segal&diff=424898476&oldid=424881789 I called the Institute and cited them as a source after they confirmed my question. Since it is a "contactable source" is this valid, or how can I better make reference? Or is just the name sufficient since it is a "real" entitiy? Thank you. Vanlegg (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, because it is not a source at all. Just giving a phone number to ask someone who might or might not know the answer and might or might not give it to you, is not a citation. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hyperdoctor...so how does one make reference to the OFFICE OF ALUMNI from THE WRIGHT INSTITUTE....as a source that verifies her Ph.D. http://www.wi.edu/ Other schools ask for transcripts as verification. What is the policy here or has this never been an issue. Thanks Doc. Cheers. Vanlegg (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal communication simply is not a valid source for the purposes of an encyclopaedia. If there's a printed, or archived, newsletter or formal publication of the Institute, recording her graduation, then that could be considered. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I finally have a second source. Is the "Dissertation Database" of ProQuest with the reference number to her dissertation which includes dates/places/degree ...a good enough archive? ThanksVanlegg (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds perfect. Zero^talk 21:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero, Wonderful, thank you very much. Vanlegg (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of dissertation is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World

Is this source, Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World, reliable for referencing? It appears from the Sigurimi article to use Wikipedia as its source. It has also been referenced elsewhere on the project as a source. It seems that large tracts of text have been incorporated into this article from other published sources eg Albania - A Country Study. RashersTierney (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why you believe EotMW uses Wikipedia as a source. Please explain in more detail. Certainly it has vastly more content than Wikipedia had in 2003 (its year of publication). Zero^talk 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose it was the verbatim repetition of text from the 1994 book in both the Encyclopaedia and the Wikipedia article that led me to question the integrity of the Encyclopaedia. RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This Library of Congress page seems to be the source for both. In fact the original Wikipedia entry from 2003 is a straight cut-and-paste. RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would your first thought be "this book is copying Wikipedia text" rather than "Wikipedia is copying this book's text"? (Or, apparently, that they are both copying a third source.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was that the Wikipedia article was a copyvio, and I raised that concern at the TP several months ago and at a copyright discussion page, to which I got no replies. EotMW was recently used as a reference at the article in question, and it appeared as though it might be circular ref. If EotMW is considered a RS here, then all is fine and dandy in that regard. RashersTierney (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is considered a tertiary source. WP:PSTS says that a tertiary source is helpful in providing broad summaries of a topic. My feeling is that a tertiary source may be less useful if the particular information is an exceptional claim and comes from an unsigned article. In that case, one may want corroboration from a secondary source. (Not saying that's the case here. Just offering a general comment.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the thread & looked at the article, I have these thoughts. One is that if a given encyclopedia is clearly copying a source -- such as the Library of Congress county studies series -- drop the encyclopedia & refer to the source directly. (IIRC, all of the country studies are signed articles.) Another is to agree with TimidGuy: unless one is using a signed article in a given encyclopedia, avoid explicitly using encyclopedias period. Unsigned articles are usually written by freelancers who are not experts, & whose knowledge of the topic are not significantly better than the average Wikipedia contributor, & may actually be clearly worse. A final one is that were I to look for information about the Sigurimi -- the Albanian secret police during Hoxha's rule -- one of the last sources I would consider using would be the EotMW; at best, this would be a peripheral subject in that reference work, one not subjected to the same level of editorial scrutiny that, say, an article on SAVAK would receive. Further, although the fact the majority of Albanians are Muslim, even after reading our article on the Sigurimi I fail to see a connection between that organization & Islam that would enrich my knowledge of either. (Maybe it's there, but there's nothing currently in the article which asserts that.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Authors nationalities

How do we stand regarding this issue? For exemple, do we accept a work of a Palestinian historian to source Israeli historical events, or basicaly any work of someone who can potentialy have a conflict of interess regarding the issue debating? FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Would you challenge the work of an Israeli historian as a source for Palestinian events?

Author nationality is not a consideration, and sources do not have to be neutral to be considered reliable. Now, it may be that what they say should be phrased as being an opinion, and not accepted as unattributed fact, but that is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I supose that in any case of exceptional claims WP:REDFLAG is used, so I supose any radical views that an author of one side does regarding the other they would have to be further suported by another neutral authors. Regarding your first question, and if radical views are expressed, well, yes, I would be extremely cautious and I´ll try to find more sources to confirm that, possibly from non-involved authors. Maybe I´m wrong, but are there any policies on this? FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy on this... please see: WP:Neutral point of view (which discusses the need for Wikipedia editors to maintain a neutral point of view and present both sides of a debate. Especially when we suspect that the sources may not be neutral.) Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that one, but the problem is when you have an user saying the claim is not exceptional, and refuses to even consider suspicious "his" source (which has this nationality conflict of interes problem, and is exceptional on many claims). I´ll try to post the exact source in question here later.

It is always best to give a specific article, assertion and source as set forth at the top of this page. It is very hard to answer these questions in the abstract. See the "Roman emperors" section above for some detailed discussion of historical sources, including reference to this and other policies. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• All histories published in the scholarly mode are inherently reliable by Wikipedia standards. However, every history has a distinctive POV and historiographical attitude. The way to correctly WEIGHT multiple (inherently and necessarily) POV scholarly histories is to seek "Review Articles" and historiography sections, where historians themselves weight and evaluate the credibility of published histories. The American Historical Association journal provides many single work book reviews by historians judging their value, and provides at least one Review Article of historiography in a field each issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kent Hovind: questionable source used to prove a supposed factual statement

The sentence in the first paragraph of the Kent Hovind article that reads "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a POV sentence which of course violates Wikipedia's neutrality clause for its articles. It then uses as its source a website called Talk Origins which is heavily biased towards evolution and misrepresents some of its claim. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " "The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence

Since the source cited is not an objective source and heavily biased, I would like the inclusion of this source contested as a reliable source, and the sentence tagged as a POV sentence. Thank you.Dimestore (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) "heavily biased towards evolution" = heavily biased towards the majority scientific consensus = WP:DUE weight. (ii) You have not demonstrated that TOA misrepresents Woodmorappe, as TOA is citing Woodmorappe, John. 1981. "The essential nonexistence of the evolutionary uniformitarian geologic column: a quantitative assessment" Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(1): 46-71 for this claim. (iii) In any case, the TOA is not being cited for the contents of Woodmorappe's claims but merely for the fact that "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research." Given the scientific endorsements of this site, I think that this is a reasonable characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The site talkorigins.org appears to be a compilation of Usenet newsgroup postings and hence not a reliable source. The awards do not speak to reliability in our sense. There is no evidence of peer review or editorial policy or control. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. TalkOrigins Archive IS NOT "a compilation of Usenet newsgroup postings". Read the article if you want to know what it actually is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Prior discussion of this source can be found at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#TalkOrigins Archive Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC) )

Thanks for finding that: the summary there was TalkOrigins Archive should nowhere be considered less reliable than a self-published source, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a big deal. If the reader is too stupid to realize that a "creationist and conspiracy theorist famous for his creation science seminars that aim to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative" (as stated in the first sentence) has "views [that] are contradicted by scientific evidence and research," should we really waste our time stating the obvious? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is obvious, and whether it needs stating, do not seem to be questions for this board. But if we do state it, especially in a BLP, it needs support from a reliable source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Image verification from blog via Commons OTRS

Hi, there's a quite complex issue at Diego Arria over the inclusion of the Commons image File:HaciendaLaCarolina.jpg, which is being used to make a factual claim, and the source for the image (a blog) isn't reliable (per WP:RS). (The blog is the personal blog of User:Attarparn, who is the person who uploaded the image and inserted it into the article.) The matter could rest there, except after I initially removed the image, an OTRS ticket materialised on Commons, being an email from Attarparn forwarding permission to use the image from Diego Arria. I don't know to what extent this can be accepted as reliable verification, rather than mere permission for use of the image. (Apart from anything else, the most it could verify is what Arria claims the image shows, unless some independent source can verify the date and subject.)

I posted at WP:BLPN and got no answer. I posted at the Commons OTRS board and got some clarification. I concluded that the OTRS ticket was resolved in a manner that indicates the image cannot be used in a Wikipedia article in any way that makes a factual claim (and I can't see how any use of it can avoid doing that). So, where do we go from here? Attarparn (now signing as realname "Dr Ulf Erlingsson") continues to want to have the image in the article with a factual-claim caption that has no reliable source as far as I can see. Rd232 ^talk 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Images are normally used to illustrate. Apparently here it is a question of the image being used to verify. If so, then the source needs to be reliable, and subject to the usual conditions. A personal blog is not a reliable source, and taking an image rather than text from that source doesn't change things. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS unless the blog's owner is a recognized expert, per WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable this site is

THIS site. I couldn't see anything about whether it has a writing staff or not, plus I'm not great at judging these things. I'm looking to cite it in the article Manhunter (film), to support that the film won the Critics Award at the Cognac Festival du Film Policier. The quote in the article is:

The thriller introduced the character of cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, then played by Brian Cox, and brought Mann a Critics Award from the Cognac Festival du Film Policier and a nomination for Best Motion Picture at the 1987 Edgar Allan Poe Awards.

I'm looking to use this citation to replace the current citation of the film's IMDB page, which is understandably suspect. GRAPPLE X 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to solicit contributions for the general public, and there's no statement of editorial policy or control. So for now I would say no. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No indication of authorship or reputation regarding editorial oversight. Has quite a few popups. Does not meet WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair do. I'll see if I can find the information elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents

This photo was taken on October 25, 2007 in Lilongwe, Lilongwe, Malawi.

Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, flickr is not a reliable source. Is the picture being used to illustrate or verify? For some reason, Wikipedia has adopted lower standards for the reliability of illustrations. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The original flikr photographer describes it as the netball team and the commons upload reflects the original information. So as a reliable source to what the photographer thought he took then I dont see a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we know who the original photographer is or whether they misdescribed a photo. Most photos are subject to verification. Somebody will recognize a political figure or a geographical feature. I think that a group of people standing together raises special concerns. I could take a random photo and claim it is the winning group of the 2007 hog calling contest and there is no way for anyone to verify my claim. How do we know whether there was a 2007 hog calling contest or a Malawi netball team? Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus

(talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't, but we wouldn't know it with a Commons editor misdescribing it either. One needs to apply a measure of common sense, in many cases pictures are working fine as illustration and you can be relatively certain that the description is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it count as WP:SPS since, you know, anyone can upload whatever they want to and claim that it is what they they think it is? Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that flickr is not a reliable source, but a self-published one, and hence reliably only to the extent that individual contributors are. However, reliable sources are not required for illustrations, so the question is moot. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that this photograph is useful for the purpose for which it is being used (to illustrate articles about Netball and Netball in Africa). As Insider mentions above, the standard is that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". The women in this photo aren't dressed in netball uniforms, nor are they playing netball or standing on or near a netball court. All that connects them to netball is the original photo caption that claims they are a netball team. Suppose, on the other hand, that we were editing the article about American football for the Wikipedia edition in some African language. If we had a photo of the Green Bay Packers standing in an auditorium, not wearing their football uniforms but wearing business suits, and some of them holding their young children, would we consider that a useful photograph to illustrate American football even if we could be sure that the players really were the Green Bay Packers? I hope not, because such a photo wouldn't "look like what it was meant to illustrate," namely, a football team. By contrast, a picture of Adam Sandler and his fictional teammates playing football in the movie The Waterboy might actually be a better choice to illustrate the article, because at least it would look like it had to do with American football, even though it didn't depict a real team playing a real game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well I think that that is cogent, Metropolitan90. We do allow more leeway for illustrations. We would allow, for instance, a editor to upload an original-work drawing of (his conception of) a netball team. But I would say that if an illustration is challenged then its incumbent on the person providing the illustration to show that it's an accurately representative picture. One way this could be done would be to provide links to unfree images on other sites. If the person defending the image can point to images on sites X, Y, and Z and say "See? These other netball teams pose in this way, it is a common way for netball teams to present themselves" or something, then fine. Absent that, remove the picture. (And it is up to the person providing or defending the picture to come up with verifying information). Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)