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

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

• The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
• It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
• If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
• It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would judge (if I may intrude on that question) that it's very difficult to say. Early medieval genealogy is not an exact science, and that's the reaon why each link in the chain or each branch on the tree needs a footnote. If it lacks a footnote, it wants a "Citation needed" template. So the answer to WhatamIdoing's question would involve a measure of probability on each genealogical link: one couldn't possibly answer for the table as a whole.

It's a bit like the historical maps made by Wikimedians. They are very handy, and may be preferable graphically to anything we can copy from PD sources, but are they accurate? We don't know. Are Wikimedians reliable sources? Well, no, they aren't. So do we accept such graphics in Wikipedia articles or not? It's a hard question. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but "it's not cited and probably okay" doesn't bother me much. The rule is that it must be possible to verify information, and if we think it's probably right, then it's probably also verifiable. But if we have some reason to believe that it's probably wrong, I'm going to be much more concerned. Uncited good information is okay. Uncited bad information can be a disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What does probably ok mean? The problem is that the standard of proof which many editors that add genealogical information is below that used for notable events. For example in this case neither the text that was replaced or this graphic representation has even one citation (nor are there any on Wikicommons). Often when asked for, if it is provided, it is from web sites which do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources criteria. It is usually fairly easy to check the father of the subject from the sources in the text and in some cases the mother. But each generation back the number of ancestors doubles and the sourcing often becomes less and less reliable. My position is the same as Andrew Dalby's on this issue. One needs to be able to highlight for the reader those parts of a tree that have no sources, those based on unreliable sources, and those based on reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Probably okay" means that the information is likely to be verifiably accurate, should someone actually go to the trouble of searching through sources. You may have noticed that I contrast "probably okay" with "probably wrong" in that comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a worthwhile goal. What the chances are of achieving it on Commons I don't know. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Next to nothing I suspect. Commons worry about copyright not about the reliability of sources used to validate images such as these. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Where an image from Commons would fail to meet policy concerns at Wikipedia regarding Original Research or the reliability of sources used—we should not use that image. This is relevant for Genealogy due to the interpretive element in Genealogy, and the need to independently reproduce copyright okay diagrams from questionable source data. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Map graphics giving modern information (statistical, administrative, etc.) are generally safer: they are often derived from just one or two highly reliable sources and it is evident or is stated by the creator what sources were used. Historical ones are more dubious. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution for family trees is a development of an idea I used in an an image I introduced into an article Bodiam Castle. It has letters on it for rooms, which are then listed in the Wikipedia article. If an image for a family tree, was to carry superscripts for each entry then a bundled citation could be used to link the names to sources within the usual footnote system. Preferably the sources could be added to both the Wikicommons description and a Wikipdia article that uses it. Even if the initial editor does not introduce any citations with the image other editors could request sources by using the hooks in the image to do so or add them (just as is done in a text section on ancestry). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would work ... if we can somehow encourage the incorporation of hooks in images of that kind. I don't quite know where we'd start ... Andrew Dalby 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

University of al-Karaouine

A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:

• Aslan, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.

Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education (see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic was already discussed here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no it was not. Neither of these sources are mentioned anywhere in the ANI report. Please dont misrepresent the content of that page. This page is specifically used for opinions on the reliability of a source. The ANI report was specifically about a user edit-warring to try to force in a favored version of an article. Please dont conflate the two subjects, as it only distracts from the purpose of this page. Thank you. nableezy - 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly disingenuous of you to include the second source, as if to say, "Hey is this source reliable, even though mine is better?". The second source has no bearing on whether the first source is reliable or not. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. I am asking about both, because you rejected the second as "generalist" but said the first was "reliable". So I am asking about both. That you rejected the second while accepting the first isnt my fault, now is it? nableezy - 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, yes, which is probably why no one has responded to your request. If you wanted to ask about the second source, you should have posted a separate request. The only reason I can think of why you would post both together, is that in case someone said Fergusson was reliable, if they also said that Ednan was reliable, (and they both are) you would then claim that Ednan was "more" reliable, since he is a "professor", while Fergusson is a "freelance journalist" (your own words). Disingenuous and dishonest. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. You rejected Ednan as a "generalist" source, so I asked about it here. Now saying that you think that he is reliable makes your past dismissals disingenuous and dishonest, especially when contrasted with the claim that a book on the Taliban is reliable for the history of a Moroccan university. Im guessing that this hasnt gotten any response due to the silly responses initially posted (including, to be clear, yours). But fine, since you now acknoweldge that Eslan is reliable, in contrast to the rather asinine judgment you made on the talk page, Ill start a new thread specifically about Taliban: The Unknown Enemy. But "freelance journalist" is not just my own words, and if you cared at all about the material you push in articles you would have checked his qualifications before saying that. It is what he is. nableezy - 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some uninvolved commentary on whether the Taliban: The Unknown Enemy is a reliable source for the article University of al-Karaouine, and also if the book Islamic Education in Europe is a reliable source for that same article? Thank you, nableezy - 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The only intellectually honest thing would be to post individual requests for each source, everything else is noise. You should also be advised that being incivil and shrill does not help your cause, rather it hinders it. Probably another reason why no one has responded to your request. Athenean (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and immediately calling somebody disingenuous, that's being civil? Seems my madrasa skipped that lesson. nableezy - 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the third noticeboard which has been plastered by Nableezy in a quick succession, and this inquiry demonstrates yet again that he still does not understand what board is good for what. The question is whether Taliban: The Unknown Enemy by Da Capo Press is a WP:RS, not what this Aslan says here. As for him and your claim that madrasas were universities, there has been already lots of top-quality sources provided to Nableezy refuting this claim (e.g. here and here). That he forgets to mention any of them, indicates that he is actually not much interested in a discussion based on objective criteria, but rather in pushing his own views. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. I am at this board asking if two sources are reliable for the statements attributed to them. You reject any source as "generalist" that you disagree with and accept a source if it agrees with you even if it is on a completely unrelated topic. And I do know what each board is for, thank you very much. This one is for discussing the reliability of sources. Your repeated edit-warring was reported to one noticeboard, and the neutrality of ignoring any source that you disagree with to another, and the reliability of sources to this one. That you play this "who me?" game everywhere you go is amusing, but not productive. nableezy - 23:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

JUst an observation, Ednan Aslan is the editor of 'Islamic Education in Europe', we should really be sourcing the info to whoever wrote the chapter that pages 220-1 come from. Both sources seem only to mention al-Karaouine in asides, but I would say that Fergussons lack of qualifications/expertise in religious education makes him a very poor choice of sourcing for this area. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So I looked at these sources.

• James Fergusson is a journalist who doesn't claim academic credentials. I don't see a reason to treat him as unreliable on the things that journalists are trained for (reporting and analyzing current events). However, his mention in passing of this institution is too peripheral to the topic of his book to be treated as a reliable report. So a clear negative on this one.
• As 94.195.anon pointed out, Adnan Aslan is the editor of the compilation "Islamic Education in Europe" and not the author. The chapter of the book this quote comes from is called "Islamic Knowledge in Italy" and was written by Yahya Sergio Yale Pallavicini. The subject of his chapter is Islamic education, which is a lot closer to the topic than Fergusson's book, and it is clear from his bio that he is an expert on this topic. On the other hand, I don't see credentials in ancient history and he could be fairly described as an activist (though an unusually moderate one). On balance he could be cited with "according to...".

As a personal comment on this debate: We should remember that places like Oxford in the early days had the production of clerygmen as one of their prime functions. It isn't really clear to me that the choice between madrassa and university is one with an objective answer. Quoting both viewpoints would be good (but find a better source than Ferguson). Zero^talk 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. Would you be so kind as to offer an opinion on this source as well [1]?

Southern Poverty Law Center

Could this [2] be used for this claim[3].It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a "blog", it is a well-regarded non-profit organization that, among other things, tracks hate groups. Attribute it if you want, but remove it? No. nableezy - 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a self-published source so is only a reliable source about itself. Ankh.Morpork 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

by that definition a newpaper is self published, SPLC is a highyl respected orgnaisation, however ot should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I encourage you to read the actual definition of self-publishing, which contrardicts your assertion that newspapers would ever be considered self-published.

Anhk, the SPLC would generally be regarded as an "expert" under WP:SPS. So although nearly all websites are technically self-published, that need not infringe on our ability to use their website to describe organizations or companies like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is an eminently reliable source on the radical right. Contra OP, the article's poster is identified in the byline, and SPLC has editorial oversight from a board of directors and a program staff. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for criticism

What counts as a criticism bearing weight? For example, a notable author wrote an article criticizing Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. How should I prove that his criticism bears weight and should be mentioned in the article? Is it enough to show the place were the original article was published was a prestigious magazine or newspaper? Or the fact that the critic was cited by other people?(perhaps by those who wrote other criticism books in response to Dawkins). Your help is appreciated to avoid a dispute on Dawkins page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

News magazines are generally not appropriate sources of criticism for academic works. Seek peer reviewed journal's book reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think The God Delusion makes the bar as an academic work, more a mass market offering. Bantam (the publisher) isn't known as an academic powerhouse. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument is about a comment Richard Dawkins makes about suicide terrorism [4], and the book is The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath quoting a paper[5] by Robert Pape. Dawkins is talking about religious motivations in suicide attacks, and is clearly not stating all suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Pape's paper looked at some (he says all, but I think that's debatable) suicide bombings and concluded that the majority was not religiously motivated. McGrath uses that to try to discredit Dawkins. Clearly Dawkins didn't say all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, and Pape isn't saying suicide bombers are never religously motivated (just the majority of attacks he looked at wasn't), so the use of Pape's paper in this situation is fallacious in my opinion. — raekyt 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the hook for all this is a single paragraph comment by Dawkins in The Guardian, written in 2001 in response to 9/11? If so, drop it, Kazemita: undue weight. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What my friend Reaky forgot to mention is that McGrath is not alone in using Pape's paper to criticize the new atheists, relating suicide bombing to religion: https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+pape+atheism&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And I responded to that link on the Richard Dawkins page is that the search doesn't mention Dawkins, just because other people use Pape's paper doesn't mean it's a valid criticism of Dawkins comment. And just because a bunch of people say something doesn't mean it's a valid argument, what does Pape say about Dawkins views, or what does Dawkins say about people using Pape's paper to argue against his views? — raekyt 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And my response to that argument was that you do not have the authority to declare whether a conclusion by a notable critic(McGrath) is valid or not. You can only research if it is reliable, i.e. if his reasoning is backed up by multiple sources and that link in Google books shows it.

@Andrew Dalby: the authors who criticized Dawkins (directly) did not mention the Guardian article as the hook per say. The Guardian article was just an example of such claims by Dawkins that is currently present in the article. User Reak has no authority to read the author's mind.

You may want to bear in mind the reception of McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion and how much citation Pape's paper received, before drawing a conclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article it looks like it barely meets WP:NBOOK... — raekyt 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wondered whether that was really the only hook, but you will admit, Kazemita, that your initial query was so studiedly vague you were lucky to get a response out of us at all!

Notable criticism of any book by Dawkins (which was the topic of your initial question) belongs principally in the article about the book. Reception of the MacGrath book belongs principally in the article about that book. I'd start there. Andrew Dalby 10:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, read my beginning statement before judging me. I wrote: "a notable author wrote an article criticizing...". I was clearly not talking about McGrath's book. If you must know, it was Terry Eagleton's article I had in mind. Although I can see the root of this mis-understanding is due to user Reak (who wrongly guessed what my original question was about)

As for criticizing Dawkins' book, am I correct understanding you that in any Wiki page of a person, we are not allowed to bring criticism if the criticism is about a statement something the person mentioned in his book? --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make people dig for it, give them the link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching — raekyt 10:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And I guess I have to start from the beginning here to since your not giving us anything, what claim are you trying to put criticism against, or what statement do you want this source (or another? link?) to say against Dawkins? Hes a literary critic, I don't see that he has degrees in Theology, but maybe he does, i donno his article doesn't specifically say. So basically what do you want to use this source to say? — raekyt 11:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Continued question)@Andrew Dalby: If material from books that criticized The God Delusion is not allowed, what exactly qualifies as acceptable criticism in Dawkins article?--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as a general rule of thumb, you should only add criticism to any particular statement into an article if that original statement is notable enough to be covered in reasonable depth in the article. In this particular case, I don't see the suicide bomber claim in the article to begin with (going by a quick search, not a careful reading). Dragging it in just to be able to criticise it seems somewhat perverted to me - I don't see how this serves the reader. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the claim Stephan(in the article):

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!Kazemita1 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mere mortal. I don't judge, allow or forbid ... Had you linked Eagleton and the London Review of Books, Kazemita, you might have saved some time. I would consider LRB opinions to be often notable, and Eagleton often worth citing. That's it from me. Good luck to all. Andrew Dalby 11:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment "You can only research if it is reliable," suggests a possible confusion by Kazemital about what we mean by reliable sources. Kazemital, have you read WP:Verify and WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentleman, Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper:

"If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&q=good+bet#v=snippet&q=good%20bet%20suicide&f=false

This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing.

@Stephan and company: Please revise Kazemita1 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically quote mining if you read the whole paragraph, that starts on page 347 and ends on 348 it's clear he's talking about religiously indoctrinated children, specifically an admonishment for faith. He's not claiming _all_ suicide bombing is the result of religious faith and if you just pull that one sentence out of context it makes it sound like all suicide bombing is, but you can't pull just once sentence out of context and make him say something he's not, that's intellectually dishonest. By WP:AGF I'm going to assume you've read The God Delusion, have a copy, and just misread that passage, I'm not going to immediately assume you was being intentionally dishonest by quote mining. If you haven't read this book, don't have access to a copy of it, how do you expect write a credible criticism of it by just relying on snippets online? — raekyt 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Raeky Let everyone know if any more quotes from the mentioned pages is necessary to draw a sound conclusion:

"More generally (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them-given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for further jihads or crusades. Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr's paradise, the authentic faith -head deserves a high place in the history of armamaents alongside the longbow, the warhouse the tank and the cluster bomb. If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in ther religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities and that martyerdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardents of Paradise. And they were taught that lesson not necessarily by extremist fanatics but by decent gentle mainstream religious instructors who lined them up in their madrasas, sitting in rows, rhytmically nodding their innocent little heads up and down whlie they learned every word of the holy book like demented parrots. Faith can be very very dangerous..."

Kazemita1 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably a copyright violation to put such a big quote on wikipedia, but I still stand by my assertion that hes not claiming all suicide bombers are religiously motivated and discounting suicide bombing out of desperation for guerilla fighters that Pape says makes up the majority of the attacks he looked at. Is there secondary sources to back up Pape's conclusion, additional papers that back up his conclusions, reviews of his paper in other peer reviewed journals, etc? Is there any evidence that Dawkins really believes all suicide bombers are religiously motivated? You seem to be really pressing this criticism, which to me seems a bit petty, something that could easily be attributed to a miss-wording, or misunderstanding. Surely there's better criticisms of his work then this? — raekyt 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a reliable sources matter, if it ever was :) I find the back-and-forth confusing, and probably not conducive to measured conclusions, but since Kazemita has asked me to comment once more, I'll give my opinion for the very little it's worth. Dawkins was saying, in the passage quoted, that suicide bombers are motivated by faith. It is fair, on the basis of the passage quoted, to take it that, when he wrote that text, he meant all suicide bombers. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be fair at all. I.m.o. it would be fair to say that when he wrote that text, he meant that suicide bombers generally are motivated by faith. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any justification, in the passage quoted, to introduce that word "generally". And I don't see how to square the logic of "if" X "it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers" with the view that he was not writing about all of them, but only some. Perhaps our dialects are further apart than is evident, DVdm, and I guess, if so, we don't know whether Dawkins's dialect is closer to yours or to mine. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think this is a matter of logic of or dialect, but of common sense. Make that "not writing about all of them, but most of them" —i.o.w. generally— and we're in business. That's where the "good bet" comes in. If he had explictly meant "all of them" he would have said that it is a "sure bet", not merely a good one. But that's how I read this, of course. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, our views are not so far apart. Andrew Dalby 20:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

sfcrowsnest.com

In H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), the website http://sfcrowsnest.com is cited for news, reviews and interviews. It is published by Stephen Hunt, with articles contributed by writers. In my opinion, the site seems to be reliable based on its longevity, and editorial staff. I don't know how much it has been cited in other works, so I'm bringing it up here. --Lexein (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are better sources, such as File 770 and Ansible; but the crow's nest is reasonably reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep those other two sources on tap. --Lexein (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editors of both Ansible and File 770 are people who read the stuff, and their coverage of visual-media trivia is minor and in passing. If you're looking for gossip about films, the Syfyllis Channel, and the like, they are not your best sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't seeking gossip, but actual news, reviews, and interviews of the principals involved in the filming of the 2005 Pendragon film and its various recuts and reissues. SFCrowsnest provided a reprint of Mark Leeper's initial review, and an interview with the director. I'm still seeking more. The SFCrowsNest material had been deleted as "unreliable" (see edit history) so I asked here. --Lexein (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Glasswerk

Does Glasswerk appear to be a reliable source for music-related articles? I am unable to find an 'About us' information section from the site. Till I Go Home 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything either, and clicking on the author [6] brings up a "jenny.editor@glasswerk" e-mail address. Since it features prominently a "Log in here/Participate" link, it would appear to be a community posting site and without evidence of a qualified editorial board (sorry Jenny, we cannot assume that you are qualified) that controls quality, I would say no we dont use it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

thesavior.com - a reliable source?

Is this interview[7] a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing[8], a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I dont agree with you deleting the Healing Iraq reference - it is not 'just' a commentary but represents a deep source of Iraqi news (which english sources lack), the author himself reads local arabic news sources and performs fact checking (including on english sources). He studied journalism and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian [9] [10].

While he seems to have quit dentistry, (Quote: I have been reluctant to change careers, but quite frankly there is nothing that I can add to dentistry in Iraq, whereas the field of Iraqi online and print journalism is lacking in many aspects, and I hope to contribute to filling that gap.) [11] he still displays 'dentist' on his website and is reluctant to called himself a journalist (possibly because he wants readers to still view him as just an ordinary citizen who is interested in Iraqi news). I dont think its enough to discredit a source just because he states he is a dentist. Healing IRaq is one of the most read blogs for Iraqi news (and maybe even one of the best sources), Ziyad is known for his accurate reporting. Regarding using the 'Healing Iraq' reference for the wiki (especially regarding the battle of najaf), this quote from the OTB journal gives support: "I still haven’t found an official release on the military action that occurred in Najaf but, if you’re confused about what happened there, you’re not the only one. Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq has collected more than a dozen different descriptions of what happened, ranging from..." [12]. Im not too familiar with the wiki rules but this would seem to give support, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

As for using the-savior.com as a reference, it is the website created by his representatives (who are in contract with Ahmad Al-Hassan), I believe it should stay to get some information on him, from him, as per [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source].

I didn't intend this to be an essay, but hopefully it can contribute to the building of the article.

What claims are these self-ublished sources supposed to be supporting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, the Healing Iraq reference was used in various places not for new claims.. it was mostly support to things already known by other articles. However, I specifically quoted from Healing Iraq, his analysis of the Battle of Najaf on the conflicting reports of 'reliable' sources. Is it ok to discredit a reference because its hosted on a Blogspot? what if the author is a journalist with extreme interest in Iraqi news and his articles were published in 3rd party sources??

As for the the-saviour.com reference, its used to get basic facts on the individual (birth place, occupation) and details on his movement (specifically, the period of time around when he began his movement).

I realise references are limited in english (and I will try to find arabic sources), however this article should be notable considering it constitutes a new movement/sect within Iraq that is spreading internationally (the movement has websites in english and other languages). Further, Middle Eastern issues (Security or other) are of major concern to international policies of US, UK other alliance countries.. which would encompass these rapidly emerging ideologies.

Still waiting on the Healing Iraq reference to be unblocked... it is more than reliable with regards to this article.

Self-published sources may not be used for information about any living person except for the person writing/publishing the source. So the birth place, occupation, etc., simply cannot be supported by a self-published source.

The journalist might qualify for the expert exception, but it could then be used only for claims that are not about living people. So "Journalist John says that media reports about the battle were conflicting" might be okay, but "Journalist John says that Jane was on vacation during the battle" is never okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party

The question is whether [13] is an RS or not. The proposed change is below, reproduced from the talk page on the New Party's article:

Proposed article change

Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results).

Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).

Reasons it could be considered an RS:

1) Stanley Kurtz is a researcher with a PhD from Harvard University.

2) TNR is a well-respected source.

Reasons not -- I'll let opponents speak for themselves.William Jockusch (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP enforces a neutral point of view. National Review is a reliable source on conservative opinions, whether or not their views can be rebutted. In the case of a dispute, both sides, pro and rebuttal should be included. Otherwise, any source that can be characterized a crazy lunatic right wing partisan operative can be summarily deleted by any editor who is a crazy lunatic left wing partisan operative who disagrees with that opinion, which appears to be the poor justification for the case presented below. Redhanker (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not even close. The source in question is an opinion piece written in the first person, accusing Obama and some other people of lying, which should end the analysis right there. Kutz is a partisan operative who has made it part of his career to make accusations against President Obama (the usual Republican points - he's a "stealth socialist"[14] and a radical,[15] he's cozy with terrorists, Jeremiah Wright,[16] he was part of Acorn's election fraud,[17] etc.) in the context of political campaigns. Between elections (in 2010) he published an entire book to argue the debunked Republican talking point that Barack Obama is a socialist. The proposition of adding material from Kurtz into the Obama article has been discussed several times without gaining approval.[18] Now, writing one of his regular anti-Obama pieces for a conservative opinion forum (the National Review Online) he repeats an old accusation that failed to gain any traction before the last presidential election, that Obama was a secret member of a third political party. As it stands, there's next to nothing. This was the buzz of the day a month ago (at the time this question was asked) in the conservative blogosphere, and it quickly died down there and here (there was a long discussion that did not gain any consensus to include). Although the allegation itself, that in the course of an election Obama signed a pledge with an obscure left-of-center "fusion" party in exchange for an endorsement at the same time he was also nominally a Democrat, is hardly scandalous, Obama's campaign has denied it and although various innocent interpretations are possible the Kurtz camp has basically said the President is lying. That's an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, not partisan editorials. If there were any merit to this claim and if it were relevant: (a) there would be stronger sources for it, and (b) reliable sources would have covered the fact of Kurtz' making these allegations. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters is regularly considered an RS. Is this so different?William Jockusch (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not just a RS issue, it is a WP:BLP issue and and WP:UNDUE. And so even if the source is reliable for his opinion, it miserably fails the other criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to deal with this one issue at a time. I know that opponents of this and related additions are going to raise multiple issues. But one has to start somewhere. William Jockusch (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content." Attempting to "to deal with this one issue at a time" smacks of Wikilawyering. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you read the article, the evidence given for the claim that Obama signed the piece of paper is not the piece of paper with his signature on it, but the minutes to a meeting of New Party members, which say that he signed the piece of paper and joined the party. This seems beyond sketchy to me. The allegations may or may not be true, and may or may not be a big deal, but they rest on the flimsiest of evidence, and should not be considered reliable. That is to say, even if this article was reliably fact-checked, all it says is that someone said that Obama signed this piece of paper. There is much sound and fury in the article to attempt to divert the reader's eye from this plain fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. Abhayakara (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well documented. I suppose somebody may have forged and planted the New Party meeting minutes that described Obama's involvement, along with the New Party membership rosters that listed his "join date" exactly corresponding to the date from the meeting minutes. And no doubt the New Party event announcement flyers dug up during the 2008 campaign that described Obama as a member were part of the grand conspiracy as well. Just like the newspapers in Hawaii that carefully falsified Obama's birth announcements back in the 60's even though he was born in Kenya. (joke) In case my sarcasm isn't obvious, I would suggest that Kurtz has done his homework, he has made a slam dunk case via compelling original documents, and the burden is considered by many mainstream writers to be now on the Obama campaign to explain the campaign's false statements from 2008. The president's campaign has been castigated by editorials in major newspapers for this, and I would suggest that Kurtz deserves more respect than some editors give him here. Most of the complaints against Kurtz are simply that he has a conservative perspective and documents facts that are unfavorable or embarrassing from Obama's past. Many of Kurtz's views that give people heartburn above would only be considered "fringe" by political liberals, and would be considered legitimate opinions by wide swathes of intelligent and informed Americans. Most people who have read Obama's biographies and autobiography are aware that he can be fairly said to have moved to his present position from the political left. So some of these revelations (NP membership, ACORN involvement, listening to Wright's sermons weekly, seeking out Marxist associations in college, mentorship by a communist as a young person) are not really all that earth-shattering. Don't get me wrong -- Kurtz's view that Obama presently is a socialist is firmly in the realm of opinion, since it is contradicted by Obama's public statements and current policies and actions as president. Kurtz may be right, of course, in terms of what Obama desires deep down, even as he works pragmatically within the political system. But none of that really matters for purposes of this Wikipedia debate. What does matter is Kurtz's well-documented facts, which are not statements of opinion. Wookian (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be surprising if someone noted in the minutes on January 11 that Obama had joined, and yet the membership rolls didn't list him as having joined on that date. The fact that these two data points coincide does not therefore make them reliable evidence that a document has been signed. The person who has access to these minutes should have access to the document, yet it hasn't been produced. Why not? Possibly because it doesn't exist. Kurtz says only one other journalist has covered this at all, and says that that journalist disagrees with him. So Kurtz' view is a minority view; even if the source were reliable, which it is not, you still couldn't use it. See WP:BLPSTYLE, under Balance. This qualifies as a tiny minority, and hence is disqualified from inclusion in the BLP. Abhayakara (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You could also demand to see the chair that Obama sat in while he signed the document or the pen that he used, but I suggest that you are laying artificial constraints on the discussion. The New Party's "Candidate Contract" was not a legal document per se, but rather more of a political campaign promise to uphold the NP's agenda if elected with the endorsement and support of the NP. Wookian (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

and candidates make all kinds of statements and campaign promises - why would this one be of any particular special notice, especially when we have lots of verifiable content from extremely reliable sources about dozens of actual campaign promises made to large voting constituents? it would still be UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We hashed this out at great length on the New Party talk page. There are few, and perhaps no, reliable sources as to the facts. There are several semi-reliable minor sources as to the making of the claims by Kurtz. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and the claim being made here is that the President or his administration are lying and covering up Obama's supposed radical history. Additionally there are WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns, as this is almost entirely a creature of conservative blogs and happens to play into the narrative that Kurtz and other operatives have been promoting during the past two presidential election cycles. The underlying facts may well be true (or maybe not, or maybe distorted), but the mainstream media and reliable sources have not deemed it worth covering, and Wikipedia is not the place to uncover scandals. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Completely Inappropriate for reasons already stated. It fails WP:RS as it is simply an opinion piece by one person, written in a tabloid style. Trying to puff up Kurtz by mentioning his degree is irrelevant. It completely fails WP:BLP, as extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. To say that a single editorial (by someone who has made a career out of attacking Obama) is an exceptional source is ludicrous. Where are the corroborating articles by reliable third-parties? If the material were both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Skirting BLP by phrasing it in the form of a quote is an old trick that is not allowed, either. But primarily, it fails WP:UNDUE on all counts. It is such a minority viewpoint that no major reliable sources have picked up the story and run with it (and trust me, if it were true, they would have). Kurtz attributes this to some vast-conspiracy by the entire media umbrella, all of which is "pro-Obama" except for him, but in fact, they recognize that there isn't any evidence to support the claim factually and it's almost certainly not true. We don't print rumors, gossip, and unfounded allegations in biographies of living people. Period. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"rumors, gossip, and unfounded allegations" -- this is just absurd, Looneymonkey. Kurtz isn't spreading rumors. He found original documents. That is why the Washington Post found it worthwhile to mention his finding. Unlike you, the Washington Post thought it was notable. Wookian (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion here is raising a meta question Editors are replying with allegations of undue weight. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place for such allegations (and my replies to them?) It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could comment on that sub-question.William Jockusch (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editors on the meta-question? Part of the problem with this discussion has been continual changes of subject. So, if the pro-inclusion folks appear to be winning on the RS issue, anti-inclusion folks bring up undue weight, not news, etc. If those are shot down, they switch back to RS. So nothing is ever resolved. There ought to be a way to break this cycle, but I'm not sure what it is.William Jockusch (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have accurately captured the situation. The situation is that some people (including me) are asserting that this is not a reliable source. And then in addition we are asserting that it's silly to argue about it, because even if it were, it couldn't be used in the article because of these other problems. The reason to mention the other problems is just to point out the futility of the debate, not the consequence of having conceded that the source is reliable. Abhayakara (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is rather obviously a partisan election-season talking point ginned up by a partisan writer and published on a partisan website. We should be exceptionally cautious about accepting such things at face value as encyclopedic. If such partisan claims become part of the general discourse (as evidenced by discussion in independent, reliable sources), then their inclusion is arguably appropriate with suitable caveats. But in this case, I don't see a lot of independent support or coverage of this attempt to manufacture a campaign issue, at least as of yet, and so it doesn't warrant coverage.

  Put another way: on the day after the election, will anyone care about this? We don't work on a deadline, and we're not a news site. If you feel this is essential to include, would you be willing to wait until after the election to include it? Will you still feel the same sense of urgency? MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Some anti-RS folks appear to be raising the question of whether or not Kurtz is believable. First of all, I just want to say that I find this question wholly appropriate, and 100% germane to this discussion. Therefore, I am going to summarize the reasons I do find him believable:

1) His statement that Obama was an NP member is supported by at least one contemporaneous source: [19]. An additional contemporaneous source writes about Obama encouraging NPers to act in a certain way.[20]. I will concede that these sources, by themselves would not be considered reliable. But their existence does give credence to Kurtz's statement.

2) An Obama supporter wrote in 2009 about talking with Obama at New Party meetings in the mid-1990s. [21].

The next issue is whether or not Kurtz' allegations have been "widely reported". In this regard, it is worth noting that it has appeared in the National Review, the LA Times, a WaPo blog, and Fox Business With Lou Dobbs. This shows wider reach than merely appearing on Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, etc. [all of which it has also done]. William Jockusch (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The material, properly ascribed as opinion for opinions, and as fact for uncontroverted facts, is usable. I found no source saying the minutes were fake, so what the minutes state is clearly allowed. The opinion that Obama lied is clearly opinion, and is properly ascribed to the person holding it. I do not consider the LA Times to be a politically disreputable site, thus it is absolutely RS for this sort of issue. There is at least as much solid sourcing as for the "dog incident" which has its own article re: Romney. Collect (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

that wikipedia fucked up somewhere else is not really good reason to do it again. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this down. We can't verify the meeting minutes as a fact if it isn't established by a reliable source. As of last time we hashed this through, nobody other than Kurtz has confirmed that these minutes exist. Kurtz's piece is not a reliable source for facts about Barack Obama or the New Party. It is reliable for establishing that Kurtz has written the text found in the piece, but it's contentious material and we can't just add it to any article without some sourcing as to relevance and weight. A handful of minor sources (blogs, news blogs, several at most) report that Kurtz holds this opinion. The Washington Post does not, it merely posts a blog link (no journalism, no fact check, no editorial control, just a link). The LA Times blog gives it a minor mention in the context of a colorful opinion piece on Sarah Palin's supporters, which means it establishes no weight at all except as to Sarah Palin's supporters. That's why I say that no sources or almost no sources establish it as being relevant to Obama or the New Party. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes any difference to the "extraordinary claims" contingent here, but it doesn't seem that Obama personally denied involvement in the NP -- it was a campaign manager who spoke on his behalf in his 2008 Fight the Smears website. So Kurtz's research would seem to imply that Obama's campaign issued a false statement, not necessarily that Obama personally lied. (shrug) Wookian (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

True dat. There's an innocent, or at least simple, factual explanation to all this. Does anyone know a major media reporter we can encourage to write just one more piece? Then we'll have an RS. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not too worried, as I think more treatment of Obama's NP fling will eventually come back into prominence in national media. If not in the fall debates, then probably in David Maraniss' next volume of his biography of the president, which will probably come out in a few years. I agree with others above that an attitude by conservative editors to push it in before the election is not a good enough reason by itself -- while equally disagreeing with seemingly pro-Obama editors whose primary reason for opposing it appears to be frantically covering Obama's posterior from an embarrassing minor scandal (a NPOV cuts both ways, of course). I think "the truth will out" as the saying goes. So while I personally see no reason Kurtz can't be a reliable source for his discovery of these remarkable and credible primary documents, I have accepted that for whatever reason, the consensus hasn't gone my way in these discussions. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources concerning claim of the "the oldest university"

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion about the claim that the medieval madrasa of Al-Karaouine is the "the oldest continuously operating university" in the world. To support this view, two sources are forwarded which are in my view unreliable and should not be used in Wikipedia to make this claim:

The Report: Morocco 2009

Source: The Report: Morocco 2009, Oxford Business Group, ISBN 9781907065071, p. 252:

... yet for many Morocco's cultural, artistic and spiritual capital remains Fez. The best-preserved ... School has been in session at Karaouine University since 859, making it the world's oldest continuously operating university."

Rationale: The Report: Morocco 2009 is not a scholarly, but a partisan source. It is a commercial handbook for promoting foreign investments into the Moroccon economy. One of the partners who are thanked on the contents page (p.5) "for their help in preparing The Report" is the Moroccan Investment Develoment Agency (MIDA). MIDA, however, is a national agency of the Moroccan government:

MIDA is the national body in charge of the development and promotion of investment in Morocco. Its mission is to establish a welcoming structure and provide guidance for investors. It also constitutes takes charge cooperating and coordinating promotional activities both in Morocco and abroad.

MIDA is therefore not a required third-party source, but one with a strong WP:POV to present the state of Morocco in the most favourable light in order to attract foreign investors.

Guinness Book of Records

Source: The Guinness Book of Records has an entry Oldest University

Rationale: The Guinness Book of Records is a reliable source on quantitative records of all kinds, especially when they have sent their own observers as witnesses to the record-breaking attempt. The most venomous snake, the largest truck and the heaviest alcohol consumption are such quantifiable and empirical records which can be verified.

It is, however, a very inadequate source for all claims concerning qualitative matters, in particular those which have reached a certain complexity. The entry presents no definition of what a university is, it cites no sources, offers no discussion or explanation and no author is named (apart from this, it is also self-contradictory in equating the university with "educational institution" which can be any kind of centre of learning like schools, seminaries, academies, institutes etc.). Guinness Book of Records is no academic, scholarly and peer-reviewed publication and therefore its views are unreliable concerning the qualitative matter of the origin of the university.

Since both sources have been reintroduced multiple times in the course of longish edit-wars, I would request the users to present their views as succinct as possible in order to identify a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Does this really matter? Is it really worth continuing to argue about so strongly? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree. Anyway, how about UNESCO's description of Fez? Or a peer-reviewed journal article ("Of the numerous universities of the Middle Ages, only three survived: the oldest of them all al-Qarawiyyin University of Fez (Morocco), founded by an Arab woman Fatiumah al-Fihriyah in 859 A.C.")? Or this one? Or this article published by a University Press? Or this book by a bunch of English academics? And so on and on. Instead of engaging in silly debates, just go and look for better sources! It really isn't that hard. Zero^talk 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited above are a good example of the issue of reliable sources.

• The UNESCO discussion of Fez provides a single line claiming (without any evidence) that Fez is "home to the oldest university in the world".
• The peer reviewed journal article deals with engineering education, and in a brief historical introduction makes the claim: "In large cities these mosques were real universities, (Jamiah).... [Later] the mosques reverted to mere centers of worship, with the exception of the great mosques of Fez, Tunis, Cairo, Damascus, Medina and Mecca. Of the numerous universities of the Middle Ages, only three survived.... But even these universities were reduced in status and size to become simple colleges of Arabic language and Islamic law. Of the ancient research activity and scientific schools nothing was left." Note that the author is equating schools at mosques with universities and makes no claims to be an expert in their history.
• The article from the Journal of African History on Moroccan reform in the 1920s includes a toss away line that Fes, was the "cultural capital of the Maghrib and seat of the oldest university in the Muslim world." again with no documentation.
• I don't have access to the content of the book, but its title is "The Marketisation of Higher Education and The Student As Consumer" and its description alludes to changing "government policy in the UK." This is hardly the source to provide reliable information on the history of universities in the medieval Arabic-speaking world.

In contrast to these marginal sources, there are a large number of detailed studies by serious historians that describe universities as a product of medieval Europe. The sources Zero cites, despite their appearance in academic presses, are not serious studies of the emergence of universities. The thinness of the historical sources advanced to defend the claims for universities in the Arabic speaking world is a central issue in the ongoing debates. I can only repeat Zero's recommendation to go and look for better sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sources so far are not reliable. I'm not clear why no one seems to have looked at our article University which briefly discusses this debate, with sources. Schooling Islam: The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education pp. 8 & 9 does also[22]] as does A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages p8 [23]. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This has already been done: both sources provide exactly the depth of knowledge and expertise which is welcome and required, but they come to a (very) different conclusion than the above, unreliable sources. Schooling Islam, in its discussion of the views of the notable scholar George Makdisi, does see similarities between madrasas and southern European universities, but ultimately draws a clear line between these two institutions and never makes a case for mosque schools being universities. This is also evident from its terminology where madrasas are consistently referred to as "madrasas" and universities as "universities".

The passage p. 8 of Rüegg in A History of the University in Europe is taken somewhat out of context. Here, Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees. His own views which he presents in the editorial are actually exactly the opposite ("The university is a European institution; indeed, it is the European institution par excellence") and have been cited in full here as representative for the standard view of scholars specialised in the history of the university (A History of the University in Europe is the largest and most ambitious undertaking so far in this discipline). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees - this is the nub of the thing. What we seem to be dealing with is something about which there is no scholarly consensus. It's not an RS issue, but one of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with FormerIP here, if there are dissenting scholars we need to cover them, if they are in the minority then as per WP:UNDUE they shouldn't get equal coverage, but that does mean their view needs covering. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun, surely this has been done to death? We know what the mainstream academic view is, but we also know that there are some lesser dissenters. I don't understand why this in particular needs discussion, surely any inappropriate sources can be removed and information can be backed up to other sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, we can't state as fact that the madrasa is the oldest university in the world. A way to put this belief in an NPOV way is going to have to be found(which means saying something about the debate if only to point out that there are scholars who see a basic difference between a madrasa and a university). Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Dougweller for his reference to Hefner and Zaman's valuable collection on Schooling Islam. I'm especially interested in the essay by Berkey on "Madrasas Medieval and Modern." He sets out a valuable description of medieval Islamic higher education which contrasts significantly with what was going on in the Medieval universities. To this medievalist, medieval Islamic education has resonances of the kind of personal following of a specific teacher that was common in the pre-university Cathedral schools (e.g., the Reims of Gerbert, the Chartres of Fulbert, and the Paris of Peter Abelard). From the references, it looks like Berkey's The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of Islamic Education (Princeton, 1992) would help us understand what's going on there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller, this is the current version of the page which currently states both views with the European University one being treated as by far the mainstream one.

Even this version proposed by Nableezy makes it clear there is a debate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another valuable reference: Michael Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190-1350, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2002. It looks like some serious scholarship related to our concerns is being done.

I wish I had time to follow up on this, but I have heavy real life pressures until fall. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite my commitments, I just did a citation search for the Michael Chamberlain and Jonathan Berkey's books. Berkey has 60 citations (including a few on the history of science); Chamberlain is only cited in reviews. Looks like Berkey is the place to start if you're interested in trying to dig deeper into medievbal Islamic higher education. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions from consideration of 9th century madrassa schools, because the dispute revolves around one particular institution which was a jamia, comprised of a number of "faculties", including a madrassa. That collegiate structure is one of the things that supporters of a jamia=university thesis will point to. On the other hand, I think its true to say that qualifications were awarded by teachers on a personal basis. Which raises the question of how much that matters. At the end of the day, I guess it matters as much or as little as you want it to. I'd say there's no right or wrong answer here.

But, I sniff the danger of sliding into original research...Formerip (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources listed above is adequate for such an extraordinary claim. Seek scholarly works on the history of the university as an institution, published by scholarly presses. See WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate standards for historical claims, including extraordinary synthetic claims such as "the oldest X" when what "X" is changes over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is only an essay...

If we include both sides of the debate, but make it clear which one is the minority view I fail to see the problem. That follows WP:DUE and means that you don't have to have a tedious argument over and over and over again when someone brings up UNESCO or one of the dissenting scholarly sources.

History isn't mathematics, it is a subject that is generally open to interpretation without a clear right or wrong answer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, both views are already long included in WP, namely in university and medieval university. The right place for more extensive discussion is the article Al-Karaouine, not yet another article on the university. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One more in support of Eraserhead's position. This is an argument of definition, so there can be more than one right answer. Of course we should mention that the Guinness Book of World Records and UNESCO say it's the oldest Uni in the world; one is the first place everyone looks for for "largest, smallest, oldest" whatever, and the other is the UN educational authority, of course their views are important. Since there are opposing views, those should also be mentioned, but that doesn't mean Guinness and UNESCO are irrelevant. In fact, I'd say the current header of University of al-Karaouine has too much opposing the view; the sentence "The first universities were rather all located in Western Europe, with the University of Paris and the University of Bologna often cited as the earliest examples" doesn't even mention UoaK, so certainly doesn't belong in the header of the UoaK article. What was the quote about university politics being so bitter precisely because the stakes were so small? Methinks thou dost protest too much. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe this is a problem best solved by WP:INTEXT attribution and a fair representation of all significant viewpoints. That might include explaining why some viewpoints hold that this isn't a "real" university, and it certainly includes identifying the Guinness Book of World Records' decision by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

stupidcelebrities.net re Nik Richie

In November 2010, Richie was interviewed by Dr. Phil during a nationally-televised hour-long episode devotedly exclusively to the subject of online bullying and gossip entitled “Dirt, Lies and the Internet”. Dr. Phil questioned Richie about the morality of a website which allows users to bash each other with hurtful comments, to which Richie responded, “well, there’s a marketplace for it.” Unimpressed, Dr. Phil observed “Well, there’s a marketplace for heroin too, but that doesn’t justify being a heroin addict.”

1. Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2010/11/nik-richie-of-the-dirty-on-dr-phil-show/
2. Article: Nik Richie
3. Content: See above
4. Additional remarks: This article is up for AfD right now (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nik Richie). The quality of the article's sources is, in my opinion, a major factor in whether notability can be established for the subject. While I'm not prepared to singlehandedly analyze all the article's sources, This one struck me as worth mentioning because I can't immediately conclude that this source isn't reliable for the material in question, but it seems incorrect to use a gossip website as material that helps the subject to pass notability guideline WP:BIO#Basic criteria. As it stands, the Dr. Phil interview represents an important example of Mr. Richie being the primary subject of coverage, but the interview itself is a primary source and that's contrary to the basic criteria. BigNate37_(T) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the disclaimer I found on the stupid celebrities website, IMO the site would not be considered reliable. Here it is, from their site:

  DISCLAIMER: Stupidcelebrities.net contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information.Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Stupidcelebrities.net makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims. Â If you see any images that are in violation of some form of copyright infringement, just contact us and we’ll remove the items.

  Coaster92 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A clearly unreliable gossip site is not usable. But you have an official Dr Phil website link that should be usable as a reference instead. As to whether a Dr Phil appearance contributes to notability, that's a bit out of scope for this board. Siawase (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of various coin and stamp websites as reliable sources for the name of an occupied territory

G'day all, I am currently having discussions with a couple of editors about the reliability of several websites to support the name of an occupied territory per

In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia...

Essentially these editors are stating that the word 'Serbia' on a coin or stamp website) is a reliable sources that 'Serbia' was the name of the territory. This is a long-term issue of contention as you can see from the discussion on WT:MILHIST here. That discussion concluded that the official name of the territory was in fact Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, for which there are reliable published secondary sources. The websites are:

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Advice on the reliability of these sources to support the quoted statement would be appreciated. Obviously there are other places I will need to go as well, but I just wanted to clarify this issue here first. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Coin and stamp websites are not reliable sources on official names of territories -- that isn't their field of expertise.

The stamps and coins themselves are not "official documents" in the usual sense: if referring to them, call them "stamps and coins". They are primary sources, not necessarily for an official name (official names are often too long) but for a short name that is acceptable to the administration concerned. But the ones visible on your links say Србија, not Serbia, and in any case, if this is a contentious issue, we prefer not to use primary sources. Andrew Dalby 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Stamps absolutely are "official documents" per international treaty (see articles on the history of the Universal Postal Union). They are not "primary sources" (the primary source is the document authorizing release of the stamps). US bonds etc. are also "official documents." They do not necesarily give "full official name" of a country, but the names thereon are generally considered to be representative of the country. Some exceptions exist - the UK proudly puts no country name on its issues, and the first Israel issues were labelled "Do'ar Ivri" etc. Collect (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no dispute, stamps are technically "official documents". What I meant was that it's vague and misleading for us to say "official documents use the name X" if what we mean is "stamps and coins use the name X". Most readers seeing the term "official documents" would not suppose we were talking about stamps and coins; therefore, for the reader's sake, we should say exactly what we mean. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the stamp itself is used to verify the statement that "The stamp was issued with the name X a green background(ref: see the stamp)." then it is a primary source. It would, in all cases, be better to use a reliable secondary source. Particularly because we cannot verify from the stamp alone if it IS an official releasing from any body with any authority or just a fake.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree: see comment below. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and the statement being supported. I agree coins and stamps are "official documents," but it must be said that they are "official documents" only of the authorizing body that minted them, and the possibility exists that the name printed on the money was chosen to further their certain political purposes. I can easily think of cases where two different, competing authorities issued "official money" within a single disputed territory. I think Confederate States of America dollar qualifies as an example. So, whether or not the international community recognizes the government authorizing the issuance of the money, or uses the same name to refer to the territory, is another question entirely, and the name printed on the money can't be used to support such a statement.

In the article, I see the money is being used to support "In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia..." and I'm a little uncomfortable with that, especially as pictures of the stamps and money are the only sources provided for it (the "http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia.html" isn't useful to support anything stated). Unless and until a reliable academic source can be found to provide additional support, I would change the article statement to something like "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers referred to this territory as Serbia...." striking out this part, explanation below

Regarding "Србија, not Serbia", our article Serbia shows "Србија" is the native-language spelling of Serbia so that shouldn't be an impediment to using it.

Zad68 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edited to add:) After reading the comments of Red Pen and others, I am striking out my recommendation to change the sentence to "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers..." because of the danger of using the stamps, etc. as primary sources in this way. We as Wikipedia editors should not be making the assumption that pictures of individual stamps offered for sale on essentially WP:SPS sites are genuine and that the descriptions are accurate. If a philatelic or numismatic WP:RS reliable source can be found that explains the stamps, what is printed on them, who authorized it and how, etc. then the "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers..." sentence could be supported with it. I apologize for my embarrassing recommendation! I should know better. Zad68 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that stamps or coins can be considered as RS to support the assertion in context used in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Websites which post images of stamps as part of their sales efforts are purely commercial and not WP:RS. The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name ... or primary sources of simple propaganda by feuding entities. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. This is about the usage of the country/entity name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day Vsmith, could you clarify something? Do you mean that 'The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name on the actual stamp', or do you mean that 'the stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name by the country/entity'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Red Pen of Doom's comment above is relevant to this. Wikipedians aren't stamp experts and can't be sure, in contentious cases, of knowing what's genuine and who the issuing authority really was. Another reason not to rely on primary sources in a case such as this. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and recommendations. Sorry about not getting back on here, but I now appear to have an editwar on my hands with this issue of the name of the territory, with more than a dozen articles having reliably sourced information removed, and I really don't have the experience to deal with it. I know this isn't the place, but where is the best place to report it? Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One Day in September+

Simon Reeve's book One Day in September: the full story of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and Israeli revenge operation "Wrath of God" ISBN 1-55970-547-7 (published by Faber and Faber in the UK and Arcade Publishing in the US) is used extensively as a source in the Munich massacre article (and elsewhere). Reeve is also used as a source in that article via other publications such as The Independent and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He is used both with and without attribution (based on a decision procedure that is a bit opaque...I'm not very familiar with the article...but I assume at least some of the instances are covered by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV...and attribution doesn't hurt).

I'm interested in views on the reliability of the book as a source, Reeve as a source, but not just that.

Background

• This started with this edit by an IP, which resulted in this change
  • OLD - "On 8 September, Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon in response to the massacre, killing an estimated 200 people."
  • NEW - "On 8 September, Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon in response to the massacre, killing an estimated 200 PLO supporters."

• I checked the source, Reeve, and made this somewhat naive edit, should have known better, given that it has opened a can of worms
  • OLD - "On 8 September, Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon in response to the massacre, killing an estimated 200 PLO supporters."
  • NEW - "On 8 September, Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon in response to the massacre. Approximately 200 innocent people were killed including women and children."

• Another editor, Shrike, removed all of the content with this edit, edit summary = "Not reliable source for such claims this should be done by military historian not some journalist also not scholarly publishing house".

I contacted the editor and it was a trivial matter to establish that the ~200 people killed were all innocent people including women and children, all PLO members, and all terrorists, obviously, as is often the case in this topic area. Setting aside the inevitability of there being a variety of conflicting published material about this issue and the NPOV requirements that follow from that, I would like some opinions about the sources themselves.

The sources

• One Day in September"
  • The reliability of Simon Reeve's book One Day in September has been challenged on the specific point detailed above and it is used extensively as a source for a variety of statements so I would like some views on its reliability (and Reeve as a source on the Munich massacre when he is published elsewhere if possible) on this specific point and in general.
    • Was the complete removal of this information+citation consistent with policy as explained in Shrike's edit summary ?
    • Is it reliable enough to be restored ? If so, does it require attribution (and I'm assuming attribution must be necessary because there appear to be conflicting narratives that will need to be added).
    • If it isn't reliable for this information even with attribution, what else isn't it reliable for given its extensive usage in the article and elsewhere ?

• One Thousand One Facts Everyone Should Know about Israel
  • Shrike found One Thousand One Facts Everyone Should Know about Israel by Mitchell Bard and Moshe Schwartz, which says that Israeli forces killed "more than 200 PLO members". Is this source reliable for this (or any other) information ? A search for "One Thousand One Facts Everyone Should Know about Israel" as a source in Wikipedia shows that it is used in 4 articles, 3 BLPs for sportspersons, Lydia Lazarov, Dick Savitt, Corey Pavin and the Yad Sarah organization, for what look like uncontroversial and possibly unnecessary citations.

• Targeting Terrorists: A License to Kill?
  • Shrike also found Targeting Terrorists: A License to Kill? by Avery Plaw which says that Israeli forces killed "a reported 200 terrorists as well as 11 Lebanese civilians". This is possibly based, in part, on page 95 of Aaron J. Klein's Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response, ISBN 1-920769-80-3, a source that is used with attribution a few times in the article (note red link for Aaron J. Klein, Time magazine's military and intelligence affairs correspondent, not to be confused with blue link for WorldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein). I can't see page 95 of Klein's book so I'm not sure. Is Plaw's book reliable (presumably with attribution) to say that the 200 people killed were terrorists ?

Thanks in advance. I'm now seeing the advantage of the original text that just said "people". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the Simon Reeve article cites his production company's website shootandscribble.com for media reviews of the book rather than the actual reviews themselves, but that's a separate issue. What I'd like to know is what if any references Reeve provides. Casualty counts, especially determining who is a civilian, are notoriously difficult. Is this figure from the PLO? The Lebanese government? The Israelis? The UN? Journalists? Even if it was made by a relatively independent group, there's a big difference between a news report published a day after the incident and a report published months later. GabrielF (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, unfortunately I can't help much with that. Reeve cites tonnes of references, not for this particular information though. The only thing there is on the page after p. 152, note 21, "Further details of the attack are given in The Economist, September 23, 1972." which is presumably about the September 16 attack rather than the attack on interest here on Sept. 8. The same can be said for the Avery Plaw source which says "a reported..." without saying where. It's unclear where anyone's figures have come from. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little digging into the contemporary sources: A NYTimes report from September 10th claims that women and children were killed in at least one of the 10 villages targeted (Rafid in Lebanon) and quotes the PLO's WAFA news service as setting the death toll at 66.NYT article The 200 figure pops up in a September 13 Washington Post article: "Comprehensive casualty totals for Friday's widespread raids against guerilla areas in Lebanon and Syria are still not available. Syrian officials have indicated that as many as 200 persons were killed or wounded, but have not released details. Observers here feel that the total fatalities among civilians and Palestinian commandos may reach as high as 200, but conceed that this is only a rough estimate." It's also worth noting that the WaPo report identifies four commandos killed at Rafid, the same place where, according to the NYT report, locals claimed that there were no militants.WaPo A 14 September NYT report says: "in which diplomatic estimates put the dead and wounded at more than 200 persons. Many of these were at a Palestinian camp just outside this capital (Damascus)".NYTSept14. I don't see anything that says that 200 casualties were either all militants or all innocent people - it seems that there were some of both and that the 200 figure was itself very rough and from a questionable source (Syrian officials or unnamed "observers"). Unless better sourcing can be found, I think "an estimated 200 people" is the most accurate statement we can make. GabrielF (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a BBC documentary be cited as a reliable source?

I wanted to cite a recent BBC documentary on "Bloody Friday" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn as a source but another editor has said it can't be used because the BBC have not as yet made it publically available online in a permanent manner. What's the policy in this regard?--feline1 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Hot Stop 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online,(this should be carved in stone) as long as a copy exists somewhere in a library, you can use it. The BBC has a habit of releasing many of their popular documentary series on the video market, has this one appeared in the shops yet? Roger (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied for Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

I was editing an article and wanted to use a recently broadcast BBC documentary as source. The documentary was broadcast on the BBC1 channel. It has a page on the BBC website, but it is not currently viewable online via their "iPlayer" service. (It is, however, all over YouTube... these YouTube copies violate copyright, but they are accessible). One editor has taken the stance that it is not permissable to cite this BBC documentary as a source because it is not "publically accessible". What is the wikipedia consensus position on this?--feline1 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This should really go to WP:RSN. However, what's the name of the documentary, and I'll give you an opinion. Formerip (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an hour long political history program about the "Bloody Friday" bombings in Belfast, broadcast on their 40th anniversay http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn --feline1 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't look verifable, due to not being viewable. The problem with copyright-infringing YouTube clips is that we can't effectively cite them, even if they do verify the content. So someone else who comes along later will not be able to check. However, there is a series of clips on the BBC website. If the material you want is in one of those, then that will pass WP:V (although don't forget that it will also need to pass other policies such as WP:NPOV). See this link. Formerip (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to cite a YouTube link. I cited the the programme itself, and the BBC webpage for the programme. This strikes me as analagous to citing the name, author and publisher of a book. How readers obtain a copy of that book is up to them. The BBC obviously retains an "archived copy" of the programme in their vaults. They have broadcast it on television and on iPlayer. They have not yet released it on DVD. (But even if they had, it might currently be out of stock on Amazon etc etc... just like a book might have gone out of print). It seems to be that it is attested & verifiable that the BBC made and broadcast the programme. It is also very easy for any to google it and find it on YouTube. ... I'm not sure what the practical problem is here with it being a reliable verifiable source.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

something being out of stock on amazon or no longer in print is not the same as never having been made public in the first place. Is the content that you wish to include verifiable on the BBC page about its documentary?-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think "never having been made public in the first place" is a label you could apply to an hour's worth of television broadcast on BBC1 and resyndicated on their iPlayer site! The info I wanted to cite is in the documentary itself, it's not transcribed on the webpage. (Some of it might be on the clips on the webpage, to be honest I haven't checked). Anyways - to cut to the chase: is it a wikipedia policy that a television programme can only be considered a verifiable source if it is available to buy on DVD/VHS/etc? Or is the fact that it was publically broadcast, still held in an archive by the broadcaster, and acknowledged by them as existing sufficient criterea for "verifiability"? I'd have thought wikipedia would have a clear rule on that, but I don't see it unambiguously stated on the policy pages.--feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As already pointed out feline1, more than once, it isn't verifiable. If a programme is in the BBC public archive it's verifiable, if it's released on video or DVD it's verifiable, but other shows the BBC have broadcast aren't verifiable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It has not "been pointed out more than once" - it was asserted by you on a talk page, and several other editors expressed a different interpretation of the policy, so I came here to seek clarification. --feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that occasionally <g> the documentaries offer opinion as much as they offer fact - best practice where an opinion is given is to cite it as opinion. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I know all that. That's not the issue here.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A source has to be "verifiable" - until someone invents a time machine, the contents of a TV broadcast cannot be verified unless the show has somehow been officially recorded and released. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the program in question was publicly broadcast at least once, it has been "published". As such its contents are verifiable by anyone who applies for a copy in the manner prescribed to the publisher who is required in law to preserve a certain number of copies.Aghore (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Which specific law are you talking about?Formerip (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: An archive does not need to be on-line, and it does not need to have multiple copies. Even if there is only one copy in a BBC storage locker somewhere, it qualifies as being archived... and as long it is possible for a member of the general public to gain access to that copy and view it (it does not matter how difficult or expensive this may be), then it qualifies as being accessible. I am sure that if you wrote to the BBC and requested a viewing, they would be happy to set it up. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You being sure about that is not quite enough, though. Formerip (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, what you say makes sense to me, although we do not appear to have reached "consensus" here, as some editors above appear to have taken a different view. I'm surprised wikipedia doesn't have already have a definitive answer to the question of "Can a television programme be used as a reliable (verifiable) source?" Some above say "no, only if it's been made commercially available on DVD", others are saying "yes, so long as the broadcaster retains a copy in their archive".... Which is the "right" answer?--feline1 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that at this point in time, anyone in this discussion could have verified the contents of the program by viewing copyright violations off of Wikipedia that are thankfully not listed on the project. We have Template:Cite episode for a reason. To pretend that information does not exist (when it is obvious it does) is not the best way to win a content dispute. And to argue that a copy cannot be obtained now via contacting the BBC or that one will never be made available through DVD is nonsense. Both are logical assumptions.71.35.155.42 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A copy can't be obtained now by contacting the BBC, if you suggest it can then provide evidence that's the case. If a programme has been released on DVD it can be cited, until then there's no evidence it will ever be verifiable. Template:Cite episode exists for occasions when a copy of a programme is held in an archive accessible to editors, or for DVD releases and so on. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And I assume otherwise. Have your tried to obtain a copy? Maybe one us should go the extra mile by sending an email. Everything can then be submitted to OTRS.

And just to clarify, is your objection based on the content or is it based on you truly believing that you cannot verify it? What I am trying to get at is that if you have viewed the copyright infringing copies on the Internet and can be reasonable satisfied that they have not been edited, then you should be seeking alternatives or a solution instead of only arguing for removal of content.71.35.154.200 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The community consensus has been spelled out for years at WP:Published#Accessible. Blueboar accurately summarizes it.

It's not good enough for some naysayer to assert that it's inaccessible. If, however, someone in the UK were to phone them and learn that it really is locked away and no one is allowed to see it for some reason, then that would be a good indication that it is not accessible. Given that it's the BBC we're talking about, I suspect that it's not entirely inaccessible, although it's possible (e.g., due to a lawsuit about royalties). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary or not, OR or not, on Konigsberg.

On the basis of this source: [29] an anon IP has added [30] this text to the article on Konigsberg:

Unlike in other administrative districts of Eastern Prussia like Rössel, Lyck or Sensburg a Polish minority in Königsberg or the surrounding districts is not documented in the official Prussian census of 1900.

with the edit summary statistics.

On the talk page I pointed out that

1. This appears to be a primary source, basically an online copy of "Statistik of Deutschen Reichs", 1903. I see no material on the web page beyond the presentation of numbers from the Statistik.
2. The text being added is original research. There is nothing in the source which says what the anon IP is claiming it says. Obviously the person looked through this primary source, didn't find "Konigsberg" under the "Polnisch" column and drew his own - original research - conclusions.
3. Even as far as OR goes, this is pretty bad OR. A quick look through the table makes it obvious that "Konigsberg" is simply not listed AT ALL for ANY ethnic minority, not just Poles. It's just not one of the places that is included in the list. The word "Konigsberg" does not appear anywhere on the website. So yeah, if it's not included, of course it will "not document" presence of ... well anything what so ever.

I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious, but now, on the talk page User:Skäpperöd chimed in in support of the IP saying "The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. " [31]. Am I missing something? I mean, there's an obvious confluence of common POV-pushing between Skapperod and the IP, but this just seems like denying the obvious.

VolunteerMarek 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source. You can only cite a source for what it says, not for what it does not say. It is OR for us to say that the minority is "not documented in the official ... census", or even to say that Konigsberg was excluded from the census. We need a secondary source, either to confirm the absence of Konigsberg data, or to tell us where the data is and how to interpret it. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.VolunteerMarek 13:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is the historian M. Rademacher at verwaltungsgeschichte.de, citing pages from Statistik des Deutschen Reichs Bd 150: Die Volkszählung am 1. Dezember 1900 im Deutschen Reich, Berlin 1903. The primary source would be the cited book. Since it is only cited, in-text attribution should be to the census, not to Rademacher, though, that's why I said "properly attributed." I agree though that Rademacher here is not a secondary source as he did not process this information, I did not notice that. It is not simply a scan of the 1903 book either, though. The "POV-pushing" bit of VM's post is nasty and uncalled for. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't add anything to what Andrew has already said. And yes this is an instance - as often with original research done with primary sources - of POV pushing.VolunteerMarek 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on that. My impression is that Skäpperöd sees the problem. Yes, Rademacher would be a secondary source and might serve us -- but (so far as I can see) Rademacher simply mirrors the absence of Konigsberg data and does not comment on it or explain it. So there's nothing we can cite. Andrew Dalby 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do I complain about a user who is inserting dubious links.

Hi This is probably my first complaint. I want to complain about a new user/account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kanoonkhojer whose sole purpose seems to be substituting / adding links to laws of India on various Wikipedia articles to point to one particular (dubious / non-reliable) website ie "http://khcaa.org" he is promoting. Incidentally the User name "Kanoonkhojer" translates to "Lawfinder". So please can some BigShot/Admin at Wikipedia resolve this without involving me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghore (talk • contribs)

The URL redirects to the Wordpress blog of an activist group and is clearly not a reliable source for general information about India laws, and does not seem to meet WP:ELYES for inclusion as an external link. I am no "big-shot" or admin but I'll give the editor a warning telling him what he's doing is not in line with Wikipedia policies. If he keeps doing it after that, he can be brought to WP:ANI for administrator attention. Zad68 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor warned, addition of external links reverted. Let's hope that's it. Zad68 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's not the end of this, then WP:BLACKLIST is your next stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Chart News (Twitter)

Since new users keep using it as a source, I think this discussion/consensus on Chart News (some Twitter account) should be mentioned at this noticeboard just as a point of reference for addressing the users who use the source; its consensus was unreliable. Here's the diff from the original discussion at Talk:The Light of the Sun, basically revising the date and sales figure in that article. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Gawain

I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory to believe his/her own theory of how Gawain died is more accurate, but there are many theories, compared to User:Cagwinn who thinks it is idiotic,when there nothing idiotic of how Gawain died and its theories and will you tell the user to stop edit warring I have kept part of the source from this user and added another source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, will some one please explain the user to stop edit warring, now.--GoShow (...............) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is probably not the right noticeboard. Cagwinn is correct regarding his content point, and GoShow isn't using RS and is trying to insert content in the wrong place. However, Cagwinn has left uncivil edit summaries[32][33], and deleted my comment from the Gawain talk page when I saw the notice here and attempted to offer some guidance to GoShow as to why his edits were being reverted. Deleting another user's neutral and appropriate comment from an article talk page is a gross violation of WP:TPO and indicates issues of ownership. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not intentionally delete your comments, Cynewolfe, and wasn't even aware of the fact that I had apparently (and accidentally!!) done so until I checked the history just now. I still don't know how it even happened.Cagwinn (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I meant only to suggest that this was the wrong noticeboard. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly not the right place for this discussion. GoShow has not introduced a source for others to vet. This is a content issue.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Global Nonviolent Action Database

Just a quick question regarding the reliability of the Global Nonviolent Action Database published by Swarthmore College. I'd like to use this page in a future article about the 1962 Asturian miners' strike or possibly a broader topic. Not sure as yet what specific statements I'd be sourcing or using it as a source for – for now I just want to check whether or not it's something I can use in general. Thanks – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the site's Who made the database? page, its content was largely written by undergraduate students. While that page states that the the students operated under supervision of academics and their entries were edited by research assistants, it doesn't appear that there was any kind of formal review or fact checking process from the information provided there. As such, I don't think that this is a reliable source in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Homa Katouzian

Homa Katouzian has PH.D in Economy but he wrote Modern history of Iran (because he know Persian language). Recently he wrote a book about History of Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History of iran with name "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" that University Yale has published. i have question that writing a book with University Press can put someone (historian) non-scholar to scholar of Medieval historian scholar ? and can we use Opinion pieces (Interview with radio) by this guy in wikipedia Persian (Medieval) history entries ?--Espiral (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We would make the presumption that his knowledge is broad enough for a press like that and the multiple referees it will have consulted to consider him an expert, or sufficiently an expert to write a general book on this very broad topic. It would be relevant to find reviews of his book from other experts, including those who are expert specialists in narrower topics. Even the greatest expert is not definitive, especially in topics like historical interpretation. All responsible views must be presented. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to make any assumptions. Dr Katouzian teaches modern Iranian history at Oxford University.[34] According to the website of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, "Dr Homa Katouzian is the Iran Heritage Foundation Research Fellow, St Antony’s College, and Member, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. He received all of his university education in England and has taught, as visitor or permanent staff, at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, and the University of Leeds, Kent at Canterbury, Shiraz, UCLA, UC San Diego and McMaster University. He is editor of Iranian Studies, Journal of the International Society for Iranian Studies, joint editor of the ISIS-Routledge series in Iranian Studies, and on the editorial board of Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. His current research interest is in Iranian history and politics, the comparative sociology of Iranian and European history, and modern and classical Persian literature."[35] He would seem to be an excellent and eminently reliable source. Indeed, if he is not, it looks as though someone should inform the experts in the field that we do not consider him to be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

he wrote modern history of iran but it`s different between modern history and medieval history of iran. for example you must know arabic language and i don`t think he knows arabic. he doesn`t wrote any ancient or medieval book exept "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" until today. i think he wrote the book "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" with References of other orientalist`s books and he doesn`t use any primary book. he must Express an opinion on modern history on iran (which is his field) but in interview with france radio he Express an opinion on medieval history of iran (which is not his field). my question is can we use his Express an opinion on medieval history of iran ?--Espiral (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In writing a general history you are likely to go beyond your field of greatest expertise. Same thing if you are on the editorial board of a journal.

But the real point is not Homa Katouzian's field of expertise. If he publishes a peer-reviewed academic paper or monograph on the topic in question, we would surely want to cite it. The point is, why on earth should we be quoting a radio channel on a detail of medieval Iranian history? Unless that's explained (and a precise link is given) this is just timewasting. Andrew Dalby 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources

I'd like to please request a clarification on what exactly constitutes a "third-party source" in a specific case. If a scholar had been involved in a lawsuit against a person, is he/she a third-party source on the credentials and social standing of said person? Or should the testimony and statements of the scholar on that subject (e.g. during the said trial) be considered to some extent unreliable on the basis that they are directly involved with the person? -- Director (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This relates to Talk:David Irving#Historian or writer, and is (in my biased opinion) a fairly non-neutral way of expressing the issues there, as the material in question goes well beyond statements made during the trial, as it includes expert reports and professionally published books. But views from other editors on this issue (as well as the other issues under discussion) would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow.. you're following my contributions. I don't know if I should be creeped-out or flattered.

I grant that I remained vague on the names as I did not wish to prejudice anyone, but I don't think it matters. And again you are misrepresenting what I write (its quite remarkable, really, that you do so every time). I did not limit my request only to statements made during the trial, I merely mentioned that as an example since you're using Evans's actual testimony. I did not post this here looking for input on the article (as this is hardly the venue), but I also would welcome additional participants.

For goodness' sake: you're quoting 1) the prosecutor against the person, 2) a scholar that was repeatedly harangued and actually sued by the person, and 3) a scholar hired by the defense (allegedly for 250,000 dollars) as a witness against this person. In my opinion, these are not third-party sources. And you're using them, not only as "impartial third-party sources", but as the (quote) "foremost experts on the person". In addition to this, I'd like to point out that the case falls under WP:BLP and its more stringent criteria for what constitutes an RS. I don't like the fascist guy any more than the next person, but imo this is really too much. Hitler has a more fair and balanced lead. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Third-party" or "third party" in WP:RS refers to the publisher, and means not self-published, although self-published sources are acceptable under some circumstances. It has no relevance to the dispute. Also, you should assume good faith. Nick-D follows this notice board, and has posted numerous times to this notice board, including above where he commented eight minutes before you started this discussion thread.[36] TFD (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So the author can be anyone, but the publisher should be entirely independent? I find that rather hard to believe. Self-published sources are certainly a good example but they're hardly synonymous with a non-third-party source. To my knowledge, such a source is one that is not entirely independent of the subject being covered. And prof. Evans hasn't even published his opinion given in the trial, which arguably makes using that (primary) source to draw conclusions - OR. He doesn't even expressly deny that the person, strictly speaking, is a historian. He basically says that he does not meet his personal definition of a historian. And all these sources are reliable and perfectly fine for a BLP article? And its kind of hard to AGF every time with the kind of subtle-yet-belligerent behavior Nick-D's been continuously displaying from the start ("so you're saying he's Mother Theresa reborn? you madman!"). But I have and will try again.

Fellas, I've heard your position back at the article, and perhaps you're right. But lets hear from the community. The sources we're discussing, now that we've gone into the specifics, are here. -- Director (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This specific discussion is about what "third-party" means in WP:RS and it is referring to the publisher. But I do not think the issue is RS - no one challenges that Evans said Irving is not an historian. The issue is weight - what weight to we assign this view as opposed to the view that he is. If we assign zero weight to Evans' opinion, and to those who have endorsed it, then we can say unconditionally that Irving is an historian. But if we assign any weight to Evans' view then we cannot. TFD (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually we can call him an "historian" and we can also say Evan's opinion is that he is not an historian for the reasons Irving gives. The ideal is NPOV - and it is clear that Evan's opinion is not related to Irving's training and background, but to Evn's opinion of Irving's opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely what I've been saying and advocating. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion thread, where you ask, "what exactly constitutes a "third-party source""? TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but it was not I who began disclosing the dispute here and asking for feedback. -- Director (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Third party" has nothing to do with the relationship between the author and the publisher (whether the source is self-published or not).

It has to do with with relationship between the author and the subject matter. In this case, the author is definitely not independent or disinterested, but he might technically be a third party. (Reality is more complicated than Wikipedia's policies are prepared to cope with. Good sources are both independent and third parties.)

See Wikipedia:Party and person#Doesn't "third party" mean "independent"? and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources for more information.

Book by William F. McNeil

References to the following book on a couple articles are being aggressively purged by a couple of editors who are hostile to the subject matter, with the claim that it is "unreliable". I say, it is being used on these articles to reference a school of thought or viewpoint, following on the books of Barry Fell, Gloria Farley and actually several lesser known authors. What say ye? Is all talk of this stuff now suddenly verboten on wp?

• McNeil, William F. Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus. McFarland, 2005. ISBN 0-7864-1917-2

Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press, and the author is an expert in baseball, not archeology. Neither have the book nor the theories it contains ever been mentioned in independent reliable sources. As it is not an element of the scholarly debate on a scientific topic, and has not been discused, either positively or negatively, by independent scholars, it remains a not-notable fringe source. This has already been exhaustively discussed on the article talk page [[37]] and at FTN [[38]]. At best it would be reliable only for the opinion of its author, and then only if that opinion were notable, which it is not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As this is basically what I've been saying, I can only agree. A book by a non-expert which hasn't made more than a tiny, tiny ripple anywhere, even among the fringe. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. Sure, scholarly sources are MORE reliable than non-scholarly ones... but there is a difference between relative reliability and complete unreliability.

A lot depends on the context in which we use the source... In this case, we have to look at the type of statement we are supporting with a citation to McNeil's book. McNeil would not be reliable for a statement as to archeological fact ("X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus")... but he can be considered reliable for a statement about the beliefs or opinions of a certain group of fringe theory advocates ("Fringe theorists believe that X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus"). Context also determines whether or not we should mention the opinion of this group of fringe theorists... see: WP:UNDUE. In an article or section about the pre-Colmbian contact fringe theory, it is not undue weight to discuss what advocates of the theory say (in fact it would be undue not to mention what the advocates say). Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not if the "theories" have never been mentioned by reliable mainstream sources. We would have no basis for deciding whether the "theories" were notable or not, or how much weight to assign to them, if any. Absent substantial discussion in reliable independent sources, scholarly or otherwise, we can only conclude that the "theories" are not significant, and therefore should not be mentioned at all in WP. To do otherwis would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You should mention what statement you want to support and which article. Since the book is published by McFarland & Company, it meets rs, although it is probably not the best source. However, the opinions expressed in the book probably do not meet WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The information from McNeil's book on Pre-Columbian contact theory that was in particular question, is found on page 223. There he describes his fellow Pre-Columbian theorist Gloria Farley, who discovered the Turkey Mountain inscriptions in 1975. She showed the carved letters to Barry Fell, another Pre-Columbian contact theorist who read the markings as Punic and Gaelic. Nobody else has ventured a reading, but some sources describe them vaguely as "runes" without interpreting them. There are plenty of sources that describe all this, and photos of the inscription, etc. - yet every last one including mainly McNeil, Fell, and Farley's own book on the discovery, has been declared "unreliable" or "insufficient passing mentions" by DV and DW, and I have thus been accused of "original research" just as if I made up the whole reading out of my own head myself, and the longstanding article informing wp readers of the existence of these petroglyphs has even been put up for deletion now, as they are obviously quite committed to making certain nobody finds out about the Turkey Mountain Inscriptions from wikipedia, regardless of how many other sources they could easily get such info from. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

McNeil would be reliable for an attributed statement as to what McNeil says in his book... such as: "According to author William McNeil, the inscriptions were discovered by Gloria Farley in 1975. McNeil states that she showed them to fellow enthusiast Barry Fell, and that Fell believed them to be Punic and Gaelic." However, this is probably a round about way of discussing the issue. If your intent is to cite Fell's belief, then it would be better to cite Fell directly. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source for the type of statement that Blueboar suggests. It sounds to me like the question is really one of DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement attributed to a person

I would like to have the following statement's source be reviewed from the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War:

"He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state."

which is sourced from this book:

• Tania Hossain (2006). "Language policy in education in Bangladesh". In Amy B.M. Tsui, James W. Tollefson (ed.). Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 245. ISBN 978-0805856934. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

which further cites it from this opinion based article:

• M. Waheeduzzaman Manik. "The impact of Jinnah's anti-Bangalee design on the political sene of Bangladesh in the early years of Pakistan: An Assessment". Commentary. Virtual Bangladesh.

I asked about it at the talk page but the major contributor of that article is of the opinion that this opinion based article is cited by an academic published book and that is why it is a reliable source. --SMS ^Talk 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the statement in the article is supported by Hossain and Tollefson's book. Hossain and Tollefson cite Manik's article. You disagree with the statement, and therefore you want to say that Hossain and Tollefson's book is wrong because they cite Manik's article, and you believe Manik's article is just one person's opinion and therefore unimportant. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Book used in Pantheism article by leader of pantheism movement

A question has arisen at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about whether or not the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books) by author Paul Harrison (pantheist), founder of the World Pantheist Movement should be used as a source for the Pantheism article. The book is used for about a dozen facts, mostly about modern pantheism. The issue is whether the source is too much of a primary source; or is written by an author that is too much of a partisan. The DRN discussion has quite a bit of background information. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Harrison appears to only possess appropriate scholarly qualifications in geography and other humanities other than Theology or comparative religious studies—he isn't an appropriate expert regarding religion. Element Books appears to be a trade publisher with an interest in non-standard topics, rather than a scholarly comparative religious studies or theological publisher. I don't see why the work should be used at all, given that it appears to be the first publication of a unique theory that has received no scholarly attention (a defunct curriculum document, and a claim that pantheists believe "These aspects of @ ["the actual physical universe"] tend toward divinity and inspire pantheism as ‘nature worship’ (Harrison 1999)." (10.1017/S0034412503006814 p70). The criteria commonly used to establish scholarly worth are: field appropriate research level qualifications; publication by a scholarly press who publishes in an appropriate field; recognition of a work other than the above in the appropriate field's scholarly review process (review and citation). This work was published by a writer with no field appropriate scholarly publications, it was published in trade by a less than esteemable publisher of non-fiction, and has received no attention in the literature. Pantheism is an article regarding a religious or philosophical opinion about the outside world; the standard for religious and philosophical articles is either scholarly expertise, or high level practicioner expertise ("professional Theologians" etc.) This work fails to meet those criteria. Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, as Harrison's work lacks the capacity to possess a notable opinion, or to generate appropriate "facts." Harrison's work could be used regarding his own views on pantheism (for instance, on an article regarding Harrison), but only while avoiding Undue, (for instance, where popular criticism of Harrison (for example) draws attention to the importance or notability of specific elements of his views on pantheism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)