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

Is an introduction to the Black Book of Communism a reliable source for the estimates of Communist mass killings?

In his introduction to the Black Book of Communism, Courtous presents the following "rough approximation" of the toll of Communism:

U. S. S. R.: 20 million deaths

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power:

about 10,000 deaths.

Ronald Aronson it his article "Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus" (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245.) expresses the following opinion on that:

"But most of these problems (problems with the BB proper -PS) pale in significance compared with the book's opening and closing chapters, which caused enormous controversy and even occasioned a break among The Black Book's authors.

Commenting on the above figures, Aronson continues:

Courtois's figures for the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Latin America go far beyond the estimates of the authors themselves, as does Courtois's final body count."

In connection to that, my question is:

Can the introduction to the Black Book be used as the source for facts about the death toll of Communism?

Concretely, is the introduction to the BB a reliable source for this general claim:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, Courtois' introduction is not reliable since the authors of the book condemned him for misrepresenting the numbers in the book. This is succinctly summarized in Jon Wiener's How We Forgot the Cold War, published this month:

  Of course the book received both praise and criticism. Notable among the critics were two important contributors to the volume who publicly rejected its thesis: Nicolas Werth, who wrote the key chapter on the Soviet Union, and Jean-Louis Margolin, who wrote the other key chapter, on China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. After seeing the introduction, the two "consulted a lawyer to see if they could withdraw their respective contributions from the book. They were advised they could not."

  So Werth and Margolin took their criticism to Le Monde, writing that Courtois was obsessed with reaching a total of one hundred million victims despite the best evidence showing a lower total. Werth also insisted Nazism and communism were qualitatively different. . . . The book was especially controversial in France because it was published during the 1997 trial of Nazi collaborator Maurice Papon for crimes against humanity for his role in the deportation of Jews from Bourdeaux to Hitler's death camps. Papon's lawyers introduced the book as evidence for the defense. (Wiener, Jon. How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America. University of California Press. pp. 37-38)

  Wiener also notes that J. Arch Getty rejected the attribution of famine deaths to mass killing, and still other reviewers "objected to the way The Black Book lumped together vastly different societies on the grounds that their leaders claimed to be Marxists-Leninists" (p. 38). On p. 39, Wiener says that "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted (p. 39; see also p. 37). Wiener's next paragraph mentions that the book "nonetheless received an enthusiastic reception in the United States," but the fact that at least two of the co-authors publicly denounced Courtois and his introduction, and sought to legally distance themselves from the book is most salient feature of the uproar. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBoC has been discussed here before - it is published by a major university press, and has been used in many other references as a source itself. The query really at hand is whether the estimates given as a range, and which are curently inthe body of an article appropriately referenced, should be presented as estimates in the lede of the article, or whether the estimate should be described as "tens of millions" or just as "millions" per some editors prior edits. A fair reading of multiple sources indicates that the numbers do, indeed, range as estimates from a low of about 60 million to a high of well over 100 million. Consensus in the past reached the "65 to 100 million" as a valid compromise, and the validity of the BBoC was not the issue, just the validity of individual numbers. Aronson's book review, is, moreover a book review. Not an article on death tolls. The "Holocaust denial" subtext injected above is not valid in discussions on this noticeboard IMO, and at best muddies the waters utterly. See reviews from Canadian Journal of History [1], other reviews at [2], [3], [4]. All strikingly positive in their reviews. The BBoC was written by former Communists and left-wing intellectuals, who would not be expected to over criticise the communist regimes mentioned, but who still came up with large numbers of deaths. Try on the order of a hundred positive references per Highbeam. Of course we could use The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective By: Robert Gellately; Ben Kieman; Cambridge University Press 2003. The Soviet persecutionof kulaks inthe 1930s took millions of lives etc. the exceptional and paroxysmal nature of Ezhovshina: executed during these two years (1937–38) were more than 85 percent of all people sentenced to the “supreme measure of punishment” by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000. which is just a small fraction of the deaths noted in the 2003 book. China Under Communism by Alan Lawrance, Routledge, 1998: Less publicized at the time was the fact that in certain regions there was famine, now reckoned to have accounted for 20 million deaths, leading to sporadic outbursts of cannibalism during a single 3 year period (the "Great Leap Forward" etc. Others, for example Jacques Guillermaz, diplomat and historian, suggest five million in 1949 a single year. The Lesser Evil: Moral Approaches to Genocide Practices By: Helmut Dubiel; Gabriel Motzkin, publisher Frank Cass, 2003, has The phenomenon is partly connected to China's huge population (around 700 million at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1966). Taking 58 million unnatural deaths as an average estimate would put the death toll over three decades, from 1946 to 1978, at 8 per cent of the total Chinese population. This figure is not much different from the one recently established for the three decades of the Lenin-Stalin period. (Margolin). So the real issue is not the BBoC as a reliable source - it is. It is whether we ought to minimize estimates below the lowest reliably sourced estimates of deaths. I fear that is not the topic for this noticeboard, however. Collect (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you provide sources for things like "supreme measure of punishment" by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000" – we're dealing with the question of whether the introduction by Courtois is a reliable source for 100 million victims. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The number isn't used as a fact but as an upper estimate. While Courtois may have his critics, he is not alone. Benjamin Valentino cites other authors like Matthew White estimating 81 million and Todd Culberston estimating 100 million. Valentino concludes that these estimates be considered at the high end of the plausible range of deaths attributable to communist regimes[5], and that is the way it is used in the article. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• We should not use the estimate of one author and claim that that is the generally accepted range. We need a secondary source that explains the ranges used by various authors and how widely accepted the various ranges are. Adding up Courtois' numbers btw I get 95,360,000, not 100 million (20+65+1+2+2+1+0.15+1.7+1.5+0.01=95.36). TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A reason to say "65 to 95 million" then. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this book certainly qualify as RS. According to WP:RS, there are three components to consider: (a) the creator of the work, (b) the publisher, and (c) the piece of work itself. Speaking about (a), this is written by mainstream researchers. For example, Stéphane Courtois, who contributed a couple of chapters of the book and introduction, is a French historian, expert in communism history and research director at French National Centre for Scientific Research, (according to page about him), not a fringe writer. Speaking about (b), it was published by Harvard University Press. Speaking about (c), I suggest to actually read the book, and not only the introduction, but at least some chapters from the book. After reading the book and being familiar with the subject, I think this is actually the best secondary source on the general subject of communist repression. There are better sources on specific countries like Russia, but not on the communist repression in general. If there are better books on this general subject, please tell what they are, and I would like to look at them. Every notable book on political subjects has a lot of critics and supporters, but this does not invalidate the source.

As about the numbers of victims, no one knows them exactly for many reasons, as explained in this and other books. There are only rough estimates, such as this one. But discussion about the numbers belongs to talk page of the article, not here. P.S. Speaking about numbers for the Soviet Union, 20-25 million of "killed" (including people killed by man-made hunger) is an estimate provided, for example, by the Soviet Politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev in his book "Sumerki" ("Twilight"), and I saw much higher numbers in other books. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, following your logic, Courtois' introduction is reliable because it was published in Harvard. However, the major contributor of this book is Nicolas Werth, whose chapter on the USSR was highly commended. This chapter is arguably the major factor that forced us to treat the BB with due respect (and, probably, the main reason for re-publishing the BB by Harvard). And this author publicly disagreed with Courtois' dishonest play with figures, and with his attempt to equate Communism and Nazism. In connection to that, I do not understand why did you decide that the opinion of Courtois has greater weight than that of Werth. By the way, Aronson's opinion was published by Wesleyan University, and it by no means has lower weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Werth's review is specifically titled Review Article and cpvers four separate and distinct books. Thus it is a "book review" as the term is generally used. Book reviews are not "peer reviewed" and generally are, indeed, given "lower weight" as a result of them being "book reviews." Werth, in fact, devotes only a very small part to criticising Courtois, and that only for the numbers (specifically Werth has no problem with 65 million Chinese deaths) - he mainly has praise for the BBoC, even though Werth says that, as a devoted Communist himself, hoping for a "Soviet Solidarity movement" as late as 1987. If we were to use Werth as the "source", we would still have a "lower bound" of 65 million! His major criticism is on Le Siecle des Communismes actually being the exact opposite of the BBoC - to the extent that it sought to excuse the problems rather than admitting them. Weth ens by questioning whether the vast number of deaths under Stalin and Mao were related to communism or to the "brutal tyrant"s in his words. The WP article at hand simply ascribes the killings to the time of the regimes in power, avoiding that issue. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Review Articles" in history, they are normally peer reviewed. "Reviews" or "Notes" or "Short Reviews" are normally not peer reviewed. The things to check are if it is a multiple work or field review with citation of its claims and of a similar length to articles in that journal. Review Articles are normally highly esteemed for analysing the current (or then current) state of research in a field. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you probably meant Aronson, not Werth.

Secondly, as an author of many peer-reviewed articles, including reviews, let me assure you that the reviews are peer-reviewed. Moreover, as a rule, an invitation to write a review is being usually send to highly reputable authors. In addition, in contrast to research articles, which may be sometimes seen as primary sources, the reviews are pure secondary sources. In any event, since the BB didn't pass peer-reviewing procedure, your argument is totally insatisfactory.

Re "Werth, in fact, devotes only a very small part to criticising Courtois, and that only for the numbers (specifically Werth has no problem with 65 million Chinese deaths) - he mainly has praise for the BBoC" What do you mean? Werth is a major contributor of the BB. How can he praise his own work?! Re China, Werth is a specialist in Russian history, and he simply leave China beyond the scope.

Regarding the rest, I simply do not understand you. Which source are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul says "as an author of many peer-reviewed articles, including reviews, let me assure you that the reviews are peer-reviewed.", while various libraries state:"Peer-reviewed journals also contain items such as editorials and book reviews, and these are not subjected to the same level of critique"[6]. "book reviews are usually not peer-reviewed even when they appear in peer-reviewed journals."[7]. --Nug (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the Fifelfoo's responce. Aronson's review is not a page-long book review, but a full-length article, which, obviously, was peer-reviewed (in contrast to the BB).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just would like to notice that "Black Book" is not a collection of unrelated chapters. The chapters are related and book includes "Introduction" and "Conclusion" by Courtois, which summarize content of the book, after an explicit approval by all other authors of the book including Werth. The publisher always make sure that all authors read and approved the book prior to the publication (an they usually even sign a form about it). There was no disagreement at the time of publication. Of course, there could be disagreements later. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably. However, Hiroaki Kuromiya (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201) called it a "collection of research essays" and noted that two major contributors "'publicly dissociated themselves' from the conclusions drawn in the book by Stephane Courtois,". Later disagreements simply reflected the fact that the introduction directly contradicted to Werth's and Margolin's chapters.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The estimates in The Black Book of Communism are more or less accurate under some sort of "You broke it; you bought it" theory which ascribes responsibility for all disasters which befall a communist state to its rulers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point. Which estimates? Courtois or Werths?

In addition, "You broke - you bought" does not work for Civil war and devastation it caused, or for the WWII and its consequences. Moreover, "to be responsible for mass death" and "to be engaged in mass killings" are two different things. For example, what do you think about situation when all victims of Angolian civil war of war in Vietnam?

Application of your logic would mean that we must attribute all WWII deaths to Nazism (btw, this argument was used by Werth of some other author).

It's not my logic, it's simply the logic of that method which is to ascribe the consequences of whatever happens to the ruling ideology rather than to actual causes. For example in China, there would have been disasters regardless of who ruled. Frantic struggles to escape traps produce their own casualties, as they did in the Soviet Union. As to the Nazis, well, yes tens of millions of deaths resulted from the decision to attempt conquest of Europe; without German nationalism 20th century history would have been a dull thing; Czarist Russia would still be stumbling along in endless squalor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding China, it is a long story (I recently started to read about the GLF famine, and, to my big surprise, I realised that Mao's responsibility is not as obvious as Stalin's responsibility for Soviet famine of 1932-33. I can respond more in more details eslewhere if you want). Regarding Hitler, I fully agree. However, the problem is, as Ronald Grigor Suny correctly noted, that Courtois does not attribute all WWII deaths to Nazi, despite the fact that Nazi started the WWII. He accuses Hitler in killing of only 25 million people, whereas, as Suny argued, the real death toll of Nazism, if calculated according to the same approach, would be 40–60,000,000. Moreover, about a million prisoners died in Gulag during the WWII famine (when the food shortage was desperate in the USSR as whole). Was this famine organized by Communists, or that was a result of German invasion? Were all the victims of the Civil war in Angola the victims of Communist mass killings? Aronson argues they weren't: it would be totally incorrect to blame Communists for resistance against foreign invasion. However, the BB attribute all of them to Communism. And so on and so forth.

Again, a situation is too complex to allow simplistic and superficial approaches.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One more quote on the BB:

"Yet one should not assume, at least in the case of the Soviet Union, and probably in other cases, that the figures represent actual executions."

"At least in the Soviet case, the scale of terror presented in The Black Book seems to be deliberately inflated. 'Indirect' deaths are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings."(Hiroaki Kuromiya. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

Therefore, we must choose, either we speak about the victims of political repressions, and call it "mass killings", or we discuss the total death toll (which usually includes, for example, tens of millions of unborn infants), and use different terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who actually read the book, I did not see any serious contradictions between Werth and Courtois. In particular, Werth counted in his chapter ~8-9 million killed civilians (including by man-made hunger) in the Soviet Union only between 1933 and 1941. Obviously a lot more civilians were persecuted before (Civil War, Red Terror, rebellions, "Great Break") and after (repression during in the aftermath of WWII including Victims of Yalta, "Doctor's Plot", and so on). Now, speaking about the Introduction, it was intention of Courtois to count the number of victims in exactly same manner as would be counted Holocaust victims. Hence the numbers only include direct executions, deaths in labor/concentration camps, and man-made hunger. The latter is different from Holocaust, but it was included because what had happen was forcefully taking all resources of food from the people and then preventing their movement from the affected areas by NKVD troops. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I too have read the book; in fact, I own a copy. It can be used, but only with great care. It's an overtly biased political polemic, wholly unreliable for interpretations, and in factual matters prone to exaggeration, using every possible negative evidence, resolving all doubts in favor of worst possible view of the Soviets, and amassing figures to give the most damaging possible final statistic. None the less, all or what it reports did take place, though not necessarily for the reasons or in the context specified, and by any estimate the actual numbers are horrific. All statistics for the USSR are subject to great uncertainties, especially population figures. Quite apart from the numbers, there is difficulty in assigning the motives for any one individual or group murder. Whether the deaths in a particular famine were deliberately in order to destroy a particular population, or the willingly accepted consequence of more general problems, or the careless treatment of undesirables, or the inevitable results of a struggling social system is not something to be very precise about--the available sources indicate a variable combination. (it's the difference between We must destroy the economic power of the kulaks, and if this inevitably will result in killing many of them it will unfortunately be worth it; and The best way to reduce the economic power of the kulaks will be to kill as many as possible; or even We hate the kulaks & they hate us so let's kill them--it will also remove them as an economic obstacle.) The numbers given tin the BB are not outside the range of possibility, and can be included as one of several estimates--and indeed should be, to show the range of variation. Or to take Fred Bauder's example, deaths in the USSR during WWII can be assigned at will to either party to the conflict: the Soviets did adopt a policy involving the sacrifice of enormous numbers of soldiers, but at the beginning, it was all they had. Or while most of Stalin's purge victims were innocent of even doubts about the regime, some did want to if not destroy Communism, at least replace Stalin--I am inclined to see them as martyrs, but it is reasonable that Stalin thought otherwise. And whether the Lithuanian and Ukrainian resistance against the Soviets during & after WWII was patriotism of fascist-inspired terrorism (or both) depends very much on one's point of view. Modern scholarly studies are of course preferable. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• MVBW, you write: "it was intention of Courtois to count the number of victims in exactly same manner as would be counted Holocaust victims". You simply didn't read the literature you comment on. The quote has been provided on this talk page that confirms that Courtois' figures seem to be "deliberately inflated. 'Indirect' deaths are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings."(Hiroaki Kuromiya. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201) That directly contradicts to what you say.

Moreover, Suny argues that Courois' approach, if applied to Nazi killings would give 40-60 millions (all WWII) death, which again directly contradicts to your unsubstantiated claim that there was a direct analogy between 6 miooin Holocaust victims and 100 million Communist victims. You seem to be unfamiliar with the subject you are writing about.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think you are missing the point. The book is not about Nazi. But this book qualify as a secondary scholarly RS per policy, the numbers are consistent with official Soviet sources, the book is not a collection of unrelated chapters, and I did not see any disagreements between authors in the book. This is all. Yes, I have the book at home for a few years. This is 800+ pages of a highly condensed text reviewing and summarizing a lot of other published sources, a serious work by professional historians... But once again, if you know any better books on the general subject of Communist represiions, please tell what they are, and let's use them. But if you can not find other good books on the subject, it means this is the best available academic book on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that is you who is missing the point. We are discussing not the book, but the introduction, and I asked quite clearly about that in the very beginning. Each part of this book should be judged based on its own merit, and, e.g., Werth's "State against its citizens" neither adds not diminishes credibility of the introduction. Therefore, your arguments are totally fallacious: that is as if you argued that X is good because his colleague is a decent man. In that concrete case, the situation is even more clear: the co-authors of Courtois themselves disagreed with the statement, so your references to 800 pages are totally misleading: how can it serve as an argument if we have a solid evidence (see Aronson) that Courtois did not summarise the volume adequately?
  • Secondly, and more importantly. If we have no better sources, but the existing source has been seriously challenged, the information from that source should be presented as an opinion, not as the fact. In other words, even if this source meets WP:V, it fails WP:NPOV, and you, being an experienced editor, should have to know that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So, you do agree that the book as a whole qualify as a secondary RS? No one, including authors of the book, describes these numbers as "the fact", but rather as an approximate estimate. Sure. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This your question demonstrates either lack of understanding or the lack of good faith. The title of the current section is:

Is an introduction to the Black Book of Communism a reliable source for the estimates of Communist mass killings?

That means that the question of reliability of the BB as whole is beyond the scope of current discussion. We are discussing just an introduction here, and the discussion is about one concrete statement (quoted above). I provided reliable secondary source that seriously challenges this statement. In connection to that, the question is simple: do you have anything to contrapose to that?

Re "describes these numbers as "the fact", but rather as an approximate estimate" Our policy says nothing about "approximate estimates", it operates with two terms: facts and opinia. If some statement has been contested, it cannot be presented as a fact, just as an (attributed) opinion. From the point of view of our policy there is no difference between "Our Earth rests on approximately three whales" and "Our Earth rests on three whales": both statements have been contested, and the fact that the first one gives just an estimate of the number of whales changes nothing.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit by an obvious sock of banned User:Jacob Peters was removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The History Files [ http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/ ]

Hey Does Wikipedia considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be tertiary. You could probably drill down to the sources using this. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

InddedIndeed, it is? From the very first swift look, the main sources mentioned by The History Files are worthy. Allow me to say that your comments under-explain what your're looking to highlight?

Thanks to you, I've just had a good look at WP:TERTIARY, and I end up concluding that Wikipedia encourage the use of scholarly tertiary sources.

Again, we're struck over the same -- Does Wikipedia considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you be more specific regarding how you would like to use the source? Which article? For what statements? Etc. My point was that although tertiary sources are ok, if we can provide a secondary source then that could be better. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable for history. The articles are introductory overviews, and there is no indication that they are all scholars. That's the general principle; if per Sitush you want to make a more specific enquiry we will consider it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's about page also notes that it accepts contributions from anyone.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tertiary sources are acceptable; obituaries are commonly used in GA articles (and probably FA ones; didn't check). Whether they can be used depends on author, publisher and content cited. In this case the publisher is not an RS (seems pretty much close to user-generated content based on strong sources). I think we should directly use the sources they mention; the site is useful for research purposes, and looks good enough to be used in the external links section. Churn and change (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Easy guyz, easy! Sitush, thanks for the clarification; but, when content broadcasting is involved encyclopedia-wise, it has to be either way -- definitely not MUST but SHOULD (because the website is focused on a very single subject, History; unlike Wikipedia, which has a wider scope); at-least, I'm asking you to be specific.... let me explain, it's like whether the work is scholarly or not? We cannot apply dichotomy with subsets:- scholarly and fringe. The website is a single entity, and what I've asked is quite an easy one!

Itsmejudith, thanks for commenting; but when was the last time you read WP:TERTIARY? The article says, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources.... (contd).... Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics...." 117.212.43.201 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the content seems quite updated! The job appears to be worthy, and the sources aren't unworthy; as Churn and change also end up observing. 117.212.43.201 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The questions of whether it is tertiary or not, or academic or not, areless important than the question of whether the source can be shown to have a reputation for fact checking, concerning the subject matter it is being cited for, therefore (1) the context IS important and (b) the most important point made so far is that this source seems to allow anyone to contribute. Is there any sign that controbutions are vetted in any way, and/or that the source is respected and cited by people who can be reasonably expected to know something about history?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, needs a bit exercise! Just a little disagreement Andrew, whether it's scholarly or fringe does matters; but so does the reputation for fact checking! Their about page mentions three points:- 1. "First, and least, many are drawn from news media and contain archaeology or science-based news on historical or prehistoric topics."....(contd).... 2. "Secondly, a few are reproductions of previously published material.".... (contd).... 3. "Thirdly, and most importantly, many features are contributions from individuals with an interest in, and some knowledge of, history. Anyone is welcome to submit material. Submitted material will be highlighted on the front page as a banner feature for at least seven days, and the author will be fully credited for their work, with their name appearing on the appropriate features index page, something that only happens for original material. The work must be your own, and not a direct copy of something that already exists." Now, it's very much evident from point 1 and 2 that the reputation of the sources does matters to them, and they take the job seriously by keeping things updated; so fact checking should be fine. But, point 3 is a bit tricky to resolve here? I think they does expect the chap to be familiar with the subject if he/she looks forward to ask for kind of an an edit request. Point 2 backs up that the work is definitely reviewed; so yes, there is sign that the contribution are vetted. 117.212.46.75 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your second sentence, I did not say that being fringe does not matter. Being reliable matters more. We report fringe theories under some circumstances. Concerning your bigger point this situation can approached by asking whether any other sources treat this source seriously. That a source sees itself as serious is not enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a number of the the sources used by them are good (as WP:PROF + WP:BIO may not be equal to WP:RS), and rest of the sources used by them are very good (WP:RS); though, not all the sources used by them are WP:RS, but no any such fringe theorists are cited.

The content remains updated, and the contributions are vetted if in case kind of an edit request is made.

BUT as Andrew asked, "whether any other sources treat this source seriously", I admit that I'm kind of struck here!

And, it would be real nice if we may some more participators, or else the good source may be derailed here? 117.212.42.125 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Andrew Lancaster, there does not seem to be much editorial oversight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere

Resolved

 – Unquestionably reliable source, recognized expert published by respected academic pressFladrif (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Source: Nelson, Alan H. (2003), Monstrous Adversary: the life of Edward de Vere,17th Earl of Oxford, Liverpool University Press, ISBN 978-0-85323-678-8

Article: Edward_de_vere

Content: (1) "In November he matriculated as an impubes, or immature fellow-commoner, in Queens' College, Cambridge, and in January 1559 he was admitted as a fellow commoner in St John's, while still remaining resident at Queens'. In March 1559 his name disappeared from the Queens' college registers; he did not graduate with his classmates in the Lent term of 1562."[16] [Nelson p. 26]

Cambridge University Archives Matriculation Book 1:169 -- please verify Edward Bulbeck(e) and H. Crane are listed an impubes per Nelson's book. Also verify John Jobsonne is not listed as impubes on same list (Queens' Michaelmas 1558). John Venn et al per both *Book of Matriculations* (1913) and *Alumni Cantabrigienses* (1922) neither lists Bulbeck(e) nor Crane as impubes but both books list Jobsonne as impubes whom Nelson omits from his book.

(2) "In May 1565 she wrote to Cecil, urging that the money from family properties set aside for Oxford's use during his minority by his father's will should be entrusted to herself and other family friends to protect it and ensure that he would be able to meet the expenses of furnishing his household and suing his livery when he reached his majority; this last would end his wardship though cancelling his debt with that Court, and convey the powers attached to his title.[25]" [Nelson p. 43]

The National Archives SP 12/36/47, ff. 110-111: In May 1565, Oxford's mother wrote to Cecil, etc. Please verify date of letter as "some time before October 1563" Oxford's mother married Charles Tyrrell. The letter in question is signed "Margery Oxenford" and endorsed "The Countess of Oxford".

Am challenging Nelson's ability to accurately intrepret Elizabethan documents and am also asking why Wikipedia would consider a book written by a non-expert to be [WP:RS]. Thank you! Knitwitted (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at Professor Nelson's profile at UC Berkeley: [8]? And if you have, what grounds do you have for describing him as a 'non-expert'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have. The discrepencies between his and Venn's assessment of the matriculation record and the fact that Mrs. Tyrrell shouldn't be signing her name as The Countess of Oxford should start an inquiry. I suggest Venn would be the expert regarding Cambridge matriculation records. But at the very least, let's please have an independent examiner review these 2 documents before further discussions. Perhaps Venn is wrong. Perhaps Mrs. Tyrrell had a brain fart. Until proof is provided that Nelson's interpretations are correct, I would like his book tagged as a possible non-RS. Knitwitted (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Lady Ox/Mrs Ty. The Lady/Mrs is writing to make requests to Cecil, so there is no question of having 'authority'. Are you saying that mother should express no opinions about the welfare of her son? I look forward to your book on absentee child rearing. As for whether she "shouldn't" be signing her name as The Countess of Oxford, well, maybe she shouldn't have, but still used her title as it sounded better than Mrs Tyrell; maybe she was entitled, as a courtesy, to still use her title; maybe she hadn't married Tyrell by then (the first reference to the marriage is in '66); maybe the letter was misdated by someone in the last 400 years; and yes, maybe there was a transcription error on someone's part, maybe even Nelson, or a typeseeting error that wasn't spotted, or.... Paul B (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you're sounding a lot like the typical Strat-person... maybe maybe maybe. Knitwitted (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And in your haste to condemn an honourable scholar you're sounding like a typical anti-Stratfordian, which explains your shoddy "scholarship". Countess Margery styled herself as such because that was the custom. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Honourable? Are you serious? Quit pretending to be such a British bumpkin. Knitwitted (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it up as soon as you drop the moron act. But just FYI, when editing on British topics it is house style on WP to use British English, and it becomes habit. And I notice you have no comment on the link that disproves your fantasy (or should I write phantasie?). Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The book is clearly a reliable source, by our standards. It is published by an established expert in this area (tenured at a major research university in the subject the book is on), published by a reliable publisher, etc. This is not to say that it is perfectly accurate, only that it meets the standards here for what a reliable source is. To counter any flawed analysis that might be sourced to it, you need to find other similarly reliable sources, and in that case the article should neutrally describe the differences between the sources rather than using one of them as an excuse to ignore the other. Your own speculations about what certain historical people should or should not have signed themselves are not particularly relevant, unless they are reliably published. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The book includes a huge amount of detailed material based on archival sources. In any undertaking as vast as that the odd slip-up will inevitably occur (not that I am accepting that these specific assertions are slip ups. I wouldn't know). Individual mistakes in obscure matters of detail do not make a source unreliable in Wikipedia's sense. That's not to say we should slavishly repeat factual errors if we know them to be so. We can prefer other sources for specific points if they are more authoritative, or simply omit information if we have good reason to believe it to be erroneous. Frankly the points that you, apparently chanelling the spirit of Nina Green, are making are so utterly obscure they are are barely intelligible. How is it remotely relevant whether or not Bulbeck(e), Crane or Jobsonne were "impubes", a topic in which the article, along with every sane person in the world, has no interest? Paul B (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Paul, I brought up the issue of impubes to show discrepencies between Nelson and Venn; not to show proper content for the article. Researchers use Venn et al's books as the authority for Cambridge matriculation records. If Nelson was correct in his assessment, then he being a trained historian, should have pointed out mistakes in Venn's books. That is what historians do. They don't, as Nelson has done, neglect evidentiary boo-boos. Knitwitted (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Nelson is *not* a credentialed historian. It is not just about transcribing documents and giving your interpretation per document; it is about reviewing prior research and documenting any discrepencies found. It is also about reviewing *all* documents as a whole... meaning finding and pointing out any inconsistencies between 2 or more documents. Nelson fails to do any of the above. Furthermore, is Nelson an expert Latin translator? As to Mrs. Tyrrell's letter, since she resigned her executrixship on 22 Jul 1563 [per Earl John's second will], she hardly had the authority to write such a letter on May 1565 regarding his will. Knitwitted (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC) This is frankly idiotic. For how much longer do we have to put up with absurd arguments that bear no relation whatever to either Wikipedia policy or the realities of academic research? The article on De Vere nowhere mentions the issue of whether or not Messrs Bulbeck(e), Crane or Jobsonne were "impubes", for the simple reason that it is a matter of no importance whatever. All that Knittwitted is doing is latching onto utterly obscure slip-ups in matters of detail that have no relevance to the overall reliability of the book, as if a single error in hundreds of pages of text somehow invalidates everything written in a whole book. Has Knitwitted even looked at the policies and guidelines on reliability and original research? I see no evidence it, given her bizarre claim that we should find an "independent examiner [to] review these 2 documents". So, she wants us to send for someone to compare historical documents and reach a decision? I'm fairly sure I know who's the one having the "brain fart". Paul B (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Ditto. This is just more example of her disruptive tactics. Her entire talk page is full of warnings about it, yet she seems unaffected to the point where she spends her time making spurious categories and bringing up specious bullshit like this. You can count the useful edits she's made on one hand. She's a minor nuisance, but if she's allowed to stick around you can expect nothing but more of the same from her. (I'm constantly amazed at why Oxfordians consider these kinds of tactics to be useful in promoting their candidate, but I suppose when starting out with an illogical argument further logical deviations should be expected.) Tom Reedy (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC) I think it is a clear consensus on WP that we do not try to second guess experts in their debates. Consider WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We summarize what is published in "reliable sources" by which we pretty much mean sources that would be expected to be correct. Undoubtedly many such sources are wrong, and undoubtedly Wikipedians are often smart people who might be smart enough to publish things themselves in public debates, but neither of these points is relevant to this project. Concerning the question of what to do when we find an apparent error, such as a typo or obvious problem like that, is that we should use common sense. As far as policies which we can write in a general way, the only RS-relevant one is that we simply do not have to use all reliable sources. Most difficult to judge in such cases is generally the question of whether removal of a source might make our coverage un-balanced, but that is not the subject of this noticeboard. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Nelson p. 40: Edward is a minor age 14; sister Mary is a minor age 14. Per The National Archives SP 12/29/8, ff. 11-12: "Dominum Comitem fuisse et esse minorem quatuordecem Annorum" = Edward is a minor age 14; "Dominam Mariam sororem dicti Comitis fuisse et esse minorem etiam quatuordecem Annis" = Mary is a minor under the age of 14. Note I'm only up to p. 40 in Nelson's tome. And then there's the LMAO "white-herrings" letter (Nelson p. 432) where Dr. Nelson, Professor Emeritus UC Berkeley, mistakes a person for a fish. Knitwitted (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC) See Monstrous Adversary errata. You're free to do whatever you wish with your life, including wasting your time, but please stop wasting ours. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC) So far I see no serious reason to question the reliability of the source. In fact the discussion really seems to be about where to draw the line on an WP:OR issue, so probably not for this forum. Or am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC) No, this is mainly about incompetence on the part of the editor who brought this up. Nelson isn't citing Venn, his citation is to the primary source, i.e. Cambridge's actual record book. The entry appears on page 112 of Venn's book. The number one rule when dealing with Oxfordians is to check their citation, because usually they're blinded by their bias, incompetent, or dishonest, because their main intentions are promotional rather than scholarly. I made the error of not doing so because by the time I knew the discussion was going it was already pretty far along. I finally took a look this morning while having my coffee. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Tom, that was the whole point. Venn et al are the authorities on Cambridge matriculation records, not Nelson. Why couldn't Nelson point out *he* found substantially new information? Knitwitted (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Tom, I also supplied Cambridge University Archives Matriculation Book 1:169 as quoted from Nelson's book when I first made my point. Knitwitted (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC) You are verging on the edges of incomprehensibility and it is obvious that you don't understand Wikipedia policies nor scholarship. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Would the moderators please review a few of the choice expressions used by Tom Reedy and Paul B regarding my points: "utterly obscure" (used twice), "barely intelligible", "frankly idiotic", "bizarre", "specious bullshit", "minor nuisance", "illogical", "bias" "incompetent", "dishonest". Thank you for your attention to this matter. Knitwitted (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC) So far as I have noted, none of them is applied to you, Knitwitted. Most of them are applied to your arguments, and, as such, seem fair enough. ("Specious" was perhaps a bit over the top.) But I see that Tom Reedy generalises about "Oxfordians" above: are you one of those? Andrew Dalby 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Nope, not an Oxfordian. Am an independent researcher. Thank you for asking! :) Knitwitted (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Iowa Source

I question whether a free weekly monthly called the Iowa Source[9] is a reliable source. It is used extensively, almost to the point of plagiarism, in the WP:BLP John Hagelin, and is relied upon pretty much exclusively, without corroboration, for much of the biographical information. According to its website, Iowa Source is a free arts and entertainment weekly monthly in Fairfield Iowa, with no full time staff writers, and publishes reader submissions as articles.[10] The particular article being used as a source, [11] was written by one Neil Dickie, was employed in PR office of the Maharishi University of Management[12] where the BLP subject is a department chairman (to say nothing of being head of the TM Organization in the US), and the article appears to be a transparent PR flak piece placed with a sympathetic local tabloid with no editorial oversight. This publication in general, and the cited article in particular appear to have none of the indicia of a reliable source and wildly inappropriate as a source for a BLP. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor and publisher seems to be a serious person: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claudia-mueller/54/b55/a43. If anybody has questions about the content, I guess she can answer them directly. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You can tell that by a LinkedIn page which has no content whatsoever except a photograph and this: "I founded The Source in 1984 as a means to publicize all the great things going on that weren't being covered by other media."? Really? That the editor and publisher seems from a LinkedIn profile to be a "serious person" is hardly sufficient to meet WP:NEWSORG.

Fladrif (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Added information:

• Some of Fladrif's information seems to be inaccurate. For starters the website indicates this is a monthly publication. I think its clear who Hagelin is in the Wikipedia article, and the Source as a source :) is being used for the most part for biographical information as Fladrif says, so I'm not sure there's a problem, however I am cleaning up that article right now so will be happy to go with uninvolved editor's views on this issue.(olive (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
• Unfortunately, Faldrif did not suggest he saw problems with this source on the John Hagelin article talk page where editors could have probably come to some agreement, nor did he notify editors he'd brought this concern to a Notice Board.
• The Source is 28 years old.
• As well, the Source says they accept submissions, which is of course different from publishing submissions verbatim, and also invites people to submit articles to the editor. This clearly implies editorial control.

With this added information I'll leave this now to uninvolved editors. If Fladrif would like to take this back to the article talk page that would be fine by me, too. And thanks for the comments, all. (olive (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

It looks adequate to support the non-controversial biographical material for which it's cited. It may be a bit over-used, but that's a question for the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube reference in Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church) article

1. Source: [13]

2. Article: Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church)

3. Content:

In 2012, hidden camera footage revealed, that the Oath of vengeance against the US is still taken during the traditionally secret Mormon marriage ceremony.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a video posted by some random YouTube user claiming to depict the secret practices of Mormons. It's obviously not even close to being a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and there has been an edit war on the page about it. I guess I will delete it again... –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

David Hicks claims of torture

In Guantanamo Bay detention camp, editor User:NinaDownstreet insists that our article contain the words David Hicks also made allegations of torture… and uses three articles in support:

• www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/Hicks-torture-allegations-corroborated
• news.bbc.co.uk
• www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/hicks-in-fresh-torture-claims

However, the source used by all three articles is an affidavit by Hicks:

• www.smh.com.au/news/World/David-Hicks-affidavit

Hicks does not actually claim that he was tortured. His exact words (repeated several times throughout the affidavit) are: This Affidavit provides an outline of the abuse and mistreatment I have received… I maintain that if Hicks does not say that he was tortured, our article cannot claim that he said so. It is simply not true. User:NinaDownstreet here removes the affidavit as a source and reinserts the torture claim. My question is whether we must stand by what Hicks actually said by relying on his exact statement, or whether we should accept the reinterpretation offered by the newspaper articles, all of which use the affidavit as their only source for Hicks' claims. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These mainstream news sources are reliable for the fact that Hicks has claimed he was tortured. Even if he doesn't use the word himself, they have applied judgement and the normal definition of the term. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotes from each of the secondary sources (words and interpretations from secondary sources) :

1) "Australia's Hicks alleges torture"

2) "Allegations by Australian terrorist suspect David Hicks of torture at Guantanamo Bay..."

3) "David Hicks has renewed allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay,..."

We can not evaluate and interpret primary source material this is against WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. All three secondary sources that i have provided say and verify "David Hicks made allegations of torture"' NinaDownstreet (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Points 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 from the affidavit are obviously claims of having been tortured, and as Nina notes reliable sources interpreted them as such at the time, so there's no problem here. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's an interpretation, and we can state it as such, but it isn't "obvious" that Hicks was claiming torture, because obviously he would have said as much. Obviously he did not, instead selecting a more specific - and entirely reasonable - claim of abuse and mistreatment. There is a difference between Wikipedia stating that Hicks was tortured, using media articles as sources, and Wikipedia stating that Hicks claimed he was tortured, which in point of fact he did not. I don't think it's too fine a distinction to miss - if we know that Lincoln said, government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, we can certainly summarise it as "democratic governance shall endure", but we cannot honestly state as fact that Lincoln said those exact words. It would be untrue. As with Lincoln so with Hicks, at least to my feeble grasp of truth and logic. --Pete (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete, Wikipedia is a mirror of what secondary sources say. There are good reasons for this. A rigorous treatment of this issue, which it's possible editors might agree on, would be for the article to footnote Hick's actual words. But that's a matter for the article talk page, not here. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is fairly widespread acceptance that we can sometimes use primary sources to argue that secondary sources should not be used, because they made some obvious error such as a typo. However, in this case you essentially have a good representation of the most important newspapers in Australia making the same interpretation. Such journalists should have been familiar with the context in ways which we can not be. That is what we would generally expect them to have a good reputation for checking. So I see no reason to propose not using their interpretation as the preferred one, because it is the mainstream interpretation amongst people who write about such things. To tweak away from that mainstream would not be in the spirit of WP:DUE or WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. In regards to the affidavit, it's quite likely that Hicks' lawyer didn't use the word 'torture' as it has a specific legal definition which he or she didn't wish to invoke in a formal legal document such as this ('torture' may not even be something which can be alleged in legal documents given how imprecise the term is - I am not a lawyer though!). On the basis of what was contained in the affidavit, I'm not seeing any reason to consider the reporting of it in a range of reliable sources problematic. If other reliable sources interpreted the affidavit differently, this should be noted in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be slow, but I still cannot see how we can state that Hicks - or anyone - said something that they did not. It is not factual. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a bit slow. Your analysis of Hick's statements as given in your post of 22:45 25 October 2012 is original research. The analysis of Hick's statements given in the Australian and SMH are verifiable and reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=17

Thanks. See above for my comments on that. Could you address the point that puzzles me, please? The discussion here seems to be saying that even if we know somebody said X and not Y because we have the exact wording, if a reliable source reports he said Y, we can state as a fact that he said Y when we actually know he didn't? --Pete (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we've answered in a way which is too "coded" by wiki jargon. Let me try again. Your logical approach is logical, but it is what we refer to under WP:synthesis as something we do not normally aspire to when editing WP. Such reference to primary material can sometimes be used to justify removing words from Wikipedia, but only in special cases, such as if (a) the primary information you use is very simple to interpret (see WP:BLUE) and (b) the material proposed for removal is not itself very widely cited, discussed, and apparently representative of what is mainstream thinking (see WP:NPOV which is one of our most important policies). So as I mentioned an example case might be an obvious typo in a newspaper. The problem in this case (and most such cases) is that (a) legal wording is clearly not something everyone can interpret in the same way, like "1+1=2", and (b) there are several sources we would need to ignore, and they are all quite eminent and mainstream. If we ever want to propose edits which do not seem mainstream, we must be prepared to give very strong reasons. (Consider WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the third article, Hicks in fresh torture claims is not based on that 2004 affidavit, but a later one. "A new document written by Hicks in support of his bid for British citizenship expands on previous claims and details new allegations of abuse. ... The document forms part of an affidavit in a British court in which he is seeking to over-ride a Blair government decision to deny him citizenship." Extracts from the later document ; Full document behind a wall . The 'new document' extract does contain one use of the word "torture". Also on that site, are extracts from Hicks's book, and an interview about it where he repeatedly uses the word "torture" for his & others' treatment. I agree with the other responders above about the abstract question. We should just try to craft the sentence to avoid the inference that it is an exact quote, as much as possible, and of course OR is OK to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia - e.g. if the affidavits had said he was playing cards with Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location all that time.John Z (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the responses above, especially the last. We should be able to work out a coherent wording and reference fit on the talk page now. --Pete (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient historians - do we treat their accounts of events as primary or secondary sources?

Resolved

 – They're primary sources, so not good enough to depend on for Featured articles. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for some guidance, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples in mind? If you search the archives of this page the topic appears to have been discussed in the past; my suggestion is to treat them as primary sources (most of them have been picked clean by secondary sources which place the original publication in context and critically discuss its contents). Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As primary. I can't think of any cases where it would be otherwise. But please do bring any particular examples here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so obscure. I'm currently auditing "old" FAs that have yet to appear on Main Page to see if they're good enough quality for Main Page. (The audit can be seen here - help from other reviewers welcomed!) The specific article that made me raise this question is Cretan War which is largely sourced from ancient texts - Polybius and Livy. If consensus is that these sources are primary, not secondary, the article in my view is definitely not of sufficient quality because our core policy WP:V says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources." I note that the article itself calls those sources "primary". --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the usefulness of the term, but in cases like this, ancient sources tend to be considered as "primary sources" in the sense of being raw data and not commented upon by any modern reliable source, which is what we prefer. Of course such classical sourcing for basic classical events is widespread in WP, and not considered wrong, even if it is not considered best practice. A simple way to improve such cases (but time consuming and of debateable value for many types of classical information) is to find a good modern edition of commentary and cite it as well as the original classical source, with of course reference to any modern doubts or hypotheses when they are relevant, that being the whole point of trying to make sure modern secondary sources are checked. But I would argue that removing good quality classical sources, even if you have nice modern ones to add, is not to be encouraged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. I'm not considering removing the content, just whether it'd still be regarded by the community as Featured quality, given the higher standards we apply today. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Just for clarity, I know that people look to this noticeboard for precedents, so I wanted to try to help define the limits of applicability a little. Two misunderstandings to avoid: using classical sources is acceptable even if not best (questions about what is best for an FA sometimes create confusion here), and secondly, deleting mention of classical sources is not normally going to be a good idea at all, even if good modern sources can be found in order to improve our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Now reviewed, with your help. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mystery source shows up in many Soccer/football articles. Need help locating

There's several Wikipedia articles which all use the following as their primary source:

• Blakeman, M (2010) The Official History of the Eastern Counties Football League 1935-2010, Volume II ISBN 978-1-908037-02-2

I can't find any information on this book, even if it exists. I literally find zero references to this book outside of Wikipedia. Its ISBN number shows up on none of the major catalogues, and the source is used in GOBS of wikipedia articles, see [14] for a list. The reference is always formated exactly the same way, always specifically "volume II" and always with that exact ISBN number. I find it odd to find a source cited exactly the same way in such a wide swath of articles, and yet also find absolutely ZERO non-Wikipedia mentions of this book. It doesn't exist in a single library, it isn't for sale anywhere, and I can find no other online reference to this work, or to M. Blakeman as a football historian or journalist in any context. For a book published in 2010, this is amazing. Can anyone else find a copy of this book, confirm of its existence, or indeed, figure out how it became such a widely-used source at Wikipedia, like who keeps adding it to articles and how it gets there? Something smells very fishy. --Jayron32 13:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Urgh. I didn't give time for my Google-fu to develop. Mick Blakeman appears to be a legitimate football historian, per this. And I finally found a copy of the correct book here. Still, for such a rare book, it shows up a lot. Does anyone have access to the book and can confirm anything being cited to it? It would be good just to spot check its usage a bit. --Jayron32 13:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that if you look through a few of the article histories, you'll find the citation was first placed by the same editor in all instances. That editor could probably answer all your questions if they're still around and/or have email enabled. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin Number 57 (talk · contribs), who is quite active, has been adding at least some of these refs. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You might be better off asking for the book at WP:RX. Since you don't have page numbers, you could just ask if somebody could get the book, and then try a talk-page discussion to figure out which page numbers you would need. Churn and change (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Google search result

An IP added a Google search result to Rebel Wilson's article and I was wondering if it was reliable? If a user types in "When is Rebel Wilson's birthday" Google gives February 3, 1986 as her birth date. This search result was used as a source in Wilson's article, but where do they get their information from? - JuneGloom Talk 00:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A google search report is not a source... it is a means to find sources. Take it to the next step and look at the hits. Find ones that are reliable and cite them. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not reliable, not a source.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not even acceptable as an external link. See WP:ELNO #9. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is agreeing on the basic point but Blueboar's advice is best: there is no need to be too "hard" about this error, because the work done can very likely be fixed up. WP:NEWBIES, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Media Watch

I have posted here following an administrator's suggestion.

Ohio Media Watch is an amateur blog currently located at http://www.ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com/ and formerly at http://www.ohiomedia.blogspot.com/ Presumably, there are only two contributors to this site: an anonymous primary contributor who refers to him/herself as "Ohio Media Watch", and a secondary contributor named Nathan Obral. The blog itself covers local broadcast media in Northeast Ohio; coverage began in June 2005.

I do not feel this blog meets the criteria for a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. The primary contributor is anonymous. Neither the primary nor the secondary contributor are subject to any editorial oversight. Although the blog has been mentioned by local media in the Cleveland market, neither contributor could be considered an "established expert" using any reasonable definition of the term. The secondary contributor edits on Wikipedia as User:Nathan Obral; in the past, he has failed to declare conflict of interest with radio station articles (e.g. WYCL, where he serves as a webmaster). I suspect the primary contributor has also reported on him/herself on the blog, another conflict of interest (if necessary, I can share my suspicions off-site). I first raised my concern late last July at Talk:WMMS#Reliable_sources. A second user agreed with my position, and based on that discussion, I removed the roughly 30 Ohio Media Watch citations throughout the main namespace.

The discussion on the WMMS talk page stemmed partly from observations I made on the Radio-Info.com message boards (now RadioDiscussions.com). At the time, I had only posted there three times, all relating to Cleveland Browns football coverage. Since then, I have started posting with more regularity. Others on the RadioDiscussions.com message boards have asked just who exactly the primary contributor of Ohio Media Watch is. I often scour the Internet (and sometimes microfilm) to find sources for Wikipedia; recently I stumbled upon information online which I think reveals who the primary contributor is. Following a recent local radio station podcast, I shared that info on the message board (two public Blogspot entries, a public news site profile, and a Wikipedia page at its creation). This upset User:Nathan Obral, he chose to revert my July/August edits as some kind of retaliation, and that led to a dispute. Currently there is a related discussion on my own talk page at User_talk:Levdr1lostpassword#Ohio_Media_Watch.

On Wikipedia, I myself choose to remain anonymous. I am young adult living in Northeast Ohio with no connection to the radio industry, professional or otherwise. I simply have an interest in radio; consequently, I tend to edit local radio/media articles. If necessary, I am willing to reveal my real-life identify to an administrator via email or other means to verify my status, provided this is done in confidence. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is patently unreliable for just about any information here on WP. It's an anonymous blog with no editorial oversight and zero reputation for fact checking. This isn't even in a gray area. It may be a good idea to blacklist the source, as there seems to be active self-promotion going on here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am pleased that Levdr came here at my suggestion to discuss OHM's reliability as a source at Wikipedia. That said, and as I commented at Levdr's talk page, the discussion here should remain focused on that issue, not issues of editor conduct, on or off-wiki. If there's a conflict issue, then take it to WP:COIN. Dominus's response is helpful. It's concise and sticks to the standards we use for evaluating sources. The back stories per the involved editors are much less helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, per WP:BLOGS, or external links, per WP:ELNO #4 and #11. Piriczki (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is self-published, and would not be a reliable source unless for material about itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz and poll results

Is this news article in Haaretz reliable for reporting the results of a poll without inline attribution to Haaretz or should it be attributed to Haaretz? nableezy - 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that every other RS that reports on it attributes it to Haaretz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG's statement is not correct. See for instance the Sydney Morning Herald news article that independently reports the poll with no attribution or even mention of Haaretz. Dlv999 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Crediting Haaretz as having first published the results is not equivalent to attributing it to Haaretz. For example, The Globe and Mail says the results were published in Haaretz, the leading Israeli newspaper. It later calls it the Dialog survey, attributing it to Dialog, not Haaretz. nableezy - 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Globe and Mail article, you'll see that it's full of "Haaretz said" and "Haaretz noted" and other stuff that makes it quite clear that they got their information from Haaretz and not the poll itself.

Here's a list of sources from the article talk page. Except for SMH which I missed, they all attribute the information about the poll to Haaretz. I didn't mean to say they claim Haaretz conducted the poll, but that they got the information from Haaretz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and then what? The question is if we need to explicitly attribute a well-regarded newspaper for what they report as the results of a survey conducted by a third-party. nableezy - 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail, Guardian, Independent and everyone else who reported on it (except SMH) attributed it to Haaretz, why shouldn't we? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may, the Haaretz article is currently paywalled and I don't have a password at home. It looks as if it was conducted by a firm named "Dialog." Typically when reporting polling data, it's responsible to say who conducted the poll and on whose behalf. If dialog was hired by Haaretz, then it's appropriate to say "A poll by Israeli firm Dialog, contracted by Haaretz, found tktktk." If Haaretz was simply reporting the poll, no need to mention their name, though it's reasonable to say who the poll was paid for (if it wasn't simply conducted by Dialog on its own, as sometimes happens). If Haaretz were the first to publish a poll they didn't commission, that's irrelevant; don't mention Haaretz (the other papers are saying "according to haaretz" in that case because they haven't seen the poll themselves. If there's a question that Haaretz lied about the contents of the poll, that's another matter. I see no indication that's being asserted).Dan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz did not commission the poll, it was commissioned by the "Yisraela Goldblum Fund". nableezy - 01:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Haaretz has been accused for manipulations with the poll results. There are sources which testify that many of the conclusions reflected by journalist articles are not based on any poll itself, rather on original research of Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy who reported this poll. [15]--Tritomex (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Could you please read WP:OR, and not apply it to what journalists do with their news sources? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Using a blog to attack an actual RS? Seen that once or twice before. nableezy - 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I "did not used a blog to attack reliable source" I wanted to point out that there are other opinions on this issue. Here is the articlkle from CAMERA-Committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting that states "Unsurprisingly, Levy’s article was full of omissions and distortions. He apparently ignored the data that did not suit him and emphasized those that were in accord with his own well-known anti-Israel world view. At times, he completely reversed the survey’s findings. The sensational headline represents, at best, Levy’s interpretation of the survey and does not represent objective, factual reporting. " Goldflam further explaines manipulations with both the results and with the question itself. Beyond Levy’s ignoring of the survey’s nuance, with his blanket assertion that Israel "practices apartheid against Arabs," are the problems inherent in the survey question itself – which Levy similarly ignores. What is "apartheid in some areas" or "apartheid in many areas"? The term "apartheid," contrary to its superficial use in the survey, and contrary to the concept of "discrimination" has a very clear and precise meaning: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it refers to "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."There is no such thing as "some" apartheid. There is either apartheid or no apartheid. Apartheid is not simply discrimination – the sort that exists in almost every country around the world including Israel, which is precisely why the term was created specifically to describe South Africa’s regime."[16] In fact average people nowhere on earth have political education and the usage of foreign political terminology is always avoided in polls which are intended to be neutral. Considering the results ,Goldflam accuse Levy with serious manipulations and with direct misquoting of the results "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs."

So the question is now, should Wikipedia quote an article which was described by other articles as misquoted and manipulative, present it as "absolute fact" without balancing this in order to achieve NPOV with the opinion from other sources like CAMERA. Or should this newspaper article which present entire nation as racist be avoided due to very serious allegations against the main editor of this sources. --Tritomex (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Giggle. CAMERA wants to attack a media outlet. Wopdee do. Haaretz on one side, CAMERA on the other. I wonder which is "reliable". You brought a blog and CAMERA, neither of which are reliable sources. No reliable source that I am aware of has said Haaretz has misrepresented the poll in any way. nableezy - 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the question is, "is this news article in Haaretz reliable for reporting the results of a poll without inline attribution to Haaretz or should it be attributed to Haaretz?" On the article talk page you wrote that CAMERA are "a highly specialized institution with a defined aim to promote journalistic accuracy", which is like saying Liu Yunshan's aim is to promote freedom of the press. This is meant to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and organizations like CAMERA don't get to decide which newspapers are reliable. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we would not cite this source, but I lean towards attribution in such cases. My reasoning is that interpretations of such polls by journalists is often controversial and variable. There is often no "gold standard" single interpretation. So when editors find it hard to agree, then that seems a good enough reason to attribute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you suggest we attribute in this case, what about where two or more independent news reports agree on the details. For instance, the Sydney Morning Herald and Haaretz agree on details - do you think it is still necessary to attribute? Dlv999 (talk)

It depends on the case. I think no sensible general rule can be formulated for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update - Haaretz issued a clarification stating: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?' In light of this amendment which makes clear the article relates to a very particular hypothetical situation, and not as first depicted across a variety of sources that were based on the original Haaretz story, attribution is a must, assuming that this material is considered notable enough for inclusion in the first place. Ankh.Morpork 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The hypothetical situation to which Israeli Jews responded on the negative — whether Palestinians should be given equal rights in case their ancestral lands were annexed by Israel — does imply that most of Jewish respondents support an apartheid policy, as affording unequal rights on account of ethnicity undoubtedly constitutes apartheid. The content should is therefore relevant for the entry. As there's no question as to whether "this material is considered notable enough for inclusion in the first place". Haaretz is itself a RS, and the story was picked up by a number of other notable, reliable sources (The Guardian, SMH, Christian Science Monitor, Times of Israel, and many non-English sources as well.) Guinsberg (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that A) This is a personal opinion B) This is an incorrect personal opinion C) The editor in question has been blocked for 72 hours. --Jethro B 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An editors block log in an unrelated matter is totally irrelevant to this discussion, please stick to discussing the source. Dlv999 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The salient points of the poll can be summarized as e.g. 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote, these can be sourced at least from the Independent, Guardian and Telegraph sources. (The Telegraph doesn't have the last one, but does say most support preferential treatment to Jews in Israel). As far as I can see these can go in simply on the force of these three sources, with the criticism of the poll being handled as a separate manner when it's settled which criticism sources are reliable and which are opinion pieces. Point 2) is in-line with the new headline of the Haaretz piece, sidestepping the whole issue. I don't see a problem in saying the poll was published in the Haaretz. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged - Rotten Tomatoes user rating

I was asked to defer to here after going to WP:DRN.

As an easily skewed user poll, the user ratings of Rotten Tomatoes, which is considered RS as a critic rating aggregator, is explicitly discounted as a reliable source under MOS:FILM#Audience_response for film articles.

Except for the recently released Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Two editors, User:Jonathan Hemlock and User:Rahmspeed, have put in a lot of work to try and get that rating included. The whole thing looked like the fruit of political partisans - the user rating as much more charitable than the critics - so I went to DRN first. There was some feedback before I was sent here on the article talk page, but there's hardly the consensus that JH claims there is.

Most of the defense seems to revolve around this Fox News article that purportedly references the user rating. It doesn't. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

I'm an editor brought in by another noticeboard. I'm unsure this is the appropriate venue for this discussion. Nobody in the discussion surrounding RT's user reviews are asserting that RT is a legitimate third party source nor that RT is supposed to be used as a general indicator of popular opinion. Instead the RT score is being highlighted by interested editors, along with the RS at Fox, as an unusual outlier in the review panorama of the film. It's essentially being used as a primary source on itself and carries the precedence of thousands of other Wikipedia film articles who routinely mention RT popular scoring. It should also be noted the the "prohibition", if you can call any guildline or manual of style such, against inclusion of RT user ratings is new and without established consensus, as indicated by the discussion page at the relevant MoS page. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but the quote from the article is "Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." Personally, I feel that the box office gross says otherwise, but the main thing is it does not discuss the user rating. The way this is used as a source in the article is fine, but it does not justify the user rating, which is something different entirely.

As for the user rating conventions being controversial, they've been around for a couple years without too much of a fuss. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One last thing - regarding a consensus to ignore the rule, as JH keeps insisting we do in this case, I couldn't find more than three editors really pushing for it before I put out notices, and editors more active in film articles did step in to try and remove the rating. I asked JH to point out the people supporting him...I think he's too mad at me right now to talk. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the discussion on the film MOS you're referring to this? If so, it looks like the discussion didn't go very far, and it seems that they pointed out a alternative, and reliable, means to report user ratings is CinemaScore. Jonathanfu (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The siteshows scores for many recent releases, but Atlas Shrugged 2 is not one of them. I wonder if anyone on Wikiproject Film would have a subscription to their service. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

FMEP

Is this partisan "nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples" which publishes reports "containing analysis and commentary" a notable source when not referred to by independent sources, and a reliable source for I-P related topics that it be used for making third-party claims? Ankh.Morpork 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source can be an individual. AnkhMorpork has repeatedly removed an article by Nathan Brown. Brown is professor in international relations at George Washington University with a specialty on Middle East politics. Author or editor of such books as:

• The Dynamics of Democratization: Dictatorship, Development, and Diffusion Johns Hopkins University Press 2011
• Between Religion and Politics Carnegie Endowment 2010
• The Struggle over Democratization in the Middle East Routledge 2009
• Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords: Resuming Arab Palestine University of California Press 2003
• Constitutions in a Nonconstitutional World: Arab Basic Laws & the Prospects for Accountable Government SUNY Press 2001
• The Rule of Law in the Arab World: Courts in Egypt and the Gulf Cambridge University Press 1997
• Peasant Politics in Modern Egypt Yale University Press 1990

He has repeatedly been published in peer-reviewed journals. I invite anybody to review this. this, and this and tell us if they think Professor Brown is a reliable source for the material repeatedly removed by AnkhMorpork as being by a "non-RS". nableezy - 19:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that rambling verbiage; I asked a query about the FMEP and your incoherent babbling about Nathan Brown is totally irrelevant. I await some independent and well-considered responses. Ankh.Morpork 19:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you asked about an organization to back up your attempt to remove a renowned expert in the field whose analysis happens to dispute your favored narrative. The source you are removing is Brown, and people should understand what it is that you are trying to use this for. nableezy - 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trolling this noticeboard. I asked a question whether the Foundation for Middle East Peace is a self-published source and yet you persist in making ludicrous allegations regarding my supposed motives and babbling about an unrelated discussion. I do not share your obsession with "Mr Nathan Brown" and am posing a general query about this group - kindly refrain from injecting your personal theories and assuming conspiratorial meaning and motive in my question. Ankh.Morpork 20:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on its context, and the context here is you repeatedly removing a renowned expert in the field to remove anything that disputes that "Palestinians are bad people" narrative that you have spent the majority of your time promoting. nableezy - 20:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS A GENERAL QUERY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "NATHAN BROWN". I would like to know whether this is a self-published source that can be used for third party claims. That is all. Ankh.Morpork 20:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RS/N is used to determine if a particular source is reliable for a particular fact. And the particulars here, made evident by your recent edits, is your attempt to remove what one source called an authoritative study on the topic you are removing it from. nableezy - 20:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, Nableezy has a point. Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard about how to post here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. You challenged the FMEP on the Yanun page three months ago, and got nowhere, because it is self-evidently a research and policy organ of recognized status in Washington. It is a significant middle of the line Wahington think tank that has been widely praised by numerous policy wonks and American state department officials for the quality of its reportage. Trying to dismiss its annual reports as 'self-published' is pointless. It publishes papers from top American foreign policy experts and academic analysts of the Middle East. The quality of their work speaks for itself. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at their frontpage, and it shows us everything we need to know about this foundation. It's interests clearly aren't to promote peace in the Middle East and act non-partisanly, and it's a completely one-sided organization. On their homepage, 9/9 links in their middle column all deal with Israel in a negative light or attacking settlements. 6/6 latest additions also all deal with Israel or their elected government in a negative light. Both of their "special reports" tabs also deal with Israel, although I can't see the content, since it says that the content doesn't exist. On their left tab, they have a section with maps of Israel from 1947-2012, to allegedly show "the growth of Israel’s occupation and settlement project from the 1967 War to the present," a section called "Settlement database," a section called "Settlement freeze," a section with a report they write about settlements, and then an events section. And that's it.

To deny that there aren't other issues in the Middle East regarding conflicts and peace is silly - what about that "thing" going on in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed? Or that "thing" in Iraq? Etc etc. Not a single thing on their frontpage about it. OK, so even if they don't focus on the rest of the Middle East, fine. But their focus on Israel is solely to attack it or issue reports about settlements. They also fund Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, which is a one-sided anti-Israel organization.

It's clear where the foundation's line lays. They are one-sided and biased, and are obsessed with Israeli settlements, leading them to publish tons of reports on them and dedicate all their resources to it, while not focusing on anything on the Palestinian side to bring peace. In fact, I wouldn't even call them pro-Palestinian, as I don't see anything on their website to indicate that - they're just obsessed with Israel and settlements. And while that's perfectly OK for an organization to have, it doesn't make them into a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It makes them a biased advocacy organization. --Jethro B 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You have said that you think CAMERA can be used if attributed. Yet FMEP is one-sided and biased and a biased advocacy organization whose frontpage shows [you (note I wont be so presumptuous to speak for everybody else)] everything [you] need to know. FMEP hosts sources which may or may not be reliable. When they host a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in PNA schools that paper is reliable as it is authored by an expert in the field. But please try to find a more consistent approach in your evaluation of sources. That would be awesome. nableezy - 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never said such a thing. I wrote "as far as I'm aware." Please refrain from twisting my words. That's just not awesome. If what I wrote isn't the case, which you said afterwards, then there really isn't any contradiction. --Jethro B 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please explain the context of what types of wordings are being sourced to this disputed source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Their personal reports that "contain analysis and commentary" on I-P topics. Ankh.Morpork 08:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That is still too general. Please give real examples relevant to the discussion above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor does not want to specify the context, because they are going to try to use this discussion as a pretext for deletion of material cited to this source irrespective of context. Dlv999 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

it seems to me that they are a think-tank/blog status organization. no editorial board/oversight, etc. - they are committed to a particular line. so, as usual, they can be used for their own opinion, but not for facts. if they produce a report that is picked up in RS, then fine. but otherwise.... no. why are they different than an academic research institute like ngo monitor. jcpa, etc.? Soosim (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think there is any WP community consensus that there is such a thing as a "think tank/blog" status. Think tanks are quite different from blogs, and think tanks and blogs both have wide ranging reputations for reliability. To repeat: please see the procedure at the top of this noticeboard. For sensible discussions, context should be clear. Broad generalizations are often very misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the context is simple. AnkhMorpork had repeatedly attempted to delete a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in schools run by the Palestinian National Authority. That paper had been hosted on FMEP, though I cant find it there now. Nathan Brown is a well known and respected academic specializing in Middle East politics, and he has written extensively on the subject of Palestinian textbooks. AnkhMorpork, on the basis of FMEP being a supposedly "non-RS", repeatedly removed that paper, absurdly calling it a primary source because it wasnt repeated by a newspaper. Note how he is asking for views on their personal reports. Of course he wont tell you what those personal reports are, because if somebody brought an academic paper authored by somebody of Nathan Brown's stature they would be laughed out of this noticeboard. So instead of actually answering the repeated request to specify what source is being challenged, you get these obfuscations as seen above. That is the context of this request, and it is plainly evident to anybody who looks at this, this and this. nableezy - 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the personal reports I was referring includes their "Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories containing analysis, commentary, maps, and other data on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." which are self-published. Ankh.Morpork 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the NYTimes self-published? nableezy - 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork unless I am missing something I do not think this source (FMEP) is what we normally call self-published on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

By that, I mean not referred to by independent main-stream sourcing. Ankh.Morpork 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you were re-defining the words to mean other things than everyone would understand? So this whole conversation is meaningless?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, what fun. "Crowd-sourcing" the reliability of publications. 1. Nathan Brown is a renowned scholar, and everything he writes should be considered reliable. I'm pretty sure his initial paper was published in Teaching About Terrorism [17], a book issued by the Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education (a bit on the background of that organization is here [18]). That FMEP also hosted his paper is neither here nor there. If you don't have access to a library with Brown's paper, email him; he's a good egg, sure he'd send you a copy. Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good overview from Brown on Palestinian education and misconceptions about textbooks from 2001 (I suspect, but don't know, that it's largely the same as the paper in CAJE and that used to be hosted at FMEP). [19]. The paper was prepared for the Adam Institute's (Jerusalem) 2001 conference on "Attitudes towards the past in conflict resolution."Dan Murphy (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 papers by Brown about this, Democracy, History, and the contest over the Palestinian Curriculum was the second. nableezy - 17:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, your devotion to Nathan Brown is very endearing but nobody in this thread has yet questioned his credentials, and it is on a different issue that I seek clarification. Ankh.Morpork 18:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What issue then? Is this author the one you do not want used on WP or not? If he is then you can not separate him from the material he wrote. You appear to be avoiding issues and trying to score on technicalities? If you can define your case properly there can be a proper discussion, otherwise we are going nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I have no interest in Nathan Brown. The amount of psychic powers claimed in this thread make his namesake, Sylvia appear almost mundane in comparison. My question relates to FMEP's personal data and publications regarding settlements that have not been referred to or corroborated by independent sources. Can the herd please stop bleating "Baaaarown, Baaaarown" and attempt to address the actual query. Ankh.Morpork 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered, both in the abstract (see below) and with a request that you specify which personal data and which article it is used in. You havent answered that request yet. nableezy - 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Either name a specific publication/news article/book/etc... you're seeking an opinion on (I rather doubt you have anything specific in mind) or stop your bleating. You have yet to mention any specific source, or any specific wikipedia article, or any specific edit. Short of these things, general advice is to treat FMEP as reliable as most researchers and reporters do.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So you leap from professing to know my exact intention to supposing that in fact there's none at all? Can the herd stop bolting from one direction to the other, and instead stand still and ruminate on what's being said. The settlement content for the settlement articles is the ambit of my query; I could name a specific statistic for a specific article if it would make any difference. Seeing as you imply it might, please clarify in which context you would consider FMEP unreliable. Ankh.Morpork 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please identify something specific. Which settlement content? What specific statistic? As I've said, the organization has a good reputation for accuracy and integrity. That said, I can imagine a host of reasons why a specific citation connected to FMEP in some way or another might be problematic (out of date, something that was subsequently proven by further research to be wrong, an opinion piece hosted at their site written by an individual who has a poor track record for accuracy or honesty are a few possibles off the top of my head). But in general, their work has stood the test of time as high-quality. Professionals consider a range of issues when deciding to trust or use research. The first step for considering a specific piece of work is considering the reputation of the organization or organizations to which it's attached. That first step has already been taken in this case (verdict: pretty good reputation among professionals). The second step )"what about the specific document in question?") can not be taken until the document is identified. So what document would you like an opinion on?Dan Murphy (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask a specific question about what source, for what purpose, in what article if you'd like a specific answer. As to the general question of "should FMEP be treated as a reliable source" the answer is: "In most cases, yes."Dan Murphy (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This source fails under questionable sources category as it have quite clear some set goals and thus conflict of interest concerning those goals according to WP:RS.So it general it couldn't be used as reliable source in Wikipedia but of course there maybe some special cases for example if used in article about itself or quoted in secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Shrike the organization's stated goals that you say constitute a "conflict of interest" that makes it "unreliable" are the following: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) is a nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples." So, yes, they support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is such a main-stream general starting point as to be banal (putting them, as it does, in a tent that includes Bibi, Abu Mazen, Ronald Reagan, the Dali Lama, Bruce Springsteen, and a majority of scholars of the Middle East, from across the ideological spectrum). I have never seen the organizations work credibly called into question. I am unaware of major falsehoods and fabrications ever being uncovered in any of their research. They are serious people, doing serious work, who take their reputations for fairness and accuracy seriously. An argument, with actual facts being brought to bear, would need to be made to demonstrate the outside Wikipedia consensus on this organization is wrong. What a madhouse!Dan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And all the work that they do is to promote peace and a 2 state solution, which is done by obsessing over settlements and bashing Israel. In this way, they are exactly like Netanyahu and Reagan etc, who bash Israel and settlements in order to create a 2 state solution. C'mon, the stated aim of an organization doesn't make it true. --Jethro B 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I have never seen the quality of their facts and basic research called into question. It is generally accepted as top-shelf work by professionals. There is an implied assertion by the pro-settlement editors on this thread that their evil support for a two-state solution (horrors!) somehow negates the reliability of research that is generally accepted by professionals outside Wikipedia as reliable. And that's a crazy assertion. It's basically about manipulating tortuous internal Wikipedia "crowd-sourcing" logic to disqualify facts (not opinions) that some would prefer didn't exist.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the byte. FMEP hosts a number of things, some may be reliable, some may not be. If somebody actually has a specific article that they would like to challenge then by all means, bring it here. What wont happen is that a collection of involved users banding together to force a game a pretend "consensus" at RS/N that it is a "questionable source" or "unreliable". Bring the actual source that you would like to challenge and exactly what it is being cited for. Otherwise this is just a waste of time. nableezy - 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, any pro-active "foundation" or organization with an open unapologetic one way PR and spin agenda cannot possible be a source for WP:RS. At best, perhaps, if it is part of actual events themselves in the real world it can be pointed to as saying "According to publications from foundation XYZ that says such and such and so and so" or it could be used in a "See also" section in an article. But it's certainly not a neutral reliable source regardless if it is from CAMERA, FMEP or any other such set-up that has an obvious propaganda purpose. This is unlike newspapers and the media, that while they may have prejudices focus mostly on reporting events rather than spending their time raising funds and being paid off by donors who call all the shots in foundations. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, that is nonsense. FMEP and CAMERA are not in any way analogous. Again, FMEP hosts a number of things. Some of those things may be reliable, and some may not be. And sources are not "neutral". nableezy - 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That level of generalization is useless. See the procedure at the top of the page of this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is something that needs to be established with reference to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. That FMEP fails in that regard has nothing at all to do with a perceived bias among a perceived "band" of editors. If anything, the energies being invested here to try and demonstrate that there is a group of editors "banding together" for anything more likely than not is the result of a real and destructive bias on the part of those editors trying to impute bias to other editors with whom they don't see eye to eye and whom they'd much rather see banned from the Project than have to actually deal with the substance of their arguments. Enough with the red herrings. Is RMEP a partisan think tank operating with a defined political agenda? Yes. Is the material it publishes peer-reviewed? No. Is there an editorial board that monitors FMEP.org's output? No. Is some of the stuff published at FMEP.org reliable? Possibly; if the author of the material is an expert in the field, then there are circumstances in which the material can be used with attribution and in consideration of WP:UNDUE. Can FMEP in general be considered a reliable source for facts in the same way that we consider the New York Times and the National Geographic Society reliable sources for facts? No, it cannot; at best, it can be considered a reliable source for its own opinions.—Biosketch (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of that simply is not true. Geoffrey Aronson, an expert on Israeli settlements, is editor of the Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has been exactly zero evidence that this organization is anything that several people have claimed, only the usual cries from those who will regularly cite JCPA or MEMRI as though it were second nature that any source that, gasp, reports on Israeli violations of international law is "biased" and "not-neutral" and "unreliable". And people still havent given an example of a specific source and where it is used. When FMEP reports that the population of settlers in Beit El grew by 28% between 2000 and 2007 thats a fact. Not an opinion. And there has been zero evidence given that this fact is anything other than accurate. But no, even recording that fact makes an organization a biased propaganda outlet. nableezy - 04:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - it is only fact if the proof is from some reliable agency - gov't or otherwise. they are not reliable for population growth statistics (unless they are quoting from somewhere else, in which case, the 'somewhere else' might be the RS - or not.) Soosim (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally an example we can actually comment on in a way relevant to this noticeboard: I notice that The New York Times cites statistics from "Geoffrey Aronson, director of research and publications and an expert on Israeli settlements at the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington". This implies that the statistics Nableezy points to have a reputation for reliability in a recognized third party publication. Whether Wikipedian private opinions agree or disagree with the NYT is beside the point. BTW, WP does not necessarily see government figures as perfect for all uses either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note http://www.fmep.org/reports with some well known people apparently vouching for this data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is simply another of the multitude of NGO's that espouse a distinct position, and cannot be relied upon to objectively present material pertaining to I-P matters. There does not appear to be any editorial overview and they openly declare their Middle East "vision" on their website. They should not be used for I-P issues unless where referred to by a reliable third party source. Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have no knowledge of these matters but just following the links here this particular organization seems to be widely recognized as a source for statistics? Recognition matters for RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the organization has a very, very good reputation for accuracy in its statistics and factual reporting. Their settlement and general historical data are treated as rock solid on these matters by every news organization that covers Israel and Palestine (including my own). Their work is frequently cited by scholars [20]. This discussion is quite frankly astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That is your view, Dan, but what is not clear is whether you have a very, very good reputation for accuracy in factual reporting. For instance, how would you reconcile this edit summary with your recent comment? The general standards that have been applied to sources relating to I-P topics have been to exclude those with an obvious political standpoint and a conflict of interest in line with "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." This applies regardless of the political persuasion of the think-tank/foundation involved, and some consistency is expected. Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You are an anonymous propagandist playing a game, using Wikipedia's weak standards against it. If one uses the standards of the real world of research and accountability, one sees that no case has been made at all. Almost every individual or organization on the planet has a point of view. How they manage their point of view while conducting research and how they conduct the research itself is what matters. "General standards?" I know not "general standards." This organization does reliable work in general. Others do as well. And still others do not.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WRMEA

Is this non-profit foundation which pursues an educational mission of “Interpreting the Middle East for North Americans; Interpreting North America for the Middle East." and boasts of having told "the truth for 30 years..." a notable source when not referred to by independent sources. Can it be used for third-party claims? Ankh.Morpork 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

These policy think-tanks are quintessential self published sources that should not be used unless referred to by reliable secondary sourcing per WP:SPS. Aside from that, a brief Google search shows that their objectivity is questioned, and they should be avoided per RS. Opportunidaddy (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just note here that it's come up before, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs, and thankfully no sockpuppets of people involved in the CAMERA lobbying fiasco thought it was appropriate to comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just a handful of the usual Palestinian boosters on that page, doubtless some of the dozen or so members of the (now) underground WP group Wikipedians for Palestine. Opportunidaddy (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not RS and a self-published biased organization. Let's start with what they prominently write at the top of their website, "Telling the truth for 30 years." That should set off red flags.

Or just have a look at some of their articles. For example:

• [21] - Writes about "Jewish bigots" causing prejudice in Israel (Freudian slip?)

• [22]- Writes about how William Kristol and Rupert Murdoch allegedly use the media to "advance Israel's interests" (remind you of anything?)

• [23] - Writes about how Romney needs to pander to "the Israel lobby" for the election.

• [24] - alleges that Zionists targeted Germany for destruction and questions the #s of the Holocaust, while reducing the significance of Jews being killed in the Holocaust.

• [25] - Refer to American pro-Israel supporters as "cancer."

Items on their website:

• They have a whole archive dedicated just to the USS Liberty, and is proudly displayed on the side as 1 of 2 sidebars - apparently, they don't accept the conclusions of both governments, and have made this a major issue where they write their own narrative.

• Their resources tab, besides for stuff like writing letters to Congress or joining their email list, features 2/2 political issues that target Israel - "Congress & US aid to Israel," and "Support UN recognition of Palestinian state."

• Or let's head over to their videos section, where 4/6 of the videos deal with AIPAC ("AIPAC Political power," "AIPAC and the media," Exposing, challenging, and stopping AIPAC," and "The Rise of AIPAC"), and another video is an interview with Gilad Atzmon, who theAnti-Defamation League says is anti-Semitic, and so does the anti-Israel website Electronic Intifada,among others.

Agree or disagree with their views, that's not the important part. I could probably find much more biased and worse articles, these are only four examples, taken from links on the bottom of their page, and an uninvolved person can look through their articles and decide for themselves whether they're completely one-sided or not. The facts are, they are extremely biased.

It's clear where their view stands, and what their purpose as an organization is. Just a brief look at their website reveals this to any uninvolved person. They have a bias, and that's fine, but that doesn't make them RS.

Criticism of them (not including groups like CAMERA, AIPAC, etc):

• Dr. Rafael Medoff, a founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, describes the institute as a "strongly pro-Arab magazine."

• David Bernstein, Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law, has described them (and quoted in the atlantic) as "extremist anti-Israel publication."

• The Anti-Defamation League cited an article in The Washington Report published by Paul Craig, who they said promotes anti-Semitism and hardly any news outlet now publishes him, and the ADL has said that the group that publishes the Washington Report is anti-Israel and has been a "longtime promoter of the myth that the so-called "Israel/Jewish lobby" has too much power.". The ADL has further stated that it "frequently defended Muslim American groups advocating anti-Semitism and support for terrorism."

• The Jewish Virtual Library writes that the group is "publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist. the WRMEA supports the false accusation that there was a coverup regarding the USS Liberty incident. They openly oppose AIPAC, foreign aid to Israel. They oppose Israel's security fence and link to numerous Islamic websites without linking to a proportionate amount of Christian, Jewish, or non-ecumenical websites."

To repeat - agree or disagree with their views, they have extremely one-sided views and a clear purpose. They are not RS. --Jethro B 01:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Having a purpose or bias is generally not a reason to say that a source can not be used. Such arguments come up here all the time, and if we took them as good reasons for not using sources then wp:compromise and editing would become impossible. Of course Israel-Palestine discussions often involve sources which are offensively biased to the other side, but I do not think there is any easy to way to avoid that just by saying we should only use sources everyone likes. (Are there any?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro, I don't know anything about the source in question, but it is odd that you have cited one sided advocacy sources to claim that another source is a one sided advocacy source and therefore not suitable as an RS. Dlv999 (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument, let's ignore Jewish Virtual Library from the list. A director of a Holocaust institute, a professor at a respectable university quoted in The Atlantic, and a rights organization aren't "one sided advocacy sources." If you wanted to reference them on Wikipedia, no doubt they'd be accepted (and they are). --Jethro B 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for my own understanding, in what sense is "strongly pro-Arab magazine" or indeed any statement of the form "strongly pro-<insert panethnicity/ethnicity>" a criticism. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, you can agree or disagree with their views, but the point is, they have specific one-sided views. --Jethro B 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

it is clear that they are one-sided. but what bothers me more is that there is no editorial process, review of journalistic standards, etc. - it looks like it should go more into the think-tank/fancified blog category of things and not straight-out RS, as news. Soosim (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain further on this point, as it may even be relevant to WP:RS. BTW there are no straight out reliable sources. Everything is context dependent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article on Murdoch, by the organization's executive editor, is full of insinuation. Murdoch's mother was a Jew; Murdoch's tight with a buck; Murdoch prints "sensational photographs and so-called 'juicy' material." And there's Murdoch's connection to Israeli encryption technology; what's that about, hmm? WRMEA might be reliable for something in some context, or might be useful in conjunction with a reliable source, but I would not use it as a source for any controversial material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the above users who strongly doubt the motives, accuracy, neutrality, and reliability of this organization and its publications as a "RS" for the reasons cited, subsequently, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Finito. WP:NPOV should always be maintained. IZAK (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any difference beetwen CAMERA source and WRMEA.This not peer-reviewed not academic journal.Its clearly has an agenda.So it can not be used for statement of fact.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Before too much more time is wasted, can sometimes perhaps please explain the edits being sourced from this source. Please, everyone involved, see the procedure at the top of this page. All RS questions are context relative. Please do not abuse the purpose of this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything other than using them to describe their own organization, with attribution. It's the same exact thing regarding using AIPAC's website as a source for content not related to describing themselves, with attribution. Since the Washington Report will have many reports on their website, there isn't one specific incident. Rather, the nature of this association - of which it is one-sided and biased and has a clear agenda - should disqualify it from being considered reputable. --Jethro B 21:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jethro B and Tom Harrison. This site is clearly intended for advocacy, so it doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source for statements of fact or third party claims. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

WRMEA is an activist organization and should not be used as a source for factual information. It might be admissible as a source for the opinion of a named person if the opinion appears under the name of that person (not as an indirect report of that opinion). It is definitely admissible as a source for its own opinion. I agree with Shrike that WRMEA and CAMERA ought to be treated in the same way. Unfortunately, this balance is woefully rare. Zero^talk 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

as i thought i said earlier: wrmea (and camera) are good for their own opinions. they are not bona fide fact finders, per se. camera can be used to show an original source for information (a video clip, newspaper article, etc.), but their writing is their own. Soosim (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The postings above which say that an advocacy organization should not be used to cite things as facts sounds reasonable in a vague and general (but definitely not absolute) way, but it is worrying that the whole discussion above never explains the context. Is anyone arguing that this source should be used for statements of simple fact? If so then if this discussion is to be meaningful, please give details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's a simple fact, we should be able to get RS references for it, so I can't imagine that being an issue. There's so much information out there regarding I-P, that if there's a necessary simple fact found in WRMEA, we can undoubtedly find it elsewhere. --Jethro B 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing for a broad generalised statement about this source and resisting any discussion of context. But I think regulars on this board are against that type of thinking, and have seen this all before many times. (See the procedure at the top of the page.) To have a useful discussion about sourcing you should explain the context of a real case. Please remember that a style of argument that works for you one day might be used against you another day.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't possibly do such a thing, because I did not open this discussion, I simply commented that it seems clear they are a one-sided biased advocacy organization and thus shouldn't be accepted RS, like other organizations that some people mentioned here, and as some people agreed, unless it's discussing themselves. --Jethro B 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are then misunderstanding the community's normal consensus by demanding that level of generalization. We do not normally declare any publication to be un-usable in an absolute way. On RSN we need context. What's more, being a source with bias is arguably normal, and does not make a source unreliable or un-usable. There is no way around the need for context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there's been a lot of comments here that WRMEA is generally not reliable, unless for their own opinion, regardless of where we're discussing it. There have been similar threads for general inquiries, such as here, here, here, etc, and many times sources have been dismissed outright as non-RS (unless in a few exceptions, such as about themselves). That seems to be the outcome here as well, based on editor's responses. You said "We do not normally," but it looks like here this isn't a normal case, and most editors support it as not being RS. --Jethro B 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you and some other usual suspects from the IP topic area certainly advocating that position, but it would also be interesting to here the comments of uninvolved regular contributors to RSN such as Andrew Lancaster. Dlv999 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Div - A glance at their website does not fill me with much confidence. I must admit I've never heard of the group before. It's clearly a highly-partisan group, which is not a problem per se, but I don't see the kinds of individuals and credentials there in general that would lead me to a default position of trusting them. Rather the opposite. There is a shrill tone to much of what I see on their front page. A real analysis would need some knowledge about their track record vis accuracy. If it turns out they're a partisan group with a similar relationship to the facts as CAMERA's (a willingness to distort/fabricate in service of the cause) then they should be only used sparingly and rarely for more than attributed opinion. If it turns out they're highly partisan, but are careful with facts (and their research carries the hallmarks of quality work -- attribution to good source and accurate reflection of what they contain) then some of it might be used. I would be especially cautious of claimed facts that appear nowhere else but in their own work (if there are any). Generalities aside, the only workable approach is to consider an actual piece of work from this group, and consider it in the context of a specific article and specific edits made based on it. Absent specifics, or strong evidence of an overall track record of fabrication/disregard for accuracy (like, say, The Daily Mail) there isn't anything fruitful or responsible that can be determined here.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, you may be right that they are generally not reliable. But please see the procedure at the top of the page, which also appears when you post on this page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dan, where exactly do you find CAMERA "fabricating in service of the cause"? Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source

The Houla massacre page has been subject to a slow-motion edit war, over whether or not to include an alternative account of events for the massacre as provided primarily by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Opponents of including the alternative account have called it "poorly sourced... undue weight... a conspiracy theory... proven false." I fear that editing of the page has become less an issue of encyclopedic content, and more an issue of turning the page into a proxy war (for the real war). If anyone considers themselves knowledgeable regarding source reliability and has comments on the legitimacy of the FAZ as a source, please consider commenting here and also on the Houla Massacre talk pages. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Moved to bottom of list for comment, -Darouet (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source, redux

Sorry, I didn't mean for people to have to weigh in on what they think happened in Houla. Briefly: should the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung be considered an important or reliable source in Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, -Darouet (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's one of Germany's leading newspapers, and is clearly a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's slightly on the conservative side of the spectrum, but has one of the best reputations of any newspaper in Germany, and a strict policy of separating reporting from opinions. I'd accept it as a RS comparable to the New York Times or Le Monde. The usual caveats apply (don't use opinion pieces, every source can make occasional errors, check for retractions...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For political issues, which yours is, as others have already mentioned it is an RS. However, for political stories in a war often the first version reported changes are reporters and others learn more. This rarely ever is published as a correction or a retraction; newspapers just print new articles containing the new facts they know and their new perspective. The disconnect between the Zeitung and other sources may partly be from that. Der Spiegel has published a report here. Personally, I would say an encyclopedia should not include this material until we have enough secondary sources covering the issue, and that will take time. These newspaper reports based on witness accounts are primary sources by our definition. I realize there is little chance of stopping people from putting current events in, so the primary/secondary source debate is useless. Churn and change (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In general FAZ is a RS, but I agree with C&C above as per it's specific usage here. a13ean (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Carl Robert Katter as a political advocate

The lead of the Carl Robert Katter article currently states that he is a "political advocate for many issues including LGBT rights, better education, public transport, sustainable development, access to housing, protection of our environment, a low carbon economy and better health services." The reference provided[26] is from The Age, but it is quoting Katter himself. "I'm not a one issues person. I'm very passionate about access to public housing," etc. My question is, is he a reliable source for the issues on which he is an advocate? It seems that everyone in the world would be an advocate of "better education", and that this is just political rhetoric. But I've discussed it on the article talk page with the article creator and haven't seemed to get anywhere. Please help. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs no citations because it is a summary of the body text, and the citations should be in the body text. That Katter is an advocate of LGBT rights is substantiated in the text. That he advocates the rest is not, and the citation in the lead can only be used to support the attributed statement "Katter states he is an advocate for better education, public transport . . ." Churn and change (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

Tell us, is Michel Chossudovsky reliable source in wikipedia? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends. He is a reliable source for a statement which says Chossudovsky stated so and so. He is also a credible economist, but whether a specific statement from him is reliable depends on other context too (publication, field the statement falls in and so on). Churn and change (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WhileWriter, please see the procedure at the top of this noticeboard. RS questions should not be framed as general questions because most sources can be useful for something, but never everything. We rarely agree with people proposing general bans on the use of particular sources, nor general acceptance of particular sources. The context is critical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, i asked about this sentence here. What do you think, can we include it in this form in the Goals section? It can be useful oppinion... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks a bit like you are asking this noticeboard to take a side in an edit war. Other editors may question whether the edit you mention is good editing judgement, irrespective of whether it comes from an RS author. Saying that NATO bombed Yugoslavia with the aim of bringing Yugoslavia into economic influence is something which can probably be argued carefully using good sources, and careful wording, as a notable but non-mainstream opinion. But this particular sentence has no explanation of what it even means. I think you need to work on this in a lot of ways including finding proof that this position is notable. If you think it is important, try starting to collect your information and then try putting into a clear proposal on the article talkpage. We do not have to report every opinions that can be reliably sourced, and unusual positions require editors to be ready to explain themselves very carefully. See WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gay Christian 101: Spiritual Self-Defense for Gay Christians - What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

An editor has repeatedly added this book to Jonathan (1 Samuel). The author's website here suggests that it is self-published. Could someone please take a look? The dispute seems to revolve around a difference in interpretation of WP:SPS. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS, and I think that problem is now gone? I don't think the Journal of the History of Sexuality, with its impact factor of 0.324 and low ranking in sociology, should be given much weight either, even if it can pass as an RS. And there is the question of whether what is quoted is primary-sourced material. Churn and change (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am very suspicious of the same text being added back in, but with a different reference. I have started a discussion on the article talk page. StAnselm (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Churn and change I am not sure you understand impact factors? Most sociology journals do not have high impact factors. The way impact factors are worked out is quite complex but is not at all a reflection on the relevance or reliability of a peer reviewed journal. Impact factors preference certain fields above others and are often used for working out an academics remuneration - it does not diminish their reliability Lgbtoz (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is hard to measure, and so we sometimes look for indicators of reliability. A high impact factor would be positive evidence that a source is considered reliable and/or notable. It is indeed possible for an important source not to do well concerning such indicators, but do you have any other evidence of the reputation for reliability of the source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The journal is ranked 100th or so in sociology. I have hosted a link to the 2011 JCR rankings for sociology; that particular page gets to rank 80 and the impact factor is well above the 0.324 we are talking about. So, yes, it is low-ranked. A journal can be usable even with a low impact factor, but that is somewhat unlikely, and particularly not for something controversial. Churn and change (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gay: The tenth anniversary collection

I don't normally post here, but now I'm posting something for the third time today, all because of interactions with an editor who, it seems to me, doesn't understand the reliable sources guidelines. The article Carl Robert Katter contains the following statement: In the preface of author and journalist Steve Dow's latest book, Dow states his hope for Carl to run for the Australian Parliament. The reference is to Gay: The tenth anniversary collection by Steve Dow. Is this a reliable source, and is the opinion cited noteworthy? The book is published by Telemachus Press, which seems to be a vanity press. The original edition of the book was published by Common Ground Publishing, but the opinion cited is only in the most recent edition. StAnselm (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just want to put my case forward. The author is a notable commentator within the Australian LGBTI community and this is why his view was originally stated. Regarding the edition of the book - The 2nd edition is an ebook of the original published work. Many traditional print publishers are unable to make ebooks but will organize for authors works to be published electronically by specialist in this field (more often than not a vanity press). The preface quoted did appear in this electronic edition as it was his comment on contemporary happenings - an update on what has been happening since the first publication. The book is very highly valued within the community it is from. It was for this reason i felt that it was a reliable source and followed guidelines. Lgbtoz (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a notability question than an RS question. In terms of RS issues, even though the publication is from a vanity press, it could be acceptable as a source for the opinion of that particular author. (Unless there are suspicions that the book is fake.) Concerning notability though, I think you have to convince fellow editors about why this person's opinions are so notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear you say this, to be honest. This is an opinion about a living person. Doesn't it come under WP:BLPSPS? StAnselm (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe I am missing something but this is not exactly the type case envisioned by that policy I think? "Rules" like that are always generalizations. The intention of BLPSPS the way I read it is that we should be careful about reliability when it comes to living people. Or to put it another way, self publication is interesting to us as an indicator of potential lack of reliability. In this particular case (if I understand correctly) the SPS is actually reliable because it is because only being used to supply the opinion of the self-published person. But whether or not the opinion of this self-published person is notable enough to justify our mentioning it is another question. Hope that makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does make sense. It's the notability that (might) distinguish this from, for example, my own opinion of Katter. But where do I go from here, if we have reached a stalemate on the article talk page - WP:3O? StAnselm (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the details of the disagreement, but it may help to know that there is a Notability noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that the book is only being used to reference its author's opinion (eg, that Steve Dow thinks Katter should run for parliament) it's an acceptable source, especially as the material isn't at all contentious. It can't be considered a reliable source for statements of anything other than the author's opinion, however. Whether this is sufficiently notable to belong in the article is another question altogether; if this view hasn't been reported in secondary media (eg, the mainstream media and the gay and lesbian press) it's probably not worth including in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Judaism: The oldest monotheistic religion

A brief history of Judaism

Judaism

It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[9] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[10]

I included the entire sentence which cites two different sources for context. The source being questioned is [10]for the statement "and the oldest to survive into the present day."

It's my understanding that a source is three things and any of those three things can effect it's reliability. A source is the writer, the work it's self and the publisher. On this source I have a problem with all three.

1) There is no author attributed to the work. So there is really no way to examine the authors academic credentials that establish him/her as an authoriy on this subject and that there is more to this than an expression of personal belief or opinion.

2) The work it's self - This is essentially an unsupported statement. There is nothing that shows how this conclusion was arrived at or a methodology showing how the determination was made. There are two generally accepted contenders for being the oldest Monotheistic religion. They are Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Which is the oldest has been a long run running debate in academia. It's also a lot like the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? It's a question to which an answer may never be found. So for this author to have solved this age old conundrum and state that Judaism is the oldest. That's an exceptional claim that should require multiple sources for a Wikipedia article citing the claim.

3)PBS is not a fact checking publisher per se. They are actually more of a distributor of content. Their only involvement in producing content is funding it. Other than that they rely on their producers integrity. I also don't think they are living up to their oversight obligation because the digital content contains opinion or commentary that is not clearly labeled as such and who is responsible for the views being presented has not been identified.

PBS Editorial Standards and Policies

Page III. Roles and Responsibilities

A. Producers PBS content is produced by a diverse group that includes public television stations and organizations, independent producers (ranging from individual filmmakers to major studios), foreign producers and broadcast organizations, individuals or organizations not normally in the content production business, and, to the extent that it produces Digital Content, PBS itself. Primary responsibility for content necessarily rests with the producer; generally, producers create the content, particularly on television, and are uniquely positioned to control its elements. Not only would it be impractical for PBS to second-guess the producer's decisions at each step of the production process, but respect for that process demands that producers be allowed the freedom required for creativity to flourish. Thus, in selecting content for distribution, PBS must rely heavily on the producer's honesty, integrity, talent, skill, and good faith.

Producers of content for PBS have an obligation to inform themselves about and adhere to these Standards and Policies and all applicable PBS production and funding guidelines.

B. PBS

PBS is actively involved in encouraging and otherwise fostering the production of quality content. PBS does not itself produce any television Program Content. Instead, Program Content and often other content distributed by PBS, is produced by people who are not employed by PBS. While producers bear responsibility for content production decisions, PBS, on behalf of member stations and ultimately the audience, exercises oversight of the integrity of the content. In that role, PBS is the arbiter of whether content meets these Standards and Policies and whether it is appropriate for distribution as part of PBS's national services. PBS bears responsibility and discretion for deciding whether to accept and distribute content, as well as deciding when to schedule it for national distribution, link to it or otherwise make it available. Acceptance of Program Content by PBS is signified by the placement of the PBS logo at the conclusion of a program, while acceptance of Digital Content by PBS is signified by the availability of the content on www.pbs.org or on another PBS digital application, such as the “PBS for iPad” app.

C. Objectivity

Opinion and commentary are different from news and analysis. When a program, segment, digital material or other content is devoted to opinion or commentary, the principle of transparency requires that it be clearly labeled as such. Any content segment that presents only like-minded views without offering contrasting viewpoints should be considered opinion and should identify who is responsible for the views being presented.

MagusAmathion (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

The two sources mentioned, BBC and PBS are sources which we could sometimes use for "general knowledge" because they have a reasonable reputation for fact checking. But clearly in this case we are dealing with general knowledge which is controversial, and so better sources should be found. And if those better sources disagree (as I think they will) then we should report the disagreement. WP:NPOV. In the meantime I would suggest weakening the language to something that editors can agree upon more easily such as "one of the oldest" instead of the more absolute statement in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note the general rule that strong wordings require strong sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this general knowledge is controversial, I myself thought it was common knowledge. Here's a source that says it's the oldest religion in the West, at least. Here the author says it's probably the oldest religion, because of X, Y, and Z. Here is a reference that says it's the oldest religion. This reference says it's known as the world's oldest monotheistic religion.

If you're going to change the text while this discussion is taking place, I'd recommend changing it to "one of the oldest..." Since that is definitely supported. --Jethro B 15:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because sources can be found which say X, does NOT mean that al sources agree. This sort of situation is not so complicated and happens a lot, and WP:CONSENSUS has to guide us in a practical way. It is not going to be easy for anyone to prove that all sources agree on this point is it? And I think that it is true that we can also find sources which say Zoroastrianism is the oldest surviving monotheism? So I tend to think you need to find a compromise, such as "one of the oldest" or (if you have lots of good sourcing) "considered by many to be the oldest".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't know if that's the case. If someone can bring refs that show there is a dispute over this, then by all means, I will have a look. But as far as I'm aware, this is widely accepted. And if it's not, as I said, we can write "one of the oldest." --Jethro B 17:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean you are doubting whether there are sources which claim Zoroastrianism is an older monotheism? That would be a reasonable question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want this to go the way of the talk page. There 8 sources for Zoroastrianism being the oldest have been posted. There has been some what of a discussion on the reliability of those sources. One source was said to be unreliable because the Author's Phd is in medicine. But the source of work cited in the article is Anonymous. So how can you say that an anonymously authored work is not only reliable but also more reliable than a source by an author who is willing to take credit for his work? If a Phd in theology, archaeology or some other science is a prerequisite for reliability. We don't know if this anonymous author has a Phd or even a high school diploma.

I'm not going to edit at this point. It's futile. The statement has been removed by one editor and summarily restored by another editor. This places burden of evidence on the restoring editor. The restoring editor is also sumarily dismissing verification requests on the reliability of the source by saying "it's been discussed." I have done some research in the page archives. It has been discussed several times in the first archive alone. But if there ever was a real consensus that had been reached. That consensus has changed.

So at this point I would like to focus on the reliability of the source cited in the article. Begining with, how can an anonymous source be a reliable source? I'll also begin to prepare sources for the work it's self part.

MagusAmathion (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

JethroB, your sources state, oldest in the West and Probably the oldest. The third source omits Zoroastrianism from the analysis. I also have to say that if this claim appeared on the Zoroastrianism page. I would oppose it for the exact same reason. The debate has no basis in fact. Case in point. Who is the older of the two Pharaoh's, Ramesses III or Tutankhamun? Egyptologists are in possession of the mummies of both Pharaoh's. They can subject both to carbon dating. This will scientifically prove the age of both. So you can state that Tutankhamun is the older of the two Pharaoh's as fact. That fact can be reproduced in a lab setting. You cannot do this with Judaism and Zoroastrianism. So the debate is completely removed from the relm of fact and exists entirely in the relm of belief. So this debate can only produce an opinion. That opinion cannot be stated as fact such as, the grass is green and Judaism is the oldest montheistic religion.

MagusAmathion (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

No, PBS would not be an acceptable source for a statement like this. It is an RS, but we can do far better since this issue is covered by many scholarly books. As to the question itself, please discuss it on the article's talk page; dig up books on the issue (there are any number referring to this), see what they say, and debate on the talk page how to present the statement. Books from academic publishers are the most reliable source, and those from UPs like Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Yale and the like are the best. You probably won't need journal articles, since I don't believe there is much new research in the field overturning all prior discussion. Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Churn and change, I agree that the debate as to which is the oldest is not something to be continued or resolved here. I felt that it was important to mention it to show that there is an unresolved academic debate on the subject. The issues arising from of the academic debate it's self would be better suited for the Neutrality Board. Here I'm merely trying to determine the reliability of the source. So can I assume that the group is begining to build a concensus towards PBS not being a reliable source for a strong statement of this nature for this subject matter? MagusAmathion (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

You are probably right that by definition most sources which make absolute statements are going to be "popular" in tone, and not the best sources for this type of claim. So if we stick to academic sources we will probably automatically end up with a less extravagant claim. I tend to think that this whole quesiton is only partly an RS issue and more a question of practical editing judgement concerning strong claims made by weaker sources. Consider WP:DUE. All in all I think there are many reasons to simply weaken the wording, as I have said above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline is not just to use a reliable source, it is to use the best reliable source available. Often there are practical issues blocking this, such as highest-quality sources being prohibitively costly and difficult to access. Even accounting for those concerns, I would say PBS is not the best reliable source one can find which addresses the issue. Of course the better sources may qualify the above statement; if so, the qualified statement is what we should use. Churn and change (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I can't really think of a way to soften the oldest claim that doesn't feel weaselly. I think the best statement that would avoid the sourcing and neutality issues is to say, Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions to survive to present day. I think that statement is indisputable by any academic sources and is therefore highly defensible.

MagusAmathion (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

I would tend to agree but we are no longer discussing an RS question as such (although RS judgement comes into it).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

jobstreet.com

Does anyone know if JobStreet.com [27] is a reliable reference or not? Specifically, I am considering using this page [28] as a reference for mentioning that the number of animators hired to work at Digital Eyecandy during the production of Hoodwinked! reached 60 at one point. I want to be absolutely certain that this would be an acceptable reference if I include it, since Hoodwinked! is a Featured Article. --Jpcase (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found another source that is definately reliable, so I do not need to use the jobstreet.com source. --Jpcase (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you've resolved the issue. For posterity, it seems that the page you linked to (and presumably others like it) are populated with information supplied by the company being profiled. I'd say treat as a self-published, or as a primary source.Homunculus (duihua) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy

When checking Good articles with old cleanup tags I came across Sibyl de Neufmarché, which has had sources to the above website tagged as unreliable since November 2010. I found an old discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy regarding a journal from the same group. The links are [29] [30] [31] [32] and they are used to source seven different statements. The author is cited as Charles Cawley and some other citations from the same author from a different source have also been tagged. It has been brought up at the talk page, but it would be good to get an opinion from someone who knows a bit more about reliable sources so we can either remove the tags, find new sources or delist the article. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As you mention, this has been discussed a few times. I think there was no simple consensus, and generally we should consider exact examples of sourcing not generalize about all possible uses of a source. But perhaps the following is an acceptable summary of positions I recall from various people including myself:

• The website itself is clearly a bit more than just someone's personal website. It is connected to a journal, and no one seems to have clear complaints about the quality of information on it. Nor do I recall anyone proving that this type of information is easily available somewhere else.
• Because the journal and its associated database of medieval genealogy is a not an academic one, but rather one run by volunteers, and contributed to people who are not all historians by training, it is not considered an extremely strong source. (I think further study could be done to see whether the journal gets much citation, but OTOH, medieval genealogy is not necessarily a big academic subject to begin with. So I doubt much will be found. But to name an academic in this field: "Keats Rohan".)
• The typical advice in such cases is that such sources are better than nothing, but caution should be exercized for anything unusual and surprising or controversial.
• The information is largely collections of primary material. While this can certainly be useful in many editing contexts, especially if you also have secondary information to add to it, this is a disadvantage in the sense that we have no modern historian helping us understand how to interpret the old documents. This means that we should tend to attribute the raw data rather than take as clear and obvious "according to a medieval document from a Coucher Book of the Abbey of Furness...". Many old records are simple, but for any that are a bit complex, and really needing interpretation, caution should be exercized as usual with any primary material.
• A useful thing about this source is that it provides reasonably clear referencing to primary sources. This can help people to find not only the primary sources, but also perhaps any stronger secondary sources. It is always going to be better to add secondary sources to any discussion using primary sources. (Medieval sources are not obvious and simple to interpret.) But remember WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and also remember that deleting mention of primary sources is not required by WP:RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent summary, Andrew. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is being brought up again. Haven't editors better things to do than conduct witchhunts against GA articles. Mayhap work on improving all the pathetic little stubs that litter Wikipedia like drowned mushrooms. FFS, Wikipedia is cutting off one testicle to pander to the other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayday (TV series)

Hi! The Aviation WikiProject Aircrash task force started a discussion about the use of a television documentary series, Mayday (TV series) (also known as Air Crash Investigation, Air Crash Investigations, Air Disasters, and/or Air Emergency) at this page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Mayday_.28TV_series.29_vs_WP:RELY

Among the issues are:

• Would a Wikipedian take into account a decline in quality/rigor of a long-running television series in determining whether this is a reliable source?
• This program contains interview material of various people. Some are individuals belonging to accident investigation agencies who worked on the aircraft investigations mentioned on the series. Some are pilots, crew, and passengers of the flights mentioned on the series. Some are in neither category and are consultants/"experts"/etc. How and when should the interview footage be used in articles?
• Would a TV interview of an individual by this series be counted as a primary source or a secondary source?

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a quite general question. I guess you are look for general answers, but it would be better to have real examples. Going through the 3 questions:-

• In what way would we take account? In a common sense way editors do of course have to make judgements about how to report a balanced representation of what reliable sources in general would say. And we do not have to cite all possible sources. Having said that, is there a chance that this type of decision will skew our reporting and mean that we are giving a different twist to things? In other words, consider WP:NPOV. If we do anything which creates a surprising or controversial balance of sources, then there is a risk of being blamed for being too original as per WP:OR.
• I've never had much to do with citing from a TV show. But in general I suppose it is like a transcription of an interview in a magazine, with the added benefit in some cases that perhaps the TV show gives some editorial guidance about whether or not such and such an opinion is typical or unusual or represents a particular movement or whatever. In any case we should be cautious of cherry picking, as with any interviews.
• I think the primary/secondary thing is sometimes messy, but basically raw interviews are kind of primary, whereas some forms of collections of interviews are obviously actually the results of an editing process intended to show more general tendencies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The interviews on this show are edited and selected, with interview segments split up in different parts of the documentary program. Some examples of elements of this show that can be good are:

• Aeroperú Flight 603 - The NTSB officials and the Peruvian officials involved in the investigation of the accident are interviewed on the show, and they discuss aspects of the case such as the NTSB's original reluctance to accept the Peruvian choice of the head investigator and the sentencing of an uneducated man in the Peruvian criminal system (the Peruvian investigator expresses his disapproval of this)
• Air France Flight 8969 - French government officials and the involved Air France pilots and cabin crew are interviewed and discuss aspects of how the events unfolded. This was a criminal event (airliner hijacking) and to my knowledge there is no report on it)

Some elements that may be bad are:

• South African Airways Flight 295 - An editor expressed concern that the Mayday episode on this show gives too much weight to conspiracy theories, and that one editor in the past had used the Mayday episode as a standard bearer of what should be included when that should not be the case
• The narrator of the episode about PSA Flight 182 (a fairly recent episode) said that the PSA pilots had engaged in discussion not strictly about aviation, and that the accident had lead to the implementation of sterile cockpit rules below 10,000 feet. However the editors on here have not been able to find information from the final accident report discussing the PSA crew conversation, and we have not yet encountered another source that makes the same claim. - I had never heard of Mayday doing something like this before, so I wonder if there is a fairly recent change in quality in the program.

When I do use Mayday as a source I try to distinguish between what the narrator said and what the interviewees said. I.E. in the program about Aeroperú Flight 603 a lawyer representing the families of the passengers said that many of the passengers drowned after the impact. I made it clear in the Wikipedia text that the Miami lawyer, and not the accident report (I have not found portions of the accident report which state how the passengers died), had stated that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A Mayday episode with serious issues is 'Crash of the Century', about the Tenerife disaster. Crash of the Century was made by cineflix, the producers of Mayday. I'll use COTC as shorthand when referring to Crash of the Century.

COTC showed scenes of cockpit conversations on the KLM plane that have no basis in any reports. The conversations deservedly or undeservedly, portray the pilot of KLM as the villain. Someone might point out COTC is a dramatization and the producers have leeway so far as presenting what happened. Then that makes the show a non-reliable source. Other episodes have problems, but I don't recall which ones.

COTC was filmed 5 years ago. So this isn't a recent issue....William 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Was "Crash of the Century" originally a Mayday production? It is listed as a "spinoff" at List of Mayday episodes, but it may be good to investigate who originally made the episode, and if it was re-branded as Mayday in countries other than its country of origin. That statement made me realize why people fear that editors would use actor scenes; in that instance I can see why people are cautious about people using it as a source in that way, because they don't want editors to take actors' dialog as what really happened in the CVR. The solution is to add a pagenotice on the Tenerife article saying "Don't use the actors' dialog as actual CVR conversation because it is not. Use the CVR transcripts in the final accident report by the Spanish authorities as the basis of actual statements by the pilots. If the transcript says it is CVR dialog, check the Spanish report to confirm this."

In regards to "Then that makes the show a non-reliable source." - It can be a reliable source in some ways, but not in others. One shouldn't use actors' dialog as what people really said, but in that instance it can be confusing since some other shows do base dialog on what is said in the CVR (many original Mayday episodes do just that, or use translations of the CVR dialog). You can say "use the interview footage of passengers/crew/etc but don't use what the actors say" - Many sources do have bias, and the editors need to understand how to get material from the source without painting the article with a POV from that source, maybe they need to be reminded to use multiple sources when possible.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Discovery Channel (US) has a page on Crash of the Century; in the US it is not branded as a "Mayday/Air Crash Investigation" program: http://press.discovery.com/emea/wrld/programs/crash-century/ - The page says "Producers for "Crash of the Century" Galaxie Productions Cineflix Adélaïde Productions" and "Crash of the Century © Galaxie Production / Near-Miss Productions Inc./ Adélaïde Production, 2005" - That means it is a French-Canadian co-production, and Cineflix (company that makes Air Crash Investigation) was involved, but it wasn't 100% produced by Cineflix. The original Mayday episodes are 100% produced by Cineflix, and is produced in association with two Canadian channels (one is Discovery Channel Canada) and National Geographic in the US: http://www.cineflixproductions.com/shows/28-Mayday - COTC is not originally a part of the Mayday series and was made with only partial Cineflix involvement, but may have been branded as "Air Crash Investigation" in other countries.

There is also "The Deadliest Plane Crash" which seems to be a derivative production of COTC produced for NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/deadliest-plane-crash.html - Again, here it is not branded as a Mayday episode. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

COTC video at Youtube[33], the very last thing shown is the cineflix logo. Also the Cineflix website has a page[34] for COTC....William 18:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As stated above Cineflix was one of the companies involved, but it is not the only company. Unlike regular Mayday episodes, it was co-produced with two French companies. The Cineflix page on the program at http://www.cineflixproductions.com/shows/43-Crash-of-the-Century does not refer to it as a Mayday episode, so this television program should be treated separately from Mayday episodes (and even then each episode should be treated on its own merits or failings) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The task force consensus(Three editors including myself disagree with Whisper and so far no one has expressed support for his view) is that Mayday isn't a reliable source. By coming over here, the issue of forumshopping could be raised. I suggest he go back to the task force page. There are a half a dozen other editors at least(Milborne One, Jetstreamer, YssYguy, mjroots to name a few) with lots of aviation/plane crash edits. See what they think and maybe he can change consensus but at the moment consensus is not to use Mayday as a source....William 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

William, please read over the discussion that occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Mayday_.28TV_series.29_vs_WP:RELY. Firstly the previous discussion failed to consider several aspects that I brought up in the new discussion and here. The editors of the old discussion will have to consider the various new points I brought up. Secondly one of the editors who had argued against using Mayday said "Maybe a tall order, but let's have a go - happy for you to invite more comment as you see appropriate." so that was a signal for me to start this post. I linked to the original discussion but new discussion happened here anyway. Thirdly consider this passage from Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Level_of_consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." - Fourthly it is good to have a record of Mayday in the archives of this noticeboard since it's a place for people to check on the reliability of various sources. I made the notice board post for all of these reasons, and such posts should be welcomed. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)