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

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)

So, as per the consensus, this source fails to qualify under WP:Reliable; Hence, it cannot even be WP:ELYES; but, does the source qualify for WP:ELMAYBE? 117.207.190.151 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the section is archived with the continued silence of the admins over the WP:ELMAYBE issue; one may be inclined to assume that the source may have missed out on WP:ELMAYBE? 117.207.51.103 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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 [1], a book issued by the Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education (a bit on the background of that organization is here [2]). 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). [3]. 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 [4]. 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." A host of pro-Israel NGO are avoided for this reason (without any inaccuracies proven) as you well know, and some consistency is expected. And this is without considering FMEP's editorial overview. 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)

Great, a quote from policy. Lets go through that. "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." First, a poor reputation for checking facts. Has such a reputation been established? Im sure any of the large number of sources citing FMEP would like to know. Second, meaningful editorial control. The NYTimes called the editor of the Settlement Report an expert on Israeli settlements. Last, an apparent conflict of interest. What pray tell is FMEP's conflict of interest? I had no idea they were an involved party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or that they had some sort of fiduciary responsibility to one of those parties. But perhaps you can enlighten us. nableezy - 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FMEP is clearly a partisan advocacy source, with a defined political agenda. It does not have the kind of editorial oversight that a peer-reviewed journal, university publishing house, or even a popular newspaper would have. It is reliable only for its own opinion, not for facts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsupported assertions without basis in Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::: I think that the website is fine,it is stating factual evidence as far as I can see and carries articles by various authors including Israeli academics.Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) _{blocked sock}

excuse me propaganda groups ar terrible sources for info on the topic that they propagandise about. who sets the standards? nobody! If the info is relevant then other proper sources will have talked about it in a proper manner with context. this source is not to be trusted as wp:rs says. Dave Eggersly (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that this is one blocked editor responding to another with the opposite POV. I guess that says something about where this discussion and the several related ones that started at the same time are at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use this noticeboard properly

This is at least the second time User:AnkhMorpork has brought a general source on the Israel-Palestine issue here to question, followed by a number of his partisan friends saying it was no good. S/he also did it for Washington Report on Middle East Affairs ("WRMEA" at this diff). Within 21 hours five known Israel partisans criticized the source; two more joined within another 24 hours. These are bogus discussions and in no way influence Wikipedia policy per the above which reads: 'While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. So where sources have long been considered WP:RS, let's not play these games to knock them out of being considered WP:RS on the articles you are working on. CarolMooreDC 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

oh carol. Soosim (talk) 07:44, 7 November 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 August 2012. 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 [5] [6] [7] [8] 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)

Thanks for that, very comprehensive. So from a practical point of view we should look for better sources first, if none are found and the statement is not deemed too controversial attribute it to Cawley (or to the source he is using) or for controversial statements possibly remove the source and information altogether. There of course will be differing opinions on what is considered too controversial, but that could be worked out on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reliable source. Also if any of the facts mentioned on the site have been overlooked by historians, then they are too unimportant to include, per WP:WEIGHT. We should not use primary sources without validation from secondary sources, because it is often a matter of judgment whether the person mentioned in the source is the same person as the subject of the article, i.e., it requires original research. TFD (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh so we then remove information which is useful to readers just because some professor with a PhD hasn't given it his or her royal seal of approval. At this stage trying to write anything longer than a stub here is like attempting to fly a fighter jet on cat piss. And the train wreck rolls on.............--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD. Whether to have an article about an historical person is another subject. I would tend to agree that if we have an article and the notability of the subject is contended, that editors defending the existence of the article should be able to point to more than just primary sources. But I do not know if this is really a concern in any actual examples? My general remarks above assume that we have a valid article and someone is asking whether the named webpage can be used to give it more material. I think the answer will often be yes, but it depends on the case. I see no problem using primary sources in many types of article, and indeed focusing artificially on secondary comments could end up turning an article about a minor figure or event into a literature review about whatever fringe essayists have said about them. But we should really discuss practical examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to leave our community if you find yourself unable to abide by the consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is this invitation directed at Fifelfoo? I see that for once your comments are refreshingly brief and you've spared us the lengthy drivel you are normally wont to post here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not resorting to personal attacks. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OT: Jeanne and Fifelfoo I am confident both of you have similar goals here, but just hitting the subject from different directions. It is of course very easy to get worried about the intentions of others, and very understandable. Of course we do not want "witch hunts" which delete material just because of anything unusual about a source, and of course we do not want editors just ignoring reliability of sources as an aim of all editing on this project.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think notability of the whole article is a concern. If I am reading TFDs comment correctly I think they are saying that if the only source of information for a particular fact comes from these sources then they are not important enough to mention in the article. My current concern largely lies in making sure articles rated as Good are at the required standard. Any article, rated good or not, with sources tagged as unreliable deserves further investigation, not to be ignored (especially as these have been tagged as such for two years). So we can either decide here that the sources are reliable for the information they present and remove the tags or decide that they are not and look for replacements. I don't actually want to delist the article, otherwise I would have simple opened up a reassessment and be done with it. However, it would be much easier to sort this out if there was a bit more of a collaborative effort from the main authors. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are seven sources which are attributed to Cawley published by either the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy or Medieval Lands (although one has no publishing details - something that needs to be fixed up as a minimum). They are used to support thirteen statements. Some of these have other citations that appear beside them, although whether they alone are enough to support everything cited will have to be investigated. I was hoping for some general advice on how to approach this, but if you want we can list individual cases here and work our way through them one-by-one. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having a look at the 7 references it does seem that not all the tags are equally well justified or difficult to fix, so generalization beyond the above is not necessarily the highest priority. For example one points out concerns an incomplete citation which should certainly be improved. Another questions a basic fact about an historical figure with his own WP article that seems to have its own list of sources and seems to concur. In normal editing I would suggest that some talk page discussion is likely to be fruitful.

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but I just want to express a difficulty I have, because maybe others share it and someone can help me find the right approach. I personally find discussions about what is RS for a GA article often get a bit distracting/difficult on this noticeboard, because there is no RS policy especially for GA articles. As a result, our standard of reference often tends to become a bit unclear in practice.

• If the standard is simply the normal RS policy then the implication of questioning the RS status of a source is that a source is unacceptable in a simple and general way, which I think would be a controversial call in this case, as explained above.
• If the question is "can the sourcing be improved" then obviously it nearly always can.

Of course in theory GA judging uses the normal policies as a reference point, but in reality, (at least the way it seems to me) the GA process is something quite separable from normal WP editing, and in practice often working according to different aims. In this particular case, for example, I guess it would imply that we should be more critical of tags themselves, and not only sources. From the point of view of normal editing I would not normally think it a good idea to delete either those tags (at least some of them) or the sources they question. From the point of view of judging this article as GA or not, it is perhaps more of a dilemma. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The application of the Good article criteria is a bit subjective and reviewers will interpret the criteria slightly differently. According to the criteria references are only needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The "likely to be challenged" part allows a lot of leeway to the reviewer to ask for references. However, one of the criteria is also that there should be no valid maintenance tags. As not all tags are valid to the criteria this can be a little contradictory (tagged deadlinks is one I usually ignore when cleaning up articles). From reading the above there could be an argument made in this case that the sources themselves don't strictly fall foul of the GA criteria, but the presence of the tags themselves may. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] As you can see, this source raises emotions on both sides. It is a great resource for beginning articles, especially on medieval women and on other family members whose notability has in the past slipped under the radar of historians. There are very many such people, and because Wikipedia isn't paper we can begin such articles and watch them develop from there. I would strongly disagree with anyone who argues we shouldn't, and I could cite many cases of articles begun in that way that have blossomed.

I'd say that by the time an article reaches "good" or "featured" it should be citing other sources (including the ones that Cawley cites) and the reference to Cawley should be in the external links. There may be exceptions, and there may be cases where Cawley's opinion on an issue needs to be mentioned in the notes, but that would be my general rule of thumb. Andrew Dalby 09:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Now commenting on one of Andrew Lancaster's points: the tagging issue is crucial because references to Cawley's work have been unified by a bot and they all carry a tag. It took me some weeks of dogged argument to change the tag [to "better source needed"] and make the change stick, and even the revised tag makes it unlikely (I suspect) that an article referring to Cawley would pass GA. One can see why Jeanne, in an earlier discussion, called this a "crusade", though to the bot owner I guess it was just a bit of tidying up. The whole painful business certainly put me off working on en:wiki (but I can just go back to Vicipaedia and lick my wounds).

Looking again at Sibyl de Neufmarché, however, I see that the "self-published source" tags are separate from the precise (or not-precise-enough) references to Medlands pages. The "self-published source" tags can be removed. An earlier discussion here concluded, touch wood, that this is not a self-published source. That might help slightly! Andrew Dalby 10:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes and after looking at it just VERY quickly the article sourcing can easily be improved by anyone worried about high standards, and if everyone working according to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM then this discussion would seem a little silly. I will prepare some notes on it, but it does not take long to confirm that whoever added the Cawley references did improve Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get the article to a stage where the tags are not needed. I agree about the self published tags and will remove them. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby. I think the only way to be certain if an article with tagged sources should pass GA is to open a discussion there. I think most would say no. However my understanding was that a sources reliability depends on the information it cites and how it is presented. For example an official blog could be used as long as it is attributed to the author. Would this problem go away if we just attributed these sources to Cawley? I don't have time right now to look at the examples below (I will hopefully get to them tonight). Thanks both of you for all your advice. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2). It appears I have inadvertently stepped into a hornets nest here. It explains some of the antagonism above and the not this again response that initially confused me. To be honest, I am seriously thinking that opening up a community reassessment for this article is the best approach. It should at least give an answer as to the GA suitability of articles with similar sourcing issues. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed action just proves that it really is a waste of time working one's backside off to get an article up to GA or FA. This is sure one hell of a smart move to attract new editors to the project. Wikipedia keeps shooting itself over and over in the balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quit the hyperbole why don't you. I have no intention of working with you to fix this article. I have got other GAs to witchhunt improve you know. See you at the reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole? I see Aircorn has got the dictionary out and taken a "hardman" stance as well. Well, I am suitably cowed and accordingly reduced to a quivering wreck but may I ask just one question before I'm taken before the Inquisition? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a team effort?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jeanne, I might be missing something but see nothing in Aircorn's posts here or on the article talkpage which is taking a strong position one way or the other. Aircorn saw tags, and then asked what they were for. Aircorn is correct that the fact that these tags have been posted around WP is at least a sign of "something" not going right.

@Aircorn, I think that in terms of asking for more community discussion on this subject it would be good to define what the discussion would be about. To me, the main issue you have hit is coming from the use of bots or some sort of automatic rule in order to post tags in a general way (not looking at the contexts at all) against one source, which, as you have seen, is to say the least not the type of source that would normally be given any sort of general ban or black listing, if it were ever discussed properly. Generally speaking RS policy, and this noticeboard's policy, is that determining good sourcing requires looking at the exact case. There is a clear community consensus on that. General clean ups which do not look at each edit are rare, and are only initiated only after there is a clear consensus that there is a general problem, and even then such clean ups normally require a lot of work, not just a bot. That does sometimes happen for good reasons, for example when we get one bad editor posting something from their favorite pamphlet all over the place, or whatever. That did not happen in this case. And it is also not a case were we have one or two bad editors posting something on some mission. Instead we see this source is being widely used by experienced editors in a variety of contexts.

What do I suggest? I am guided by the aim of being practical, and of trying to make sure edits always improve WP, even if incrementally. I have also shown below how using this source can be to the great benefit of WP even for people with the strictest standards, aiming at GA standards for example, by detailing the sourcing a bit more and adding to this source with supporting sources - something which it helps us do very well. (It is in fact in my opinion a great source. No one has seriously been able to give any reason to think otherwise. All complaints have been in terms of formalities such as the qualifications of the editor. I have to say I doubt there is any better source for this type of thing.) Also, for those who think the source should only be plundered and then not mentioned, deliberately and knowingly, this would normally be WP:Plagiarism and a violation of the guideline to WP:saywhereyougotit. Practical: I think in all or most cases reading the source and adding a bit more sourcing can resolve any serious doubts of WP editors whose main interest is improving WP. I think trying to start a community discussion is not likely to give a much clearer proposal than that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What I have been doing for the last few weeks is going through Good articles with various clean up tags on them. Sibyl de Neufmarché can be found as the oldest one under accuracy disputes (Agnes von Mansfeld-Eisleben and Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg are remarkably similar - citing different websites - although they have only been tagged for a few months). My general protocol has been to remove or fix the tags if I can, leave a note on the talk page or open a reassessment if the articles are very bad or if no one responds to the talk page request. Apart from here and another editor currently facing a community ban, the rest have at least been receptive to the issues.

I don't really want anything more to do with this article, but would be interested in fixing up some of the other ones. To be honest I still don't really know what to do from a GA point of view. While I know you don't wish to generalise, it might be helpful to give suggestions using the current article. That way I can use my own judgement on similar articles, only coming back here if necessary. This is my understanding (using examples from Sibyl de Neufmarché):

1. If we can link to a primary source we should, as long as we say where we got it from (cite 34)
2. If there is a secondary source that supports the statement we can either leave up the unreliable one as well, remove it, or put it in the external links. Would depend on what extra, if any, information it provides (most instances of cite 15)
3. If it is the only source of information then it can be used provided it is marked as needing better sources. (the last two 41 & 42)

Do we only really need the tags for the third instance? I think I might start a discussion at WT:GAN focused more on the general question; if articles with "better source needed" tags can be considered Good? AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The direction of your thinking sounds reasonable to me. Let me make an attempt in the same spirit. But this is specific to Cawley's website, because I have not looked at the others you mention. I know there are a lot of websites around which are really more classic cases of what I would call self-publication.

• The links to Cawley should be completed properly. In many cases they are incomplete, making it harder to verify.
• Sources cited by Cawley will generally be a good thing to ADD to the Cawley citation. (Perhaps we can use a format of citation which mentions "cited in" or "Cawley, citing...")
• Where verification fails, which is what has basically happened in 41 and 42, because unless I am wrong Cawley and his named sources do not say what our article says, then indeed it is recommended to try to find better sourcing. (But I think that in both those cases what needs to be sourced is going to be easy to source. So perhaps the intention of the original editor was to add further reading also, which future editors might be able to work with?)

Concerning your second point I do not really see an easy general rule. You are talking about cases where several sources support each other. Technically you can be minimalist and go to whichever is the best single source, as long as it says exactly what it should say, and is a very strong source no one will complain about, but practically this is not always a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

going through the examples

Maybe this should be copied to the article talk page, but for more general interest here are some notes about the 7 uses of this source on the article mentioned:-

1. Note b says that Richard Fitz Pons was brother-in-law of Miles FitzWalter de Gloucester, being the husband of his sister, Matilda. It references Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, English earls 1067-112. But the English earls link is not included and is here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470 . Note that specifically it is in the section concerning the Earls of Hereford. The relevant passage about Mathilda gives as its source

• Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, pp. 21-2, citing Cotton Charter, XI, 60, and Regesta Regem Anglo-Normannorum (1956), Vol. II, Appendix, CXXXIV, p. 341.

2. Footnote 15 refers to the same Cawley URL and is actually a footnote for 5 places in the article. The sentences in our article which link to this:-

(1.) "the outcome of Nest's declaration was that Sibyl (whom Nest acknowledged as Bernard's child) became the sole lawful heiress to the vast lordship of Brecon, one of the most important and substantial fiefs in the Welsh Marches"

(2.) "Henry's maritagium referred specifically to Sibyl's parents' lands as "comprising Talgarth, the forest of Ystradwy, the castle of Hay, the whole land of Brecknock, up to the boundaries of the land of Richard Fitz Pons,[b] namely up to Brecon and Much Cowarne, a vill in England"; the fees and services of several named individuals were also granted as part of the dowry."

(3.) Sometime in April or May 1121, Sibyl married Miles (or Milo) FitzWalter de Gloucester, Sheriff of Gloucester and Constable of England.

(4.) The listing of Sibyl's 8 children. This listing also shows other sourcing for the first 3 children and 7 of these children have their own WP articles.

(5.) In about 1136, Stephen granted Sibyl's husband the entire honour of Gloucester and Brecknock; afterward appointing him Constable of England, whereby Miles became known as one of Stephen's "henchmen".

The first three above are about Sybil's inheritance and marriage. Cawley cites these sources for this:

• Dugdale Monasticon III, Brecknock Priory I, Quædam de Loco, et Dominis eius Historica, p. 263.
• Dugdale Monasticon IV, Priory of Bergavenny or Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, Cartæ I, p. 615.
• Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, 6, p. 8.
• Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.
• Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Vol. I (1834), XX, p. 168.

These same sentences are also already backed up in our article by two other sources, currently 13, 14 and 16. These back up Cawley but Cawley gives a reader a more complete list of primary sources. I think that is something we do not want to delete.

• Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 25. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Foliot, Gilbert (1965). Gilbert Foliot and His Letters. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 37. Retrieved 28 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Concerning the listing of children, 2 have other sources already attached in order to back Cawley up, (footnote 26 cites Cawley again, see below 3.) and 7 have their own Wikipedia article. NOTE: I am not going to list all the dozens of sources given for these children, just for practical reasons. There are all here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470

The last use of footnote 15 is also backed up by another source already, although once again Cawley gives a much more complete biography of the true sources. NOTE: but I see no source for the word "henchmen".

• Matthew, Donald (2002). King Stephen. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 96. ISBN 1-85285-272-0. Retrieved 22 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

3. Footnote 26 is an incompletely finished reference to Cawley, but in a section (the listing of children) which already cites him. It appears to be intended to be a citation for "Walter [of Hereford, so on Sybil] departed for Palestine on Michaelmas 1159,[26] and died shortly afterwards without leaving legitimate issue.". Cawley gives a citation for this to Keats-Rohan Domesday Descendants, p. 512. Keats-Rohan is probably the strongest source we could ask for in modern academic medieval genealogy. But the bigger listing of information by Cawley adds a lot of colour not yet reflected in our article.

4. Footnote 32. Used to source "Sometime after 1137, Sibyl, together with her husband, made a further endowment to Llanthony Secunda." It cites Wales Lords of Brecknock, October 2010 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |title-date= ignored (help). Cawley in turn cites

• Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.

But once again Cawley gives interested readers a lot more information and other sources.

5. Footnote 34. Used to source "Matilda [the Empress] gave her permission for the transfer" of "the honour of Abergavenny from Brien FitzCount, the (likely illegitimate) son of Duke Alan IV of Brittany". The URL should be added, which would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059583 . However I do not immediately see the right information there. Perhaps better is the Hereford URL again where Cawley gives the following sources:

• CP VI 453. (Concerning Mathilda's grant to Miles.)
• CP I 20. But Cawley notes of this source that "it is said that the relationship between Brien FitzCount, or his wife, and Earl Miles (if any) has not been proved."

Note that according to Cawley's Bibliography, CP stands for

• The Complete Peerage (Cokayne, G. E. revised and edited White, G. H. (1959) The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct and dormant by G. E. C, revised edition 1910-59, Vols. I to XIII (microprint edition, Alan Sutton, 1982)

6. Footnote 41. Used to source "Eleanor and Humphrey's son, Humphrey de Bohun, succeeded his grandfather to the titles in 1275" This Humphrey has his own Wikipedia article with its own sourcing. The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#HumphreyBohunHereforddied1298A. What Cawley supplies here is a record that Humphrey was indeed heir to these titles in 1266/67, but apparently he was too young to take up the titles at that time. Reference he gives is a primary document:

• Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. I, Henry III, 654, p. 205.

I would suggest looking to Humphrey's own article for a source for 1275, but I see no big reason to remove reference to the further information in Cawley.

7. Footnote 42. Used to source "By way of Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York, every monarch of England and, subsequently, the United Kingdom, from Henry VIII up to and including Elizabeth II, descended in a direct line from Sibyl de Neufmarché, as did the various royal sovereigns of Europe who shared a common descent from Mary, Queen of Scots." The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm

Maybe a more exact URL would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm#_Toc321390528

The basic point being made here is about Elizabeth of York, a member of the royal family. Elizabeth married Henry VII of England, the founder of the Tudor dynasty. Often such information is not even sourced, because it is widely known, uncontroversial, and easy to check if anyone has a concern.

Overall the sourcing seems good. Simple improvements should be made, but deleting a source which gives readers more leads would not seem to be a way of improving WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to take the initiative and copy this to the talk page like you suggested. That way it will not be lost in the archives and if the tags are kept it can be used as a basis to keep the article as Good. This is much more detail than I was expecting and I want to thank you again for taking the time to look into this. AIRcorn (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you Andrew for going to all the trouble to read and post the sources.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

This source has been discussed before on at least three occasions: Archive 20, Archive 37 and Archive 51.

There is an ongoing discussion here on whether EI can be used for "facts", and there is a disagreement as to what the outcome of the earlier discussions was. Therefore, let's assess if EI is reliable for a bland fact that doesn't express an opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, for example a statement that a well-known NGO said something.

My own take on this is that EI seems to fulfil criteria discussed in WP:V. This is evidenced in at least two ways, firstly as an editor argues in the Archive 20 discussion, the Financial Times and ITV expressly endorse EI for professionalism (WP:V says "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Secondly, sources that are known to be reliable refer to EI: The Guardian, The Guardian 2, BBC, BBC 2, Le Monde, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Der Spiegel. (Spiegel describes EI as a "highly partisan alternative news network").

Summing up, it seems to me EI isn't as good as the BBC, but for a bland fact should be OK much like FOX News. We use partisan news sources all the time.--Dailycare (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare brings three archives.

• One of them is essentially a response by a blocked user named PalestineRemembered, who is arguing that this blatantly anti-Israel website be allowed. There is no further discussion past his comment.
• Another is essentially a discussion between two editors that lasts about 5 lines with no outcome.
• The last one is a very long and comprehensive discussion that features various editors chiming in. The result can be seen there as being an activist website with a clear bias (their title includes the word Intifada...) and unreliable. I don't see why we need to bring this up again, just because one person would rather choose an archive that has one comment by a user named PalestineRemembered arguing for its inclusion and reject a more comprehensive discussion.

If you want a taste of some of their blog posts, just check out this post, where the owner of the website rants at how upset he is that the White House allegedly uses "Israeli hummus" (despite being a conclusion drawn by this Haaretz writer, and not the White House itself). A terrible violation of human rights, one that is certainly a violation of the Geneva Conventions no doubt. What does this source that someone is disputing is reliable teaching us about hummus in the White House? "Middle Eastern” is an identity which Israel claims – whenever convenient – to appropriate the culture of local people whose land and rights it is busy violently stealing, while simultaneously attempting to erase and even outlaw their identities and history." Yeah, very reliable.--Jethro B 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're discussing an opinion blog piece, which is irrelevant to the question that DC has asked, which is about the reliability of their reporting of facts. As with most sources the site hosts different types of material, news is clearly separated from blogged opinions. You would not judge the quality of NYT factual reporting by reading an opinion blog hosted on their website, or a an op-ed or editorial. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:: I see not problem with the website,it has some really interesting stories on it that are not picked up by the world press and gives a Palestinian point of view.Kabulbuddha (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, however, doesn't write from a Palestinian point of view. We write from a neutral point of view. EI's goal is to serve as an anti-Israel platform, I wouldn't generalize about Palestinians in such a way, but this doesn't make them reliable for our standards. They have a clear agenda and are an activist group. It's hardly different from CAMERA - will we now start differntiating between sections of CAMERA that have opinions, and other sections that have what one person believes to be a fact? Of course not. They're not academic, not peer-reviewed, and selfpublished agenda activist biased organization, with no neutrality. Our most comprehensive archive on the subject matter shows they are not a reliable source to use. --Jethro B 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, writing from a neutral POV means we represent all significant views, which would certainly include the Palestinian view on topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't know why you're bringing CAMERA into this, if you want to discuss CAMERA start a new section. Here we should be discussing the factual reports of EI according to the question that has been asked. Dlv999 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in making a new discussion on CAMERA, since we've already had a lengthy discussion on one. Just as we've already had a lengthy discussion on EI, and this discussion is simply redundant. --Jethro B 23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This site makes Arutz Sheva seems like the Gospel in comparison. ::It has the obvious flaw of being self-published, it has an obvious conflict of interest as it is "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts. and admits to rectifying "mainstream news stories that might not be balanced in their view." This is an archetypal questionable source and should only be used as a source for describing itself. Ankh.Morpork 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fairly misleading representation of your citations. the Jpost article describes EI as " very professional, user-friendly and well written", which is fairly significant given that Jpost is on the opposite side of the fence both nationally and politically. The IE link says that they have factual news reports, but also provide media analysis/critisism - you have quoted them describing their media criticism/analysis, whereas the question is regarding their news reporting. Dlv999 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

: A neutral point of view means that both views are heard,therefore there must be a Palestinian viewpoint as there is an Israeli one. EI represents the Palestinian viewpoint and I see no problem with it being used.The Palestinian viewpoint is almost ignored in the west by main stream media so if we cannot use Palestinian sources then where are we to get information from for their point of view?Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not the people who get to declare that EI somehow is the voice of the Palestinians. When reliable outlets like The New York Times bring up views or statements by Palestinians, and it's notable, we include it. It doesn't mean we turn to a blog that's anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian and with a clear agenda in order to use them as reliable, just as we wouldn't turn to a pro-Israel website or blog to get facts from as reliable or report from. New York Times, scholarly works, and other RS are neutral, so we can rely on them to use as references and conform to neutrality, even if they present one side or two sides in a story. A site like EI is not neutral at all, and is unreliable to use as facts and declare them as the voice of the Palestinians to use in order to bring "neutrality" and present the Palestinian view, which could be presented through real neutral works. --Jethro B 23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::: The New York Times is not neutral/reliable at all,as I remember they ran off to the Whitehouse to ask what bits of the wikileaks cables they could print and anyway all sources are biased so I am not really getting what your point is.A site does not have to be neutral for it to be included as a source on wikipedia,if that was the case then we would be deleting many sources from the BBC,NYT and many other main stream media outlets,Foxnews? That the Palestinian do not have many media outlets means that the ones that they do have must be used with limits of course but not the limit that you just do not like them.EI represents the Palestinian view point of view.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)_{blocked sock}Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you extend the same philosophy to settler media outlets? Ankh.Morpork 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Have settler media outlets been used in the BBC,Washington post,USAToday,NYT,Financial Times? EI has.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

AnkhMorpork, can you please explain for the class what self-published means? nableezy - 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, please, a snarky tone isn't going to help bring this discussion to a resolution. Zad68 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

with a name like intifada this website has biased agenda and isnt reliable. It is stupid that people can even pretend that it is reliable.Dave Eggersly (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A RSN request requires:

1. The source--not just "electronicintifada.net" but an actual article posted there
2. The Wikipedia article by title
3. The content in context being considered at that article, using the source.

We don't have all three things here, and without it, this thread should be closed as a malformed RSN request. Zad68 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

agreed that it is a malformed request. agreed that it is no more than a blog with personal opinions, for which, by the way, it can indeed be used. if barak romney wrote a piece there, then that article can be used to say that barak romney wrote 'x', etc. - but ei is not an RS news source for any facts. just like all the others we talk about: camera, ngo monitor, jcpa, 972, etc. - all very nice, important, well thought through, but just not the same as cnn, foxnews, the guardian, etc. Soosim (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are obviously going through one of those periodic waves of such demands being made by teams of editors that we make highly generalized statements about sources they do not like because of differing POV. It is not how this board should be used. And to repeat yet one more time, basically no source is always appropriate, virtually no source is purely neutral, and basically no source is always useless. RS is context sensitive. We need to discuss real cases. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The specific point that prodded me to open this thread is this, namely EI is used to source something that Btselem has said. This provides the three elements referred to by Zad68 above. --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking at the edit you mention, it is a deletion of a sourcing footnote by AnkhMorpork, but not a deletion of the material being sourced, which indeed had two sources, the other one being Btselem itself, which as you say is the source for EI in this case. So presumably Ankhmorpork does not contend that the material that was being sourced was wrong, and AM's intention was to delete mention of a source based on an argument that it is generally and absolutely unreliable, which is also what AM's comment seems to indicate. Recent activity on this noticeboard has been dominated by attempts of AM and a few other sympathetic editors, all with their own apparent POV, to get acceptance of the principle that a source can be proclaimed generally unacceptable just because it has an obvious POV. I do not believe the principle has been accepted. Having said that, the deletion of this footnote also does not appear to cause much damage, because the original source is still there. My first impression is that it would be best for both sides to not spend too much time on this particular footnote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the footnote in itself isn't enormously important, but what is important is that it's resolved whether EI can be reliable for a "bland" piece of news (this case being an example). That way several future threads here would be pre-empted. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

dailycare - nothing's been resolved. ei is not reliable for reporting information from a non-profit. it is not RS. the non-profit sends out a press release to dozens of places. a blog picks it up and quotes it. so? not sufficient. ei is only reliable for a particular author's opinion. not for facts. Soosim (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare if I understand correctly, what is "enormously important" here is not this unimportant specific case, but actually it is an effort to get a generalized judgement from this one example, which can then be used as a precedent in other more important cases. What I wanted to say above is that this way of working (and see Soosim's rejoinder) is directly against policy, because RS policy, and this noticeboard's standard procedure tell you clearly not to work that way. RS is context sensitive, and if there is a case that different editors judge differently, you have to try to find WP:CONSENSUS and not try to "win" on a technicality. My honest advice, is to bring your REAL "enormously important" specific examples here (AFTER you have tried to find compromise with all interested editors), so they can really be discussed. Do not go the path of the dark side and begin "wikilawyering". Please note by the way that I am sure you have good intentions. My advice is not intended to be seen as sarcastic. This kind of thing happens a lot and is a kind of natural reaction to common editing situations, but the approach I am describing is the one which works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^roaring applause^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nableezy - 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep those applause in mind next time someone tries to use CAMERA or Arutz 7 or whatnot. This is a slippery slope indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I havent said I think EI is a reliable source or should be used, now have I? I do however have a problem with a collection of very involved users attempting to subvert the purpose of this board. nableezy - 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - from my experience with problematic sources, there is a general misconception of editors on what are reliable and non-reliable sources. I have to emphasize that there is no problem to post POV sources (!), as long as they are withstanding the reliability test (usually proper author, desirably an editorial board and a trusted publisher), are balanced by other reliable sources (both POV and NPOV) and can be verified. In case of electronic intifada, which is a POV, the problem is not its POV, but that there is a clear problem of reliability of information and no proper editorial. It is much simplier to use alternative trusted sources, in case the information is verifiable from more trusted sites.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, that is very likely correct, and would probably apply to many potential examples concerning this source. Properly structured questions or real examples would be good to discuss, but otherwise this question appears to have been one of a wave of similar questions by a group of editors seeking general rulings as precedents (note: that is a legal term) to help in editing debates. Some of these questions are going after stronger sources than this one. We have a general principle enshrined in WP:RS that we should be careful about generalization. This noticeboard should not be used as a way of getting out of dealing with editors who have different POVs than your own.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the conclusion here can then be (assuming I follow Andrew correctly) that it's not automatically OK to source "bland" news from EI, and it's not automatically OK to remove existing material just because it's sourced from EI. I agree that that follows the letter of the policy, however I also do recall that this noticeboard has frequently reached "precedential" decisions. Like the the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung section above, although I do see the differences to this case as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Generalization is part of human nature, and a cause of the best and worst things we do. How is that for a good generalizing answer? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: my sense of humour was not good for clarity. My point is that good generalizing should naturally be something that can occasionally require some debate on the article talk page to get right. It is a normal and natural balancing act. Sometimes people come to this noticeboard before trying that, but it really is critical to Wikipedia to try that first. See WP:CONSENSUS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

i think the conclusion here is that ei can only be used for their own opinion (usually the author of a particular article) and not for facts, which should be found in an RS elsewhere. Soosim (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A better conclusion is to look at each case and consider what is being sourced, and whether the source might have a reputation for accuracy regarding that type of subject matter. Also, the advice is not to attempt to use this noticeboard to build vague precedents which can be abused later. Always first try consensus building with editors you disagree with, with both sides referring to what WP:RS says. If the application of WP:RS needs more comment from third parties, then bring the exact examples here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources that tend to be diligent with fact-checking tend to do so across the board. Therefore I think the notion of "contextual sensitivity" is overblown. If a source is going to play fast-and-loose with factuality in some areas I think we should regard them skeptically even when they report in unrelated areas of information. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That would mean that we can not use Fox news or the Sun. This comes up every week. I am sticking to context sensitivity, which is a community consensus that has developed based on what works. It is clear that there is a deliberate effort being made here to get precedents set, and by its very nature this shows why our policy pages say what they say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Our policy allows for both considerations. We read that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" and we also read that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. But properly read this is not two different things, but one. Each case of a reliability question requires us to consider the likely accuracy and care in editing of the source in that particular case. But this does not stop us from using Fox News sometimes, and it does not mean that sources which take a POV automatically must be considered inaccurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a slight leaning and a disregard for fact-checking. A source has a "reputation for fact-checking" if it has in general earned that reputation, no matter what the topic may be that is under consideration in a given instance. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent about this because there don't seem to be any professional journalists/intellectuals/etc involved. But it does have editorial standards, so certainly there can be circumstances when it can be used, like well known expert writers, neutral info on organizations, etc. Highly negative info about individuals would be more problematic. Basically each issue has to be brought here if there is conflict on the talk page. CarolMooreDC 07:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bus stop. Who decides what a slight lean is? Many people would say Fox News is extremist very often. And anyway, concerning a notable subject where notable sources disagree vehemently, why would we not cite people with a strong lean? Fact is that your approach is an argument that can be used for one individual editor to get what they personally prefer. I still think the correct approach is to look at real examples, and to try to determine what third parties think of the source in those particular cases. You are probably right that this source should indeed not normally be used, but that is not something which should be swept through here as a general precedent as part of a wave of similar proposals lumping a wide range of sources together right now on this board. Concerning EI there has been one relatively simple example named and a practical solution was proposed, which was not to use the source in that one case. It is not a good sign though, to see how much more effort has been exerted to try to argue that this one case is a precedent for all others. I can not think of a good reason that this would be so much more important than the real example. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrew is 100% on this. EI is an aggregator with a political stance. We decide on its potential use case by case. Nothing more to say here and any continued attempts to bait the RSN are trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Users' misunderstanding of RSN is not "trolling". Established editors often allude to RSN being accepting of a publisher or work being acceptable overall. This may or may not be intentional while, on the other hand, editors have relied on a single ruling at RSN being reason to include or not include a source. The scope of RSN has been presented differently to new editors in the already contentious topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree trolling might not be the best word in most cases. (Although some of the ones recently certainly verge on that. I notice that several of the editors were in the process of getting themselves blocked etc.) But in any case even if experienced editors do this, it is not best practice, and the word should be spread. Of course some amount of generalization is normal by the way, but in the recent wave of Israel/Palestine questions we had editors explicitly refusing to name exact examples, or giving deliberately uncontroversial examples, explicitly because they wanted a general ruling to use in other cases which they would not name. Of course such editors may have very good intentions in a way, but only in the sense that such editors feel they are combating bad editors who need to be stopped in any way possible. When it comes down to it, that is not a practical way of working.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari: authorship of online erotica

I've had an edit reversed on Johann Hari's article. This is what I wrote:

Hari has also been accused of using the same pseudonym he used on Wikipedia (David Rose) to write "gay incest porn" online, which used some racist stereotypes.

Comments

This was reversed on the grounds that a blog should not be acceptable for an article about a living person. My understanding of the rules is that it depends on the blog: if it's written by a professional and is subject to editorial control, then it's just as good as a newspapaer article. I think that these two sources pass the test, although I admit that the Blottr source is less respectable than the Telegraph one.

I have tried to find more sources, but unfortunately a lot are described as "blogs". Conservative Home ran the story, but used this blog as the source. I can't say that I'd heard of "Jack of Kent" and thought that this would fall into the unacceptable category, but this post was examined during in the Leveson Inquiry, which suggests that it has some national significance in the debate about irresponsible journalists.

The details on the erotica are printed at the end of this article by Christine Odone. I can't find the actual article on Google, and suspect that there's a good reason for that.

Are these sources sufficient to justify an edit to the article on Johann Hari to mention his authorship of online erotica? Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NEWSBLOG which says "use with caution." That Christine Odone piece you are quoting is worrisome for Wikipedia, indicating a failure of the BLP policy (she is claiming harm). I don't feel particularly inclined to agree the Telegraph piece, from somebody who sports a description of himself as a "blood-crazed ferret" as a badge at the top, and uses as his source still another blog (Jack of Kent, who is "David Allen Green," New Statesman's legal-issues blogger). Churn and change (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The two sources you list are also described as "blogs", and two blogs are insufficient for an extremely negative item about a LP. If this is verified, eventually a reliable source will print something about it. Until then, we need to avoid adding this content to the article. Wikipedia has never been the place to break news or be on the cutting edge. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree in general with KillerChihuahua, but I wonder what to think (in general, not necessarily in this case) of blogs officially hosted by newspapers. Can they count as op/ed sections of newspaper? I'd say yes, but I don't know what is the standard take on this. --Cyclopia^talk 15:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they are almost always only useful as attributed opinions of the authors, such as "Jane Blogger wrote on date that she thought opinion." KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They are acceptable as they are not self-published and are written by professionals. That's stated here and here. However, I was not aware of the WP:NEWSBLOG point. That is relevant in moderating their use. Epa101 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) What I think is a more tricky area of policy is the Jack of Kent blog. He says on it that he posts in a purely personal capacity and not as part of the New Statesman, so I can understand that this undermines its claims as a reliable source. However, this was the blog that was central to identifying Hari's disruption on Wikipedia and use of "David Rose" as a pseudonym. This was mentioned when he appeared as a witness before the Leveson Inquiry. I would argue that his blog is relevant to this particular subject, since it was central to the whole story, and that his follow-up post (on the subject of erotica) is relevant. Epa101 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A source does not get to be reliable just because its author is involved in the story. The other blogs are sourced from Jack of Kent's blog, who is no expert. None of the blogs are RSes. Churn and change (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's much support for this change. Case closed. Epa101 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rap Radar

As several editors of hip hop articles are repeatedly using this as a source, I thought I would bring it up here. Personally, I'm not too sure, as its page here is just a redirect to some other magazine where the editor of this site works. Also, the links meant to give information about the site ("About RR" and "Who We Are") display nothing. However, I need some further consensus. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'd need to know something about the site in order to have a sense for whether there's some editorial control. Or, absent that, we'd have to show that the site is accepted as an authority by other publications. We need something to go on. Otherwise, it's a questionable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Negative ex-whatever sources

A good number of organizations have websites run by ex-members which are extremely negative to the organization. I assume they can be cited in a controversy or criticism section as expressing their own views. They would seem to be primary sources talking about themselves. However, on ECyD the ReGAIN site is cited generalizing what was probably the case in a few limited circumstances a while back. Unfortunately, no date is given but by several other aspects, it would look like the situation they are explaining is about 8-15 years ago.

ECyD was accused by some critics in the past of over zealous recruitment of youth. They claimed that the Challenge and Conquest clubs were aimed at recruiting members into ECyD and are separated by gender to emphasize discernment of vocation at a young age. The same critics also claim that the clubs focus on members who have qualities that will attract other girls and boys into the clubs.

The header ends with a summary of this and a citation. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some serious WP:UNDUE-type issues with repeating material self published by disgruntled people who've left an organisation in the article on that organisation. Except in some unusual circumstances, for the criticism to be considered notable it needs to be reported on in a reliable secondary source, which can then be used as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is hard to make a general rule for all such cases. But it is important for any case to try to work out whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and reliability. We should be cautious about citing any information published by individuals on their personal webspaces, especially if it is not for information about them personally. Does anyone else cite the websites involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that they are cited much except by a blog (this site is very static) that is also disgruntled ex-members. Several other claims they make are also reported in publications that would be reliable sources but not this one at least. Therefore, I removed this an one or two other things linked from the same website or related pages. This website is still lsited as a critique site in Regnum_Christi#External_links (sites critical of Regnum Christi) but not as a reference. Ps. ECyD is the youth wing of Regnum Christi. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors site for use in Batman: Arkham City

I'm interesting in using this site in the above article to verify voice actors. The only other option I have found is IMDB which we don't use, and the game credits themselves give on a list of cast but not what they actually did (Because that's logical). I had a look around the above site and it doesn't appear to be user edited, and seems credible from appearance, but I can't see any kind of credential that confirms why it would be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on their FAQ, it sounds like a fan site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What about:

I think you made a mistake, your voice actor credit is wrong for this specific character?

Our site is not perfect but unlike user submitted sites like imdb, wikipedia or tv.com our sources come from official voice actor websites, resumes, DVD credits and other legitimate sources.

We do make mistakes sometimes. If you feel strongly that we made a credit mistake we would be more than happy to correct it, but only if you provide a legitimate source. We're sorry that we can't just take your word for it. We need actual proof.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And after contacting them they sent this:

Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.

Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:

http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/

The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.

Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.

We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.

- BTVA Admin Team

To myself at least, that seems like reliable source and they mark the ones that have been verified either via actual credits or contact with people involved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

E-novine on Boris Malagurski

1. I'm curious whether this link can be considered as reliable reference :

• http://www.e-novine.com/kultura/kultura-tema/49715-Lai-utnja-video-trake.html

It's an article in E-novine (meaning "E-newspaper" in Serbian), a self-published online (non print, non broadcasting) website that posted a text directly from a personal blog, as noted at the bottom of the text ("Tekst preuzet sa bloga Zijada Burgića", meaning "Text taken from the blog of Zijad Burgic").

2. Several editors are attempting to use this news story as reliable for the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains (Boris Malagurski's film) articles on Wikipedia. In a dispute resolution case regarding the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, User:Psychonaut noted that "Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here." [9]

3. For those who don't understand Serbo-Croatian, the Srebrenica Genocide Blog (which is banned from Wikipedia), quickly provided a translation, followed by the Bosnian genocide blog - here.

The disputed article makes several false claims that attest to the unreliable nature of the article, and the source itself. An example is saying that Malagurski's "The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without providing a source for such claims. I checked, the only Malagurski film that was shown on Russian television is "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", and that was on RT. The article says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, Canada's national broadcasting network, without any evidence. I checked with the CBC, he never appeared on that channel. If they mixed up CBC and CTV, since Malagurski did appear once or twice on CTV, then it shows how accurate they are. It also uses words and phrases like "(wow!?)" and slander (there are three libel law suits pending against the website, two filed by director Emir Kusturica and one by Stojan Drčelić), etc.

The Wikipedia E-novine article itself is very poorly written, mostly using references from their own website, and a few NGO websites and blogs. The founder's article on Wikipedia has, as the only two references, his own blog. I think this "news site" is highly unreliable, especially the article that is in question here, where they simply pasted a text from a blog. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't sound like the sort of source that we should be using. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Very neutral way of informing others of the situation UrbanVillager. Please enlighten me, which website isn't self-published? The work is not a news story, but a review for a movie. UrbanVillager has staunchly opposed any criticism of Malagurski or his films to be included and, as you can see, has even resorted to personally nitpicking little details of the review that bug him and brought up nonsense like the founder's Wiki article. I've already commented numerous times on the double standard that UrbanVillager applies to sources he agrees with and those that he doesn't. Editors should review the discussions at Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies and Talk:Boris_Malagurski#Controversy to get the full picture. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Producer, this isn't a dispute resolution noticeboard or a discussion about anyone's editing on Wikipedia, we discussed a source and concluded that it's not reliable and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Please, no personal attacks; comment on the content, not on the editors. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the point of this discussion was to get a second opinion. Producer, you've already expressed your opinion on the matter, no need to repeat it. And no need to bring in other editors who have also already expressed their opinion, as you claim, back in February. I wanted to get some second opinions and I got one from TimidGuy. If there are any other uninvolved parties willing to express their opinions on the disputed source, I'd love to hear them. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk)

So we're supposed to let non-involved users judge the source's reliability solely by your interpretation of the source? And suppress their ability to hear the arguments of others and the discussions at article talkpages? Sounds fair. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that UrbanVillager is the sock/meat-puppet of Boris Malagurski who has been consistently trying his best to promote himself and his works in English Wikipedia articles, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski. That also includes whitewashing or misconstruing all criticism. There isn't a lot of such criticism because he and his work aren't generally very notable, but that's no reason to make each BM-related article a hagiography. The e-novine article has its share of problems, but the main reason this is here is that BM is apparently excellent at wikilawyering. If this report is discarded in principle because it was submitted with unclean hands, nobody will shed a tear. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I'm not sure why Producer brought you here to discuss some sockpuppet investigation that ended with AGK's conclusion that "No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation". In any case, this is a place to get second opinions about a source, not to discuss the user who asked for the second opinion. We received the second opinion of an uninvolved editor with experience in these kinds of things, thanks to User:TimidGuy for his views, I encourage others to express their opinions as well, and it's time to move on to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Revista Academica

The Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones [10] is used in the Criticism section of this article: La Luz del Mundo, a religious minority. I am pretty certain the source is highly biased and lacks academic integrity. It has written contentious material about La Luz del Mundo which it calls "Mexico's most secretive religious sect." No other scholar that has written about La Luz del Mundo uses it a source. It has been discussed in the talk page[11], and two editors concluded it was not reliable. However, another editor still thinks it is reliable and constantly reverts edits. A request for comment has been placed but it has been slow in the coming, perhaps because most of it is in Spanish. This is the only thing that is in English [12]. So is this source reliable?

A monograph off print of an academic journal. Top-quality source. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Itsmejudith, but did you read the links provided? The journal is not peer reviewed by the a wider academic community. It exists mainly to promote a particular point of view. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Could you please elaborate more on your response? Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What part of the journal article in question was being used in the article? Is it the "most secretive religious sect" appellation? And how does this conclusion square the rest of the scholarly discourse on La Luz del Mundo? If it's a marginal view, or not supported by additional explanation, evidence, or alternative views, then I'm not sure what value that quote would have on its own.TheBlueCanoe 20:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a genuine academic journal. The editors are qualified academics. Of course there may be other academic views, and the usual solution would be to include both. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All of that is discussed here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#RfC:_Is_Revista_Academica_a_reliable_source.3F, please have a look at it. Regarding the editors, one was arrested for his involvement in an international ring of human trafficking of children, and another one is wanted is wanted by Mexican authorities for the same thing. The source has accused La Luz del Mundo of being a destructive cult with the potential to commit suicide, scholars have denounced this as religious intolerance. Please have a look at the talk page and if possible respond to the request for comments. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is discussed throughout the whole talk page, but the link provided provides links to other sections of the talk page where it has been discussed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty strange for an academic journal to put the words "Britney Spears" in its metadata, and some of the content from the article in question reads like a tabloid. On the other hand, the editorial board appears to have legit credentials. Maybe a good litmus would be to see whether libraries or academic databases like JSTOR subscribe to this journal. Alternately, see what other, more established scholars have to say about it. That would be my suggestion. Sorry I don't have time to look into it in greater depth.TheBlueCanoe 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the source's 2 editors is in jail and the other fled the country (Mexico). As discussed in the article talk page, several Mexican journalists have reported his alleged ties with a child kidnapping ring tied to a religious group. JSTOR does not, from what I have found, subscribe to Revista Academica. The only scholar that has cited it is a very brief reference in a Columbian PHD dissertation, the reference only made mention of one opinion from the source. Personally, I think it espouses conspiracy theories that deal with an alleged secret paramilitary force in the church and some sort of government conspiracy. Like TheBlueCanoe said, it reads in parts like a tabloid. Fordx12 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems like a minefield with accusations and counter accusations flying everywhere. You need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I made the request for comment, however no one has responded to it yet. Any suggestions or aid would be appreciated.

It also seems there is no peer reviewing even within the source itself. The source itself states that: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

LetsSingIt

This LetsSingIt link; http://artists.letssingit.com/stooshe-lyrics-black-heart-487gp1p was added to Black Heart (song) as a source for the song being part of the R&B genre. LetsSingIt appears to be a news/lyrics site and I have my doubts about it's reliability and weather that page can be edited by anyone. I'm hoping someone with more musical knowledge than I might be able to help. The editor who added the link said it was reliable and I notice that it is used in a few music articles on here (mostly in pages of artists and songs I've never heard of). Myself and another user are planning to take the Black Heart article to GAN at some point, so a definite answer on this would be great. - JuneGloom Talk 00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this site may pass muster. Anyone can contribute, but there appears to be a thorough vetting process. If you click on the add-song link on the Stooshe page, it takes you to a window that says this: "The artist Stooshe has currently no moderator, so submitted material will be reviewed by other members in the review corner. If you would like to become the moderator for the artist Stooshe yourself, signup here. Read more about moderating in the help section. Tip! To make sure your submitted material will pass the review process, make sure you filled all fields properly. Please read the instructions in the help section." That's quite reassuring. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ansel Faraj

Are these sources reliable or independent enough in the article about Ansel Faraj?

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0157607/bio
• H O L L I N S W O R T H P R O D U C T I O N S.
• http://www.kinokultura.com

Notes:

1. I previously BLP-PRODed it for not having any reference whatsoever.
2. There were links to Facebook and blogspot.com which I deleted recently.

Please check the article and comment. Thank you. Give me a {{tb}} if you deem it necessary. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

IMDB consists of user-submitted material - it isn't WP:RS. The Hollinsworth Productions website is clearly not a third-party source. The link to kinokultura.com gives no information whatsoever on Ansel Faraj. I can see no way that any of these sources can be cited to establish that Faraj meets the notability requirements as laid down in WP:CREATIVE. We'd need evidence from reputable independent third-party sources that Faraj has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", or otherwise meets the notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. BTW, seeing that this article may not meet the standards of requirement, I have nominated the article for deletion. It's the right step, I guess? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Biography of a living person - reliable sources

User:RobertRosen and me seem to have got into a dispute with the usage of thisas a reliable source for Aruna Roy's article. RobertRosen has reverted my edits stating that this entry on Ramon Magsaysay Awards website is not a reliable source as it cites tape recordings as one of its references. The author of this entry is a published author and the website is a notable one. Need another opinion on this. There are other instances too, such as this and this where I find RobertRosen's intentions questionable. _morelMW^illiam 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I also managed to find a book with an ISBN number that supports the disputed content. _morelMW^illiam 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The book and the web post are essentially the same, just different formats.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation should be fine as a reliable source on the biographies of award recipients. But if there are other reliable sources you can use to supplement it, that would be even better.TheBlueCanoe 20:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A) User:MorelMWilliam ought to have assumed WP:AGF without questioning my edit history at Wikipedia. He/She also ought to have reviewed talk and my record of eventually achieving mutually respectful consensus (as say with User:Cullen328 after a lengthy debate at Talk:National_RTI_Forum ).

B) User:MorelMWilliam ought to have discussed it with me first before escalating this matter to a notice-board, especially when I informed him/her as a courtesy on his/her talk page immediately after I edited.

C) I would prefer to discuss this on the article's talk page, which is the proper place for such discussions in the first instance. Hence I am not contributing anything further on this page, as I believe the process is premature and is not confined only to WP:V, WP:RS issues.

D) Whatever I "reverted" was in terms of WP:BLP which mandates such text to be removed immediately (and to stay that way till a consensus emerges). RobertRosen (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As the points raised by you involved doubts on the reliability of a source, this is where it belongs as it speeds up the process with feedback from other experienced and knowledgeable Wiki editors. Your understanding of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP seems to be clouded and I decided it best to guide you here for a consult instead of getting antagonistic. WP:BLP only asks for removal of contentious material, not the ones that you have a problem with. Besides, I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy. I take it that the source used by me is a reliable source, as supported by the user BlueCanoe. Any other views?_morelMW^illiam 05:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your attitude getting increasingly "hostile", I again request you to assume good faith. Since we are talking about "RS", let me specify the portions of the disputed source [13] specifically "______. Interview by James R. Rush and Lorna Kalaw-Tirol. Tape recording. Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation, Manila, September 1, 2000." and also Various interviews and correspondence with individuals familiar with Aruna Roy and her work; other primary documents. These are vague PRIVATE & UNPUBLISHED cites and are as good as having no sources to cite. Tirol's biography also has PUBLISHED cites, do any of these contain the material I deleted ? Furthermore, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is closely associated with the Magsaysay Award Foundation (see this [14]), so her biography is recursive and not independent or peer-reviewed. Thirdly, the additional source you cited (with ISBN) is nothing but a compendium of Magsaysay awardees based on their published RMAF biographies and also recursive. In line with WP policy, kindly take this discussion to the article's talk page so we have a PERMANENT record instead of having to trawl through the archives of WP notice boards. I also note that you have evaded clarifying why you brought this to a notice board before discussing it with the editor concerned in terms of WP:DR especially "Discuss with the other party" especially on User talk pages when there are only 2 editors or on the Article's Talk page when there are more than 2. RobertRosen (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the foundation's use of first-hand interviews as sources in compiling the biography: it would be a problem if a Wikipedia editor cited unpublished tape recordings as a source in a biography—that would violate the original research and verifiability policies. But it's not a problem to cite a reliable secondary source that draws upon such interviews. TheBlueCanoe 06:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe: There are 2 disputed primary sources (a) Tape-recordings and (b)unspecified letters and correspondences , neither of which are in the public domain or accessible. One of these (the audio tape recording) is generated by Kalow-Tirol herself. In the circumstances, Kalow-Tirol's biography is not a secondary source but is a primary source. Further, the material I deleted is contentious [15] and is not supported by anything Aruna Roy herself has "published". Kalol-Tirol's biography is neither independent nor is it peer-reviewed. The MGAF award is given for Roy's "work' and not for her personal and intimate details. Her work is very well documented by published sources (also cited by Kalow-Tirol from PUBLISHED sources) which I have left intact. My objection is to UNPUBLISHED / INACCESSIBLE sources concerning the personal / family details of Aruna Roy which I removed immediately in terms of WP:BLP. RobertRosen (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Refrain from digressing. Nobody is being hostile here. And I don't have time to research your talk page or relations with other editors. The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation itself is a reliable source. Besides, the content supported by this source is not contentious. And the content is about the subject itself and does not have any claims about any third party. Refer WP:SELFSOURCE. Even if Lorna hadn't cited any reference in her article, the source is still reliable by virtue of Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's notability. This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat. _morelMW^illiam 06:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelWilliam: The content removed does not refer exclusively to Aruna Roy and is also contentious. Please don't restore disputed BLP content while this discussion or other WP:DR is underway. RobertRosen (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your citing a blogpost and regarding this as disputed material makes me wonder if you should even be taken seriously. RMAF is a reliable source, okay? It is theirs and not wikipedia's if there is a problem with their primary source. Clear? Thanks. _morelMW^illiam 07:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not citing a blogpost. The blogpost is a copy of email messages exchanged on an RTI mailing list between Wajahat Habibullah (IAS batchmate of Aruna Roy) and S.D. Sharma (former Addl-Director/RAW). The contention is the "unconventional marriage" (ie. love marriage) between Hema Krishnaswamy (Tamilian Iyengar Brahmin Hindu - also sister of CoAS Late Genl K.Sundarji) and E.Doraiswamy a Dalit Christian. That marriage is unconventional because at the time a Hindu and a Christian could not legally marry in Madras Presidency so they moved to Delhi and "lived in sin". Further, RMAF is a RS to the extent that they gave Aruna Roy an award for the work they have cited in their citation [16] and which does not contain her personal details. Also, the latest deletion you highlighted is taken from the NAC (of which she is a member) and is text copy-pasted from Aruna Roy's other organisation websites like MKSS and is hence WP:SPS. Finally, since Kalaw-Tirols purported sources were never published the RMAF biography is the primary source for Aruna Roy's personal details, but is an otherwise acceptable secondary source for her work. Clear ?? RobertRosen (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How does an email exchange published in a blog make it notable enough to be taken to Wikipedia? Do you have a reliable source supporting this claim? If you do, then that has to be included too. RMAF is a reliable source for her personal details too as their newsletter, where their citations appear have a sound editorial team. Yes, NAC profiles their members and it is a reliable source for non contentious material. NAC's content is in public domain. Also, WP:SPS too isn't conflicting the addition. Why did you bring that one up? But Karlaw-Tirols work is published by a notable organisation and hence her work is a reliable source for her personal details too! I would be taking this to WP:ANI as I don't see this coming to an end. _morelMW^illiam 08:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Before taking it to WP:ANI, let me say a few things. So "hang on" and "cool off" while I list them all. RobertRosen (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to "assume good faith" when I repeatedly asked him to discuss (on talk pages) contentious BLP text I deleted from Aruna Roy concerning her personal and family details. The user wrote "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy."

B) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to take the discussion to our respective talk pages (since there are only 2 editors involved) or to the article talk page (to maintain a permanent record).

C) Now having brought the discussion to WP:RSN notice board, User:MorelMWilliam is taking the discussion to the WP:ANI board without allowing the increasingly complex RS debate to reach any conclusion with intervention of neutral editors. It is pertinent that the sole outside editor User:TheBlueCanoe has not taken note of even a single of my submissions.

D) User:MorelMWilliam (having brought this matter to WP:RSN by describing it as a "dispute" with me) consistently refused to follow WP:DR's protocols and sneeringly dismissed it thus "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". RobertRosen (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

E) I have hence suggested that we "cool off" and move the debate to the article talk page after that, and without precipitously activating higher dispute mechanisms. RobertRosen (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am taking this to WP:ANI. You need a third party opinion. This was taken to WP:RSN as there were doubts raised by you on the reliability of a source. Neither you, nor I is an expert with regard to WP:RS, what are we two going to talk? You have summarily refused to go by WP:SPS and BlueCanoe's comment. You would may be cool off with admin intervention. _morelMW^illiam 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheBlueCanoe's general comment (which I agree with) was given before I had my specific say. Kindly speak for yourself on expertise for WP:RS. I don't see what WP:SPS has to do with it. I can't stop you from taking this content dispute anywhere you want to. I can only choose to participate, or not. If your intention is to make me retire from WP, don't worry I (like Dr.Blofeld) am almost there. Lastly, WP:3 is where YOU go for a 3rd opinion not WP:ANI. RobertRosen (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is a direct copyvio of her SPS bio at [17] which means it can not be used in the first place. How come no one noted this? There is no valid reason for so using a copyright violation, and the SPS bio is similary not RS for a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that it's the other way around. The bio at allamericanspeakers.com is copied from the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation. The original lists the author's name and contains references.TheBlueCanoe 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is which website sources which one. The RMAF source cites an author and also lists the references. Which one seems to be mirroring which one now? I couldn't find any info on the way profiles are written in All American Speakers. Is it a notable page by the way? _morelMW^illiam 12:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was waiting for somebody else to bring it up. Aruna Roy has an entire chapter [18] on how she "sings for her supper" in this [19] book written by her IAS batchmate. RobertRosen (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam Please carefully consider if you want Aruna Roy's article to be expanded. Off hand, I can think of at least 8 scholarly books, all with ISBN's (7 with googlebook entries) which are EXTREMELY unflattering to Ms. "Roy", her finances, her sexual habits, etc. But first my friend, please research if she was actually married to Bunker Roy, and why she had to leave the IAS. If you persist with editing this article, I shall move the entire contents of this WP:RSN discussion to the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And why this book with conspiracy theories here? If thats what drives you to deface her article, then you definitely need to back off and clear your head. I can find sources on my own, but leave your list anyway. I shall get them from my library and see if they help in any way. If you have all those info backed by reliable sources (not like the book in your previous post), then get them into the article! What is stopping you? _morelMW^illiam 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That book is on a discussion page, not in the article itself. Its only your opinion that the book is not a reliable source. Let me explain why that book is better than 75% of the so-called RS on WP. It is PUBLISHED in book form, by a Publisher who gives his full name and address, it is a priced publication with ISBN, it is in its 2nd edition, the 2 co-authors are well known in their fields (even if you don't agree with them), 1 is a well known author/journalist published by reputed newspapers, the other is Roy's IAS batchmate, and who, unlike Roy, stuck on in the IAS for quite some time. Both of them have their "Doctorates" and so presumably know about rigorous methods. It is accessible, a copy is available for any Indian to inspect free of charge in the Library of the Rajya Sabha. BUT, it is precisely because of unappreciated "door-keepers" (chowkidars) like me that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs. Some of the other books, BTW do you read German in addition to French, are positively pornographic about Roy. RobertRosen (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean this relatively unknown publisher is more reliable than Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation? Which wiki policy supports you here? Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is a published author and an experienced journalist who has even been an editor for magazines such as Philippine Daily Inquirer. This, along with RMAF's notability, makes it a very strong source. What do you mean by 'sides'? I don't think there is anybody here more polarised than you._morelMW^illiam 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The publisher of the book is "Aditya Prakashan, 2/18, Ansari Road,

Daryagunj, New-Delhi 110 002. Telephone 0091-11-23278034." Their website is [20] and they have an extensive catalog which is regularly cited on Wikipedia as Reliable Sources especially on India related pages. I have already said that I regard the RMAF citation as a reliable source about Aruna Roy's RM award and the basis for which they awarded it to her. I do not regard the RMAF biography by LKT a reliable source for AR's personal details. I do not regard the RMAF as a neutral or credible award/foundation. It is administered by the Rockefeller Foundation and the junior Magsaysay award by the Ford Foundation to further American interests. That's another edit war building up, so please stop this now and read Arundhati Roy om RMAF instead [21]. RobertRosen (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. First, I do not assume any of the facts in your source are wrong. HOWEVER, the Awardee profiles are by their very nature, promotional. Further, there is no editorial supervision or standard, and both points argue that they are not good WP:RS. On the other hand, WP:RS does allow for WP:SELFSOURCE , or other such usually questionable sources, if the claims/facts being made are otherwise uncontroversial. Could all interested editors PLEASE go back to the Article Talk page and sort through which facts are in dispute; the ref cited cannot be used universally but could be used in limited circumstances, and the two cases need to be sorted out. preferably with proper specificity and difs. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald as RS in Frank L. VanderSloot

Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/.

Article: Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:

(a.) Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.” Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.

(b.) VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran attack ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann. Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.

(c.) VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues

(d.) Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues

(e.) According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and other legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones Magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang. Frank_L._VanderSloot#Defamation_lawsuit_threats

Comment: The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article Glenn is not writing as a journalist (note his non-journalist assertion that VanderSloot "has a history of virulent anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)," but he is a partisan commentator. 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify how you think the Salon article is being misused in the VanderSloot page? It looks like it's only mentioned twice. Unless I'm missing something, those references don't really seem inappropriate as long as the Salon author's opinions are not treated as facts or presented in a needlessly inflammatory way.TheBlueCanoe 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an opinion column, and clearly so, which makes contentious claims about a living person. WP:BLP has this funny idea - that BLPs must be written conservatively, and the use of opinion pieces to make contentious claims, alas, runs afoul of that policy. The section on the BLP, by the way, is given undue weight and is certainly presented in an inflammatory way. "Silly season" is over, and it is past time to emend the escesses placed in biographies. Collect (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Example of why it is opinion? It’s almost impossible to imagine any more thuggish attempts to intimidate people from speaking out and criticizing VanderSloot: this was a tiny website being sued for trivial offenses in federal court by a company owned by a billionaire. Also the fact is that copyright law has been held to apply to letters - the erroneous concept that letters from or to anyone are "public domain" has been litigated many times, but this blogger-columnist seems not to know about that. Collect (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Greenwald article is cited five times, a. through e. above, and each citation should be judged on its own.

(2) Neither Greenwald nor his opinion piece is a Reliable Source because "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." I don't see the direct connection between what he writes in his column and what is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Editors commenting here (and I am not referring to any particular ladies or gentlemen) should look at each of the five instances and comment on them individually, in my opinion.

(3) If the Greenwald article is to be used at all, it should conform to this Content Guideline: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, there is a clear logical difference between saying "Mr Smith has been called a Nazi by lots of journalists" and "Mr Smith is a Nazi". Are we dealing with statements of the first type or second? Judging by your own descriptions of the 5 uses of this source, they are already basically all cases where attribution is being used (so the first type;see your point (3))? Of course even with attribution, we would not mention a sensitive accusation if there is no reason to, but then the policy to consider would be WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOTE. But the media being used here do seem notable, and a reasonable reflection of what types of accusations do get made in the mainstream media? Concerning your point (2) I think you are not interpreting WP:RS as it is normally interpreted. We do not need each source to explain every step made in coming to its conclusions. WP editors making this demand would quickly turn all our editors in original researchers, and in practice our work would freeze up into a big debating forum. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

New article rejected for lack of references

I've had a new article rejected twice for 'lack of references' - I've provided links to two internationally-published books which reference the subject of the article. There's little or no other online references to the subject. The subject shares the same name as another already on Wikipedia, so this is effectively the first reference to this new subject, and I feel the Wiki is required to not only document the subject I'm writing about, but also to differentiate the subject from the one already referenced on Wikipedia.

I can't seem to get the message across to the reviewers that in order to have some online references to a subject, someone has to write the first one...... and I feel that I'm writing this first reference.

Comments, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)

• It is a bit hard to answer you unless you give the real example. Can you please give links to the article you are talking about and/or discussions you have had about it?
• On the other hand, please note that WP aims to summarise things that have already been published somewhere else, not in WP itself. Please consider WP:CIRCULAR. This is what our policies such as WP:V and WP:RS are referring to when they mention "third party" sources. A third party source means a source other than WP itself, and other than the WP editor wanting to add things. WP does not try to publish anything truly original, but of course there are many other wikis and websites that allow people to get their original ideas published.
• Third point: please remember to WP:SIGN your posts on talkpages and noticeboards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

One can find User:Andrew Lancaster's article at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hiding_Place. Also, as an aside (and I apologize for taking up space here), it is a shame that he has not been Welcomed on his Talk Page. I made up for it by sending him a pot of tea. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

George, thanks for sending him a pot of tea, but he is not Andrew Lancaster. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Musicfan1353, what you need are sources that comment upon the band that is the subject of your article. They do not need to be online sources (old dead tree paper sources such as music industry magazines from the 70s would be fine), but they do need to talk about the band in some depth. The two sources that you already cite support the fact that the band made a recording... but that is not really enough to establish notability (all it takes to hold recording sessions is someone willing to pay for the studio time). Have you seen our WP:BAND notability guideline? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the article published in the "History and theory" a reliable secondary source?

I would like to hear community's opinion on the article authored by Ronald Aronson (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). Can this article be considered as a reliable non-fringe secondary source?
Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The source appears to be a scholarly publication with a well identified editorial board [22], and specific guidelines for submission thus, reliable. It does however state that it accepts the "reflections" of prominent international thinkers, so that, it may be publishing opinions. In that case the source is in my view primary. That being said, looking at the table of contents, There are several reviews being published, presumably of works published elsewhere, and those would therefore be secondary. I am unclear if the article you point to is a review or not. If an original article, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. It does seem that papers submitted to the publication are reviewed but I do not know whether they are peer reviewed. Also WP:RS/AC says that "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named source". If you wish to use the source to state that a particular view is universally held in the scholarly community, you need sourcing explicitly stating that. Barring such sources, you have to make it clear you are stating one author’s opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see one inaccuracy in your post. You write that opinia are primary sources. However our policy says that "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event" is a secondary source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Book review in essence. Usable for the author's own opinions about the reliable sources reviewed, and properly noted as his opinions. Collect (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Grande Rock

An editor has been adding http://www.grande-rock.com as a reliable source for reviews to album articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522183783
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transit_of_Venus_%28album%29&diff=522094058&oldid=520044478
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522009285
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_2nd_Law&diff=prev&oldid=521915103

The problems I have are that there only appear to be two editors and they use pseudonyms--thanos, rockavlon--rather than real names. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who they are. It appears to be a glorified music blog although, based on the interviews, they do have access to a lot of small bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Melodicrcok.com is just one person? And so? By the way thanos is not a pseudonym. There also metaltom, dora, newseditor & admin as users. Do not hide things for your won sake. By that you say that an ezine is not notable? There are interviews with small and big bands as well? Does it ring a bell? So, you decide what's notable or not when the band and the labels have already spoken? Soon, there will be a page on wiki about Grande Rock. So, do not get mad. There so many articles that are truly trash do not deal with notable and well-written ones. Hard Rocker 13 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about Melodicrcok.com.

This isn't about notability but reliability.

No, none of the bands ring any bells.

I'm not deciding anything here, and I'm not mad, I'm trying to discuss with the community to determine if Grande Rock does or does not meet the criteria for reliability.

Whether there are a lot of articles that are truly trash or not does not touch on this discussion either. Please focus on this discussion: how can we trust the material at the site? --Walter Görlitz (talk)

Any by the way what do you know about music or what's your background so to say if a post is bad or not? That's just your opinion. You not objective. An ezine is notable when it's more than 10(!) yearls online and is cooperating with bands and labels. If that's not enough for you then that's your problem. Hard Rocker 13 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My background is also immaterial. The issue is whether the site is or isn't a reliable source. Its length of publication doesn't make it reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any indication that the site and its reviewers meet the criteria for professional reviewers/reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The bands Poison, Sabaton, The Flower Kings, Circus Maximus, Threshold, Vision Divine, Sparzanza, Eclipse (just ot name a few) are not meeting your prof criteria?! Then you're probably irrelevant with this kind of music and surely you can't tell what's reliable or not. Hard Rocker 13 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If those bands talk to an ezine then that ezine is notable ans reliable. Those bands do not talk to everyone on the net. This ain't you average blog site that a kid owns it. This is a prof ezine by people who have been doing this job for over a decade. Hard Rocker 13 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)You are obviously unaware of Wikipedia's definition and application of "reliable sources". And for most of the bands you have listed, there are FAR more reliable sources for reviews, and so why would we go to the second or third or fourth level of sources rather than the top tier? And while you may ignore some policies, such as the reliable source policy, with the only implication being that your opinions being ignored because they are not based on the policies, you should make yourself aware of our policy about not making personal attacks on other users, because ignoring that one will get you blocked, quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point. They meet all the criteria. We are not talking for reviews but for bands that have been interviewed. And I believe that criteria for those bands are more strict than wikis where you can find thousands of trash articles. So what's you point here? I say they're meeting all the criteria. What's your say? This is called censorship. I have to deal with two young guys that are irrelevant with music and keep talking without saying anything.Hard Rocker 13 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are talking about whether or not grande-rock.com has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that puts it in the arena of being a reliable source or whether it is just some kid or some aging wanna-be-rocker's blog. There is zero evidence to support that it is the former and not the later. And if you continue in making personal attacks against other editors you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It does feel like a blog. There are claims on User talk:AORmaniac13 that the reviewers are retired professionals, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Perhaps if we saw some evidence it might add weight to the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, we are talking about both reviews and interviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done my own searching, and couldn't find anything indicating that this blog is in anyway either notable or reliable. No indication that they have a reputation for factchecking, and they are not cited by serious reliable sources. Without unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary, the site fails our requirements for a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You make accusations, spreading rumors and telling things that have never happened. This is censorship. Do you get it? I never said about retired reviewers!! OK i'll have to say one more time. This is not a blog. Can you tell the difference between a blog and an ezine? I guess not. Secondly, the bands and the labels that are cooperating with a site are making it reliable and notable. Not a bunch of kids on wiki that killing their time and have nothing to do with the music scene. Obviously neither of you can prove that is not an elephant, neither do I. So what's the point here? This is an uproar that was caused by a couple of fellows around here. Is that how wiki works? There thousands of trash articles around wiki and you wanna shut down a reliable, & notable site that's providing true info about rock/metal music? For what? I think this is called pure fascism.Hard Rocker 13 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Hitler appeared rather sooner than usual!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Very funny! Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism. You did learn something today! If there are not any unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary as you said then why must be put into the non-notable category? Cause you say so? If you can prove than a source is not notable then probably it is notable and reliable. I can't think of better & serious reliable sources that the bands & labels sites. Can you? I can shows you a few sites here in wiki that are not even sites - just blogs that you say they are notable. What are you trying to do here exactly? Hard Rocker 13 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that there is a LOT of crap on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean that we should allow more crap to accumulate. When a source is challenged, it is the responsibility of the person who wishes to include it to be able to provide evidence that it indeed has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control. That is not just any one of the editors here right now telling you that, that is the policy that has been widely agreed upon by the entire Wikipedia community. If you do not wish to participate within the community approved methods, then you dont have to participate at all. That is your choice. But it is not an option to participate against the community's processes and policies.

And you need to fix your signature to include a link back to your user and/or talk page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So you have already decided? That's it? A couple of guys decided that I should stop posting from Grande Rock, cause you can't prove that it is reliable so you decide that it's not? Huh! Is that the way things go around here? Do I need to bring some friends over to say the opposite? Who gathers the most guys wins?! What happened within a year and a site from notable became non-notable? All the posts till now are fine but from now own are not? How does it go? Hard Rocker 13 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)(talk)

No one has decided anything about the site. You're right though, we can't find any other sources that say your site (I'm assuming that you're one of the two contributors to that site) and you haven't provided any yourself, because quite frankly, we may be stupid and lazy and it would help if you educated us and did our work for us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) very few things are "decided" on Wikipedia within the ~2 hour time frame that this discussion has been going on.

And the issue is that YOU (or some other editor) has not been able to produce any evidence that the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control.

And the site is not going from reliable to not reliable - it is going from not reviewed or properly evaluated to not reliable. The previously added content based on the now evaluated non reliable source will, eventually, get removed. and you can help if you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As for your claim above that "I never said about retired reviewers", I wrote "the reviewers are retired professionals" and so your quote was incorrect. What I was making reference to was "Grande Rock is being run by fully professional editors/musicians who use to be in big printed magazines in the past." I trust that clears that up. Oh, and start to sign your posts correctly. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed by the guys that some music labels, other ezines & band sites have used sources from Grande Rock. That according to the wiki article makes it reliable. OK here you go. 1st: http://glassonyonpublicity.wordpress.com/category/review/, 2nd http://gonzo-multimedia.blogspot.gr/search/label/erik%20norlander, 3rd http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records/, 4th http://www.dangerousdogrecords.co.uk/website/AOR_Reviews.html, 5th http://www.thresh.net/marchofprogress.htm. 6th http://unisonicfanclub.com/?s=mandy+meyer&search=Search, 7th http://www.bonrud.com/2012/10/05/grande-rock-reviews-save-tomorrow/. So is that enough to call it reliable or you need more? According to the wiki rules this is more than enough. What's your say now? Will you help me restore the old posts you have erased? Hard Rocker 13 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

• labels using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
• non notable blogs citing other blogs do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
• bands using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking.

so, no. you need third-party, independent sources of estblished credibility noting the value/reliability of the content on a site to establish that the site has a reputation for fact checking etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Such as? According to the wiki article this is OK. This source http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records does not promote anything. It shows that Grande Rock is notable. Read the last sentence. You cannot bypass things without reading them at all. The blog sources are from labels that have reproduced the reviews. The labels are totally notable, they do not promote anything, just giving some feedback to the fans. Band's Fan Club that has linked to the site isn't good for you? What's good tell me? I think it is OK but you're not really wanna help do things right. All you're saying is no no no? Give me an example of such indie source then. Facebook posts are OK? Twitter? Hard Rocker 13 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Here's a source from Blabbermouth - I think you can't say that this ain't notable!!! http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171270. You can't deny also the fact that the writer of this article is giving reliability to Grande Rock: http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records. Other sources: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/darkology/altered_reflections/, http://www.michaelharrisguitar.com/, http://plotn08.com/2012/09/the-michael-des-barres-band-carnaby-street-2012/. If you wanna help I think all these sources are more than good. I can't prove that I'm not an elephant anymore. There are ezines on wiki that do not have such resources but you have given them the credit. That's unfair. Hard Rocker 13 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Trivial mentions don't count, so they're not good. Fan forum/forum discussions certainly don't. tbfmonline.co.uk is another blog and so a single non-notable source can't give you any level of notability. If Spin, Rolling Stone or some other music magazine wrote a lengthy article about your site you would have instant reason to be considered notable. At the very least, your links would make the interviews somewhat notable to two bloggers since they duplicated the blogs, but not the review sections. However, since we don't know who the "staff" at the site are, there's no guarantee that the sites mentioned are not alternate persona of the two editors.

But again, notability is not what we're discussing and you haven't managed to understand that yet. Have you read the criteria for identifying reliable sources? Please read the whole thing, it should only take a few minutes. Once complete, re-read the Self-published and questionable sources section.

Nice to see you've figured the signature thing out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Was just about to post a question here about this site (THEN SAW THIS) - I have reverted some additions about site here - as I have never heard of this site before. I see there is a problem - hope it can be solve.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're a champ Moxy. Sure you don't want to stick around? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you do not care to give any help. Blabbermouth is the biggest site out there. Linking back to Grande Rock means that the site has something good to offer. A notable site gives credit to another one that's notable & reliable. Can you tell me if ever Spin or Rolling Stone have published an article for a webzine?! Not even for Blabber! OK I got it if Rolling Stone talks about Grande Rock then it will be notable or else not. So, I'll make you a list of how many webzines you have to delete from wiki. For every reliable link you have something to say. That means you're kinda biased. You say the source is bad and then a great site like Blabber use a source from that site! I guess Blabber is not good either for you. I have read the article far too many times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what Blabbermout & TBFMonline have done! Tell me why these sites are better than Grande Rock and which big site has made any reference to them: Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? As for the two alternate persona etc. I can only take as a joke right! There's a complete list on the old site as well. It's been up for more than 10 years, this at least should mean something! Hard Rocker 13 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Please read the following policies CAREFULLY: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. That will explain why you are not making any headway here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AORmaniac13, please stop with the ridiculous exaggeration. Blabbermouth isn't even one of the to 1000 sites on the Internet. http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000 . Alexa.com's ranking of it is 16,179. The fact that they linked back to you means you had one thing to say. If they wrote a feature article about your site, it would mean that you had something good to offer. I hate to say it, but the rest of what yous said is self-deluded. If Rolling Stone or Spin linked to something on the site it still wouldn't mean it was reliable. If your site was specifically written about by another source--a feature article--then it would mean something. Being up for ten years means you should see a physician. I thought that Viagra suggested that if you're up for four hours you should see a doctor. What you're missing is that those other sites have an actual staff that is identified. Yours doesn't. Those other sites have been referenced by other reliable sources as being worthwhile. Your site has had links related to band interviews--something I was doing in the 1980s, and I can confirm I'm not a RS.

While Google searches can only really tell us the relative importance of websites, it would help your case if when I searched for Grande Rock that your website would appear first and not a Wikipedia article about an album of the same name. Your Alexa.com ranking is [www.alexa.com/siteinfo/grande-rock.com 4,750,840] and indicates that 59 sites link-in. If you had more than 210 Facebook likes. If you had more than 129 Twitter followers (I'm a nobody and have 79 followers). A source that is barely reliable, Jesus Freak Hideout has more than 10,000 followers. This particular site is has an Alexa rating of 133,760 with 704 linking-in. So it doesn't seem you're particularly popular. Please drop the pretense that you are.

Now back to the my greatest concern: the reviewers are unidentified. At this point if you were to appear on some Greek talk show, or perhaps be written about by a Greek-language music magazine--a feature article--that would show that people respect you. If we understood the editorial process: are you paid by the bands or their labels to write about them; are you paying to buy the music; is it sent to you with no expectations to review or comment; that would help us understand a few elements. If there was a complete list of staff, that would help too. And for finally, when we link to things like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and suggest you read them, please do it. If you use the terminology found in them instead of making-up your own, it would help confer respect and understanding.

I think we all understand that English is not your primary language, so if you need us to elaborate or talk about specific items in those articles please ask. However, if you insist on making-up your own criteria, you're going to lose us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do realize that a couple of guys are wannabe the wiki-judges here. You know when accusing a site of not being reliable in public without being able to proved it if needed then this is called detraction. I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity and talking trash about a site without carrying if that will affect people's jobs or not. If you can't prove that a site is non-notable then surely it's notable. The same goes if you can't approve that someone's guilty then he's not. It's so easy for you to understand. I told you there's a complete list of people being especially in the Greek rock/metal scene for ages. The editorial process is the same for every reliable webzine. There's a cooperation with labels that sending stuff (digital & physical) and expect feedback, artist & bands (big and small) that are being interviewed, people that arranging live shows have also added Grande Rock on their posters (wanna see some?). What do you need? As for the Facebook and Twitter I cans see that you not aware of how things work. Check out Myspace 4 thousands friends isn't good for you? Once it was Myspace not it's FB... and so on. Those profiles are less than a year created.

You didn't tell me if those webzines are also reliable and if they were featured in Rolling Stone?! Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? You're trying to avoid it. There are ads by labels on magazines that are featuring quotes from Grande Rock's reviews? Is that good for you? Wanna see some links? By the way do you have anything to do with music in general or just fooling around? You are just a user like me. Your word doesn't count more. Is there an Admin here or what? And yes, Blabber is consider to be one of the top 5 sites in rock/metal music. We're talking about music sites, you can't obviously compare it with FB! You know how to misrepresent things! I see that this site isn't good for you. You're probably are an ultimate wiki-Judge or something.Hard Rocker 13 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time. Nothing you've said makes any sense whatsoever in terms of the relevant policies and guidelines which I pointed out to you above. If your arguments don't conform to these, there is no chance of other editors understanding them and being able to respond to them. Again, please read the policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

2-viruses.com

This source: http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-blekko-redirect-virus is being cited in Blekko, (diff) to support a claim that there is a "Blekko virus". (There have been ongoing sporadic discussions in Talk:Blekko). IMHO, the source isn't RS. --Lexein (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ecigarettes365.com

This was brought to my attention on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Is this a reputable study? Input on policy for commercial pages appreciated. A few days ago, User:Owen Engle inserted content citing ecigarette365.com to the "Health concerns" section of the Electronic cigarette article. The ecigarette365.com citation is an online survey conducted by a site that reviews electronic cigarettes. The source is neither reliable nor independent, and does not meet the guideline for medical sources, which requires reputable peer reviewed scientific journals and textbooks.

I removed the paragraph, but was quickly reverted by User:Owen Engle, who claimed that it "makes no health claims". This is false. The source, which was added to the Health Concerns section, does make a health claim (it alleges that "90% of participants that are using an e-cigarette feel better") and does fall under Wikipedia's guidelines for medical sources. I welcome outside opinions on my position that ecigarettes365.com is not a reliable source for the Health cocnerns section of Electronic cigarettes. Any thoughts?--xanchester (t) 17:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

not reliable in general let alone for higher standards of MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Completely unreliable for any conceivable purpose here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Torban.org, polyhymnion.org, turovsky.org edit war

There's a developing edit war between me and another editor regarding the reliability of the torban.org website.

These three website are interconnected: http://torban.org, http://polyhumnion.org and http://turovsky.org. The polyhymnion site is owned by musician Roman Turovsky-Savchuk of New York, and it lists him as copyright owner. The torban and turovsky sites are using the same servers: DNS5.DOTEASY.COM and DNS6.DOTEASY.COM. The polyhymnion site links to the torban site here. The turovsky site links to the polyhymnion site here. Veteran editor User:Galassi silently changed a polyhymnion URL to a torban URL of the same title here at the Lute page. The style of all three websites is very similar, as if they were coded by the same webmaster.

User:Galassi has inserted various torban.org webpages into various articles, used as references or external links. I pulled these out but Galassi considers them to be okay.

• 14 April 2008: Galassi added an external link to Eduard Drach: http://www.torban.org/pisni/drach.html
• 7 December 2008: Galassi added the main page of http://torban.org to Kobza
• 21 February 2009: Galassi added two external links to Julian Kytasty: http://torban.org/kytasty and http://torban.org/bandura-downtown
• 23 February 2009: Galassi added a reference to Hatikvah: http://torban.org/torban4b.html
• 14 March 2009: Galassi added http://torban.org/torban3b.html and http://torban.org/torban3c.html to Torban
• 29 March 2009: Galassi added a reference to the Roman Turovsky-Savchuk article: http://www.torban.org/bandura-downtown/opus.html
• 20 August 2009: Galassi added an external link to Cossack Mamay: http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html
• 13 November 2009: Galassi added http://www.torban.org/torban1.html to Little Russia
• 4 February 2010: Galassi added the main page of http://torban.org to Torban
• 22 May 2012: Galassi again added http://www.torban.org/torban1.html to Little Russia

These webpages are problematic because they have no author listed. Many on torban.org appear to be hosting images copied from elsewhere, very likely scanned from books and copied from other webpages without permission from the copyright holders. I don't know if the text is original or if it is copied; either way it fails WP:RS because there is no author. I think this is a self-published website and as such it is not reliable.

Galassi is a valuable veteran editor who was warned about copyrighted material in 2006 by Will Beback. His friend User:Torban helped write some of the related articles and helped put the above webpages into Wikipedia. Another such editor is User:Lute88 who editor Torban said he was related to. I think Galassi should be enjoined to stop adding unreliable sources, especially ones that have dubious copyright status and no listed author. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The copyright warning by Will Beback is irrelevant here, as it wasn't connected to any websites in question.

2. The torban.org is a scholarly overview of the history of Ukrainian music written by several notable individuals who have wiki entries, and it is reliable as such. 3. torban.org and polyhymnion.org host official pages of several notable individuals. 4. http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html is an important ethnomusicological iconography resource, which is apparently not in the complainer's competence.--Galassi (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your point No. 4, the webpage is a bunch of pictures with no explanatory text. How is that scholarly? No matter who "wrote" it, that is, assembled the images into pages, there is no author listed, so it is not reliable. Because there is no text, nothing textual can be derived from it for the purpose of telling the Wikipedia reader about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While websites published by experts in their field may pass rs, I do not see in the website who hosts it or what degree of control they exercise over the content. TFD (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)