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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Israel

In the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, editors wish to add Israel to the list of countries which designate the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation (see para 1 of the Lead). For other countries in the Lead, government documents have been found that support such a designation – official lists of groups formally designated as terrorist organisations – but no such document can be traced for Israel. (Exampes of these are cited in the infobox in section 13 of the article.)

Editors have provided sources which they claim support such a designation by Israel, which I have listed below, but I do not believe any of them can. I do not believe second-hand reports are enough, and the source originally cited (no. 1) mentions “unlawful” not “terrorist”.

Could we have your opinion on whether any of the documents listed below would reliably support the statement that Israel has designated the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation, please?

1. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184728#.VBaZQD9wbIW
2. http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/26/israel-moves-declare-support-isis-illegal-photo-groups-flag-appear/
3. http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/FM-Liberman-addresses-International-Anti-Terrorism-Conference-9-Sep-2014.aspx
4. http://www.osenlaw.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Counter-Terrorism/Key_Terrorist_Organizations/GOI1.pdf
5. http://www.mod.gov.il/
6. http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=683441
7. http://mfa.gov.il/MFAAR/Pages/default.aspx

In that list are two Arabic sources and one Hebrew source (nos. 5-7), and a document (no. 4) which editors claim proves that “unlawful” means “terrorist” in Israeli law, but I think they have misinterpreted this document. It seems to be merely a list of organisations that the Israeli government has certified as being either unlawful or terrorist. I include these four sources on their behalf, but I don't think any of them can be used here.

If you need any clarification, please contact me; I am one of the editors on the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this article dated 11th September here is of any help (see para 5). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In order to help in good faith, I will fill in a critical missing translation of an Arabic reliable source [1], included above, but without the translation that I duly provided on the Article's talk page, and, since Google Translate is unreliable, I will help with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. This is a complicated matter for those who do not have long term insight into Middle Eastern affairs, but I am confident that there is enough reliable evidence that Israel has already declared ISIS as a terrorist organization. However, I am fine with whatever the response is given here. Worldedixor (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangential exchange

Thanks, Worldedixor. That is useful extra information. That source didn't have a Google translation into English, unfortunately, so I don't think it can be used, but that is for those on this board to judge. If we could use your translation, it would simplify matters enormously. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I am curious to know on what WP rule have you based your statement "I don't think it can be used"? Doesn't WP:NONENG expressly permit non-English reliable sources, especially when a Wikipedian has taken the time to duly provide a translation by a Wikipedian, and especially in cases as complicated as this case pertaining to Israeli law, and/or especially when English sources cannot be readily found? Worldedixor (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) As you know this has been discussed several times on the Talk page. Let the board decide on this point. My view here is irrelevant. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 5 days. Kingsindian (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is best to use a source that is specificially about what states consider ISIL a terrorist organization. Because different states use different definitions and terminology, and have different procedures for this, it is preferable to use a secondary source whose author is familiar with this and able to tell whether labeling a group "unlawful" is in this context tantamount to calling it terrorist and whether statements by the defense ministry are the same as government announcements or whether different parts of the government (such as justice and finance) keep separate lists of terrorist organizations. TFD (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding any source at all is the problem. I have looked on the internet and cannot find anything. Perhaps my search terms are not accurate enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Request opinion on a couple of Twitter cites

For context, please see the final paragraph of this previous version of Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. I had originally cited two Tweets concerning the veracity of a claimed George W. Bush quote. The first was by Robert Draper, a NYT contributor and the author of a bestselling book on Bush, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush.[2] The second was by Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News and a reporter covering the Bush White House during the time frame in question.[3] The accounts are longstanding and I don't believe there is any doubt about their provenance, though I can't confirm that the "verified" feature has been used in their cases. Would these Twitter posts be acceptable cites concerning the opinion of these experts regarding the quote used by Tyson? Thanks in advance for taking a look. Kelly ^hi! 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not reliable in this context. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. See WP:SPS for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

^ see above. Gaba ^(talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I agree with you in this case, but you probably shouldn't have narrowed it to only "third-party". SPS can't be used in second-party contexts as well (husband writing an angry blog post about an ex-wife is not a usable source about a living person either). __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: I think that "third-party" includes "second-party" in this context. In any case, this is the same phrasing used in WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for taking a look and weighing in. Kelly ^hi! 08:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

pornstaremart dot com

Is [4] a WP:RS?

It is used five times in the BLP Keisha (pornographic actress)

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No I think. There are some obvious mistakes in that text. They refer to her as Asia Carrera in one bit, an obvious mistake referring to another porn star. Also a good amount of the text is duplicated on other websites and appears to be a "stock" bio. http://www.pornstarscenter.com/star.asp?id=47 - I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was reverse copying from wikipedia. however, if the original source of the text could be uncovered, that might ultimately be reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Working link Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Center for Public Integrity publications

Are books published by the Center for Public Integrity considered reliable? The only reason I ask is because I once used a widely used textbook as a source under the topic I'm thinking about citing for here, and I was shouted down because an admin felt the source was strongly biased. (He/She was openly in the animal rights camp, whereas the book discredited many radical animal rights groups.) According to WP:RS, that shouldn't matter... but I was outnumbered and voted down.

I'm thinking of using the following book as a source:

• Green, Alan (1999). Animal Underworld: Inside America's Black Market for Rare and Exotic Species. Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-374-9.

The animal industry is very divided, and although the animal rights campaigns have a strong presence on Wikipedia (and would therefore support the use of this source), I can still see my potential edits being reverted and attacked, primarily by targeting the source. The book was written based on collaborative research through public records and does not appear to be sponsored by any particular animal rights group. And I know it doesn't matter, but I come from the industry and have seen the tip of the iceberg on which the book focuses.

I have not made these edits to any articles, so there are no DIFFs. I also have not picked specific content from the book to use yet, though it can be browsed and searched online at Google Books. The material could be used on several websites, particularly Species Survival Plan, Captive breeding, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a host of zoos, and articles pertaining to conservation of particular species. PassTheSake (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And to clarify, the edits will center around the book's thesis: that surplus animals (including SSP animals) from AZA accredited facilities get dumped into the exotic pet trade, canned hunts, and other places the AZA specifically prohibits. PassTheSake (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's still pretty general. This source could be generally reliable for some claims, but that's not a blank check for any claim. What material were you "shouted down" over? If it has to do with the specific claim about an organization then it still might be a NPOV or OR/SYNTH issue. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The book mentioned above makes specific mentions of animals changing hands between highly reputable research facilities/zoos and people/facilities directly related the exotic pet trade (black market). (This was mirrored by a report in 1990 on "60 Minutes", which I'm trying to find so that I can be cited. I just found another source, published by the Performing Animals Welfare Society, which mentions this and the "60 Minutes" program, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.) I am considering noting these claims in a manner similar to the following: "Based on public records, Alan Green and the Center for Public Integrity have claimed that <institution X> sold unwanted animals to <dealer Y>, owner of <facility Z>, which participates in the exotic pet trade." For example, page 5 covers one of many claims against the National Zoo. Since nearly every page of the book I've read so far tracks case after case, and even documents listings in the AZA's Animal Exchange newsletter and how those animals are processed (source: pages 45–47), it goes on the claim that the AZA knowingly participates in these activity (out of necessity) and then covers it up (source: pages 48–49). I'm not yet certain how to make mention of this material in a NPOV fashion, but I'm sure it can be done.

As for my previous conflict (citing sources that lean the other way in the debate between zoos and animal rights), the source was this. Again, it's a textbook used in Veterinary schools. It differentiates "animal rights" from "animal welfare"—two diametrically opposed views that unfortunately get treated as synonyms in the popular press. I'm not here to contest that past discussion. I'm just noting that the sole reason why I was told I can't use the source was because the author "is an animal researcher/former dairy farmer". I want to make sure the same doesn't happen here. PassTheSake (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: I would still like to hear more opinions on this. Thanks. PassTheSake (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories, astrology, and WP:ABOUTSELF

I'm currently working on a bottom-to-top rewrite of fringe theory. While I disagree stridently with the editor who nominated it for deletion, I cannot argue with the fact that the current content is pretty damn terrible. My sourcing so far is irrefutably mainstream sources talking about fringe theories and the idea of a fringe theory. However...

David Cochrane is a professional astrologer. He (along with his wife) founded an astrology software company, and established an astrology school in Florida. Especially in those two contexts, he is cited with some regularity in astrology publications by other authors, although as far as I can tell, no one outside of astrology's insular community has paid him any attention. He's likely not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term, but he has come currency in his field, and is probably what passes for an expert therein.

He wrote this article, which appears on the website of Cosmic Patterns, his software company; it is inarguably self-published. The only purpose I wish to put it to is to cite him as an example of someone willing to self-identify as a "fringe theorist". Needless to say, it is not a remotely reliable source for any factual content. I believe this use satisfies all the concerns of WP:ABOUTSELF, but I'm not used to writing content that invokes that particular standard, much less while doing so in a controversial topic area, so I'd like to pre-submit this use here for a community sanity check. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Divadevotee.com

I thought I would start a discussion here after I removed the divadevotee citation from the Kylie Minogue article, and it was reverted by Subtropical-man. This site has no notability, no qualifications, is self-published, is merely a blog/personal website, and its about page states "DivaDevotee is my little space on the World Wide Web to share with the world my thoughts and feelings on one of my favourite topics: music's Divas. [...] I'm very much aware of my place in the universal pecking order (at the bottom, with all the other critics) so please take everything I write with a pinch of salt. It's really not that serious." All of these qualities lead me to believe it is not a reliable source. This is only my opinion, maybe I have missed something. Please share your thoughts. Melonkelon (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Standard redux

The question of the RS status of the Weekly Standard was addressed in 2010. While short of unanimous, and subject to a bit of grumbling, it nevertheless concluded that the Weekly Standard is an RS, with the usual caveat that opinion statements in news magazines can only be cited as opinion. An admin recently edited through full protection to remove a statement cited to the Weekly Standard. (Two other non-RS's were also removed, whose removal is not disputed) The admin is now using another discussion as support for the notion that the Weekly Standard is not a reliable source. In this brief discussion, it looks to me like a specific statement was reviewed, and rejected for technical reasons, not simply because the source is not an RS. The last paragraph opens with "No it is not a reliable source." but that was not the rationale used for rejecting the use of the specific cite. It looks to me like a throwaway comment, that no one bothered to address.

If in fact, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors that a news magazine, which happens to be partisan, is not an RS, this would be a major sea change in the way we accept or reject sources as Reliable. If the Weekly Standard does not qualify, there are dozens of sources, both liberal and conservative, that must be re-examined. I think this is a simple issue, that one editor made a throwaway point in the context of making a specific determination about a quote, and should not be construed as representing the Wikipedia consensus on the issue. However, as it is being used by an admin to support a contentious edit, I would like to see some clarification.

Please note that there is a side issue: the source was initially characterized as an opinion. This is disputed and under discussion, however, the implication of the editor is that it doesn't matter whether the specific piece was an opinion piece, the whole journal "does not have a serious journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism" so it isn't important whether it is an opinion piece. While anyone is welcome to offer, uh, opinions, on whether the specific cite is an opinion piece, my main goal is to determine whether the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the Weekly Standard no longer qualifies as an RS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: given that Sphilbrick mentioned the recent rightful edit in the Neil deGrasse Tyson article which originated all this, I believe it is important to note that the article in TWS used as a source there failed verification. This makes its removal 100% accurate and necessary, specially in a WP:BLP, whether TWS is deemed a RS or not. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "failed verification"? I'm obviously familiar with WP:V but that doesn't seem to be the issue. In the ordinary English sense, failing verification means one cannot find an RS supporting the statement, but that would be circular, if that's what you mean. Can you please explain?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean precisely this Template:Failed_verification. The sourced statement is not present in the source being used as a reference. Gaba ^(talk) 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TWS has editorial review of fact-based articles, and also runs opinion columns. It is widely cited by other reliable sources. Where a claim is made which has reasonably been subjected to fact-checking, the claims are thus from a reliable secondary source - we do not rule out sources based on political ideology, vide HuffPo, Salon etc. Where an opinion is cited to an opinion column in TWS, that claim, properly cited, is also allowed by policy. Thus TWS qualifies as RS unless and until Wikipedia decides that any publication with "wrong opinions" is estopped, and only publications with "correct opinions" are allowed. So far, that does not appear to be part of any policy, however. Collect (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC) (FWIW, the editor who had most berated the WS in that discussion is banned as a puppet master AFAICT) Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That Collect and a couple of other editors decided in 2010 that The Weekly Standard is rs for facts does not cast it in stone. I would be interested if Collect could provide evidence that the magazine has editorial review of fact-based articles. I do not even see any fact-based articles in the magazaine. It is a magazine of commentary which uses facts to support opinions as opposed to say the New York Times which reports news.

The article in question was written by "THE SCRAPBOOK" Typical of his/her./their writing is the opening of "Kennedy Update": "In the event of nuclear war, only three things are expected to survive—cockroaches, Twinkies, and the political ambitions of the Kennedy family." Obviously that is meant as humor, but the article has the appearance of an editorial, not a news article. It is commenting on the fact that Kennedy is a candidate, not reporting it. And it uses the fact he is in the news to dredge up the fact he was a defendant in a well-publicized trial, intimating that he was wrongfully acquitted. So even if The Weekly Standard is rs for fact-based articles, this blog probably does not meet it.

A further consideration is weight. If only what is termed the "echo chamber" reports certain facts, and mainstream sources ignore them, then there is no reason to include them in articles. We are supposed to provide the same weight as mainstream sources.

TFD (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure there are editors that would like it if all non-left reliable sources were deemed as non-reliable, and thus non-usable, on Wikipedia.

The Weekly Standard list several individuals as editors, including William Kristol and Fred Barnes, just to name two. Yes, it is a biased source, but so is Salon, Huffington Post, and Brietbart. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Weekly Standard is not a questionable source, but at the very least reliable to verify what is written in it, and the opinions of the writer(s) whose content they publish.

And as an aside, there is this, published today.

So looks like this discussion is moot.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Weight is always an issue when determining whether to use something from an RS. But this is the RSN; I'm not asking for a content decision on whether this particular quote deserves to be in the article, I am asking whether there has been a change to the position that TWS qualifies as an RS (subject to the additional alphabet soup that might preclude any particular cite.) I read the 2010 discussion as concluding that it is an RS. Your single sentence is being relied upon to conclude it is not. There is zero question that TWS is a partisan source, but that's true of just about all news sources when it comes to politics. The NYT is partisan, but I support its inclusion in the list of RS. If we exclude all partisan sources, we won't have any articles on political subject (which might be such a bad idea :)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Standard is a nationwide current affairs magazine similar to Time: they publish news analysis and opinion, not investigative journalism. Just because Time employs left-wing writer Michael Grunwald doesn't mean its opinions are non-notable. Similar to Time, Weekly Standard should be considered noteworthy and reliable to some extent. Shii (tock) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

[5] contains the statements:

But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true. George W. Bush did make a remark that bears a resemblance to this, but it was two years later, in his speech following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a context that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Islam. “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today,” Bush said. What’s more, there are two biblical references to naming the stars—in Psalms and Isaiah, but not in Genesis. But why let truth and literacy get in the way of bashing George W. Bush and his crazy sky-God?

The issue is whether the claim as written in the source may be paraphrased as "No evidence exists that Bush said that" with the reference to "that" being "then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)" " If the material is not a fair phrasing of the WS words, then it "fails verification." If the wording is a fair paraphrase of the WS article, then it certainly passes verification. This is a content issue, and one where the proper course would be an RfC and not a condemnation that it "fails verification" as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I hope we can return to the question at hand, there are plenty of other venues to debate the specific edit, which is not the subject of this notice board.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My take is that this particular instance is governed by the following policy in WP:RS:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Clearly the Weekly Standard piece in question is an opinion piece, not straight news, so we shouldn't use it as a basis for statements of fact, especially in a biography of a living person. So, the editor who removed the material was acting within policy. Whether non-opinion pieces published in the Weekly Standard are acceptable as RS is a question for another day. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, correct; except that I'm not sure the Weekly Standard publishes any "non-opinion" pieces. It is a commentary magazine, not a news magazine, and it has no journalistic operations or reputation. While the magazine may use various labels for its content ("Scrapbook", "Editorial", "Feature", etc), these are all commentary/opinion in the general sense, and not straight news. They need to be treated as such, subject to WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION; that is, pieces from the Weekly Standard may be suitable to describe the opinions of the authors with proper in-text attribution, but are not suitable for bald statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is the way we treat opinion pieces from higher-quality sources like the New York Times or Washington Post, so surely it's appropriate here in the case of a partisan opinion journal. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that statements of opinion, in the Weekly Standard or any other source should never be stated as fact other then for the opinions of the authors. But for those things that are not opinion that are in the Weekly Standard (such as person X said Y), there is no reason to not include the Weekly Standard as reliable as any other source. --Obsidi (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bataan Diary

Greetings, I am seeking others opinions regarding the book Bataan Diary, published by Riverview Publishing. I am looking to refurbish the article Philippine resistance against Japan, and it appears that significant content from a website associated with this book had been previously used in the article. Therefore I am curious as to whether Riverview Publishing falls under a Self-publishing catageory, and the associated webpage as well, or whether they can be seen as reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As the firm doesn't appear to have a website [6], I don't think it's at all likely that it's a publishing firm with a reputation for producing good quality works. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Narrative driven comic-book as neutral voice of history?

Source: Sacco, Joe (2009). Footnotes in Gaza Metropolitan Books. Article: Rafah Massacre: References Content: Pretty much the entire article, written in neutral voice of history as "fact" (e.g. A handful of Palestinians were fired upon without warning).

Points against usage

• Narrative driven: "he says he wants to get accross the Palestinian point of view"[7]
• Comic-book: filled with distortion, bias and hyperbole. "Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."[8]
• Disputed content 1: "It's a big exaggeration," said Meir Pail, a leading Israeli military historian and leftist politician.[9]
• Disputed content 2: "Jose Alaniz, from the University of Washington's Department of Comparative Literature, said Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."[10]
• Dubious methodology: "Sacco himself admits he takes sides. "I don't believe in objectivity as it's practiced in American journalism. I'm not anti-Israeli ... It's just I very much believe in getting across the Palestinian point of view," he said."[11]
• Dubious fact-checking: "people are confused about which event, what year they are talking about," he (Sacco) said. "Palestinians never seem to have had the luxury of digesting one tragedy before the next is upon them."
• Dubious sources 1: book is based on conversations with locals, under control of Anti-Semitic[12], Islamist militant group Hamas.
• Dubious sources 2: Palestinian locals had reliability issues (per "Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities"[13]) even without collecting stories 50 years after the fact.

Points in favor

• Sacco has been lauded by Edward Said, the renowned literary scholar and Palestinian rights spokesman.[14]
• 2010 Comic-con award for non-fiction (based on testimonies/conversations with locals)

Discussion and preference

• Remove content - I don't mind an off hand mention in the 'popular culture' section. To go beyond that gives this source credibility which it should not posses. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would say it can be used for an attributed statement about what the Palestinian viewpoint of events is (and more specifically for a statement as to the author's opinion), but it should not be used to cite unattributed statements of fact. It needs to be used with hedging phrases like: "according to comic artist Joe Sacco..." Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been forum shopping all over the place. This is not a "comic book". The author is a journalist who has used the graphic format. The publisher is an imprint of Henry Holt and Company. It is based on an UN special report into two massacres in 1956, Rafah massacre and Khan Yunis massacre. Here is the Haaretz review of and Guardian review the book. Please also read the discussion here (ignore the first half). Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"I'd rather emphasise their feelings."; "We asked around, people confirmed the story"; "as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch"; "lies and embellishments."[15]

Waltz with Bashir got a golden globe but it shouldn't pass as reliable for anything other than the opinions of the movie maker. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is not academic imprint so if it will be used it should only be used with attribution. But the question if it should be used at all this n for WP:NPOVN board as this single source is probably WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Not reliable for history. If it's based on a UN special report, use that. Could be added to Further reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Remove content - Of course this should not be used for statements of fact. The full title is Footnotes in Gaza: A Graphic Novel. (bold added by me for emphasis) This seems pretty clear cut. We don't use historical novels for statement of historical fact. No matter how accurate they are regarding history, they are still novels. Onefireuser (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  That's not a helpful objection. Graphic novels aren't the same thing as novels. From our article: the term "graphic novel" is applied broadly, and includes fiction, non-fiction, and anthologized work. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. I did not realize that the term could be applied to non-fiction. However, my concern with the book as a source for statement of fact in an encyclopedia still stands. I am basing this partly on the New York Times review, partly on the Amazon page, and partly on the publisher's own page (I purposefully avoided reading the Haaretz review because it seemed likely to be biased). They all seem to suggest that the book serves primarily as a way to translate the tragedy into an "intimate and immediate experience" (from the publisher's page). So it seems that this could be used as a reference as long as great care is taken in how it is used to support statements of historical fact. Why cannot a more traditional source of historical information be used? Onefireuser (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Onefireuser: This is a very strange standard. You purposely avoided reading the Haaretz review because it is likely to be biased? Perhaps it is time to read E.H. Carr What is History?. There are no unbiased sources anywhere. Anyway, it seems there has been another source added for some portions of the Khan Yunis massacre. If you read the Haaretz review, you will see why the author chose this format. This work was initially part of a journalistic work. Benny Morris, a mainstream historian, confirms these massacres but does not discuss them in detail. There are no "thick" sources which talk about Palestinian testimonies and so on. The UN report is there but it is rarely quoted. I am happy to use in-text attribution for Sacco's work, in line with this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is not an RfC: this format is useless. I hope Onefireuser has not gone by the totally misleading description given here and read the Haaretz review and the Guardian review as well as the scattered forum shopping. The author is a journalist who has chosen the graphic format. This is not a comic book. From the Haaretz review:

Official and other sources are quoted in full in a graphic novel published in New York late last year by Henry Holt and Company. "Footnotes in Gaza," by cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco, is a hefty, album-sized tome whose hard-cover version is 418 pages long - 388 of which are covered with meticulous and highly detailed black-and-white illustrations depicting Sacco's journeys to Khan Yunis and Rafah (and Jerusalem) to investigate this unknown "small percentage" of atrocities, and his interpretation in graphic-novel form of the testimonies he collected from dozens of people.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Also the OP has not bothered to notify on the talk page of either Talk:Rafah_massacre or Talk:Khan_Yunis_massacre, another example of forum shopping, not to mention rude. I will make allowances for the newness of the editor and do it myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: Would you please be willing to strike through the part of your comment which violates WP:POLEMIC? Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no obligation to notify anyone.--Shrike (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the proposal is to remove the one work of non-fiction that set this subject on the map, from the article on that subject? Seems bizarre. Taking this point-by-point. That a work of non-fiction is narrative-driven is not a problem, as long as the facts on which the narration are based remain unchanged. That it is a comic is totally irrelevant. Words, photographs, ... can be as neutral or as distorted as a comic book. Disputed content? Then present the content, and the dispute, side by side. You don't get to remove one source because another source disputes it (or parts of it), we don't decide which of them is right, we show both (unless there is overwhelming consensus that one source is basically rubbish or fringe, which is not the case here). Dubious fact-checking? Indicating that some of your sources are sometimes confused is not "dubious factchecking", it is being open about the troubles of getting facts about long-past events which were poorly documented at the time. I don't immediately see the relevance of your "dubious sources 2" item, Palestinian survivors exaggerated at first the number of deaths in one massacre so they (Palestinians, not the same people though as these survivors) are unreliable as a source on any alleged massacre? That's dubious logic. Your "dubious sources" 1 is even worse, unless you have evidence that the sources Sacco used were actually all Hamas militants (or that all Palestinians are pro-Hamas) and not e.g. Fatah suppporters or neutral people. Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers, exclude the book from the article".

If you wanted to discuss the quality of the article or of this source, you should have presented a neutral statement, not some heavily biased one which is much more obviously dubious in its sources and POV than the actual source you are trying to get removed. So keep the Sacco source but present the well-sourced criticisms of it (and of the article subject) as well. Fram (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

GeoNames

We seem to cite the GeoNames database quite widely despite the fact that it apparently permits users to edit, [16] contrary to WP:USERGENERATED. Should we be using this database as the only source for an article on a geographical location, where other sources are entirely lacking? This has come up because a new contributor started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasaneri (2nd nomination), asserting that the place doesn't exist (there is a side-issue as to whether the database asserting it is a 'populated place' is sufficient to establish that it has legal recognition, and therefore is automatically notable, but I don't think we need to discuss that here). I've looked through the archives, and the only previous discussion mentioning I can find on this noticeboard [17] doesn't really come to any definitive conclusions regarding its reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the main commenters in the debate over Gasaneri, and I do not believe that articles should be written that use Geonames as the only source. The website states that it allows users to "add new names [to the database] using a user friendly wiki interface." Many village articles appear to have been written by going down a geoname list of villages and writing a brief stub for each stating that "X is a village in such and such country". Any fictitious village added in to the GeoName server could potentially end up with a Wikipedia article. A skilled vandal could even deliberately insert a fictional village, and then write a "sourced" article about it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better not to post WP:BEANS here.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Jonathan Adler writing on the Volokh Conspiracy web page a RS for notability of thefederalist.com

There's currently an AFD for the wikipedia article on thefederalist.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thefederalist.com). The issue is one of notability. Editors are trying to determine if there are sufficient citations from reliable sources to justify notability. One source being considered (it's not currently sourced by the article) is http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/

This article appears on the Volokh Conspiracy web blog. The VC was self-published for about a dozen years from 2002 to 2013. As of this January, Eugene Volokh entered into a distribution and advertising revenue sharing arrangement with the Post, and a key point of the agreement was that the VC stay editorially independent. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/about/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/21/in-brazil-you-can-always-find-the-amazon-in-america-the-amazon-finds-you-2/ for more info about the VC-Post relationship.

I found this previous discussion of VC as RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29 which says it is not for that purpose. Since then, the relationship with the Post has begun. Does that change anything with regard to RS? One can argue that it is self-published so it should not be RS for much of anything, or one could argue that it is RS for notability due to the Post masthead.

BTW, I'm having a spot of trouble with requirement #3. The issue is notability, and the statement supported is that thefederalist.com meets the GNG for a standalone article. Clearly, if the Post is writing about it then it has some level of notability. Not sure about a blog they host (and perhaps "publish" depending on what you mean by that term).(unsigned)

I am amazed. Right now the AfD is headed for a "Snow Keep" result. The "blog" was notable, and won awards, before it was given an official home at WaPo, and WaPo would not host a non-notable blog. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears we feel differently about Post Everything. a13ean (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm failing to see how this response is helpful. I haven't been able to determine what criteria is used to decide what gets published in PostEverything. It has the Washington Post's masthead, and a Post employee is the editor, so it may inherit the mantle of reliability that the Post has. OTOH, The Volokh Conspiracy is editorially independent of the Post. So I don't see PostEverything serving as an example to indicate the answer to my query.

Agree with both your points. "Keep" looks very likely (check my vote to see where I stand on the matter) and the VC is quite notable. But I don't see how either is relevant to the question I asked. The VC status as RS given their editorial independence and partnership with the Post is an interesting question without an obvious answer. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... Not much response. I'm going to conclude that the marketing and revenue sharing arrangement with the Post does not substantially change the fact that the Volokh Conspiracy is self-published with no editorial oversight from the Post. Thus, it remains WP:SPS albeit one whose authors are established experts in their field. Usable as RS, but with all the usual caveats of a SPS.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have it pretty much right. As with any self-published source, its usage needs to be considered in context. For instance, when legal scholars write about legal issues on the blog, those opinions may be useable subject to the usual strictures. When legal scholars write about the price of tea in China, or some other issue unrelated to their professional expertise, then I'm not sure it makes sense to use their blog musings as sources in a serious reference work. Moreover, a key point (which appears to need constant reiteration) is that the blog is not under the editorial control of the Washington Post, and so the Post's credibility and reliability does not attach to the blog. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy is self-published with no editorial board, as such it cannot be considered like a normal WP:RS. It can be considered as opinion from recognized experts as per legal issues. I would say that the Volokh Conspiracy can be used to suggest that something is notable (clearly not on its own however but as part of a large context), especially posts by people on the site that are well known public figures that are regularly cited in other WP:RS media. --Obsidi (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Health effects of fracking

Source

Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environ Health Perspect DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732

Article

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Content

A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances.

The results of the survey were consistent with recent WP:MEDRSs such as [18], [19], and [20]. Prior MEDRSs on the topic have all been inconclusive. EllenCT (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course any source is reliable for what it states, though even here it is not accurately stated since the source is reporting on reported health effects gleaned from a telephone survey, not acutally "clinically significant" data. But the real problem here is due weight & neutrality. A primary source reporting on a telephone survey should be avoided as it's not WP:MEDRS. If there truly are WP:MEDRS that say the same thing, simply use them. If this information is not however properly reflected in WP:MEDRS sources, then reporting it is not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you quoting "clinically significant" from? As I understand your comments, you would prefer:

"A 2014 telephone survey of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania reported that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were reported in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. The number of people reporting skin problems increased in from 3% to 13% over the same distances."

EllenCT (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We should use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for health information, and avoid primary sources especially if they run against the grain of information from really good secondary sources. That's what our WP:PAGs say. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the survey is completely consistent with all of the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources. In such cases is it preferable to use secondary news coverage of the primary source when, as in this case, it has received widespread coverage in national and international reputable news sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

this is kind of forum shopping. See somewhat-difficult-to-follow discussion at Project Medicine, where EllenCT was advised that for health-related content, the guideline WP:MEDRS expresses the consensus of the community (as also expressed in WP:RS) that WP content should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources, for a whole host of reasons. MEDRS further defines SECONDARY sources for health related content, as reviews published in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. In the discussion at Project Medicine, EllenCT was pointed to recent reviews. Those reviews state that there is not enough research completed to make definitive statements yet. The source EllenCT wants to bring is WP:PRIMARY, and makes definitive claims about health effects. This is exactly the kind of editing that MEDRS advises against. We use reviews to determine if the results reported in PRIMARY sources are viewed as credible by the scientific community and to determine how important they are. Without a review, it is pure WP:OR to select a given PRIMARY source and determine what WP:WEIGHT to give it. We rely on SECONDARY sources for that. EllenCT needs to wait until there are reviews published in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies that make more definitive statements about health effects of fracking. We just don't know yet. (which I am saying, because that is what the most recent SECONDARY sources say) Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive has not been true for years. Dispute resolution noticeboards are more appropriate than further disruption of WT:MED and the article talk page when dealing with editors who repeatedly admit the shame in which they are unable to control their frustration while displaying concordant overreach in the application of rules. Need I provide diffs? EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, is there some reason that a primary source published this month would be considered to be better than such secondary sources as PMID 23687049 or PMID 24119661? Wikipedia is not intended as news, and there is wp:NODEADLINE. If the new survey paper is seen to be significant and credible by the experts in that field, it will surely appear in subsequent reviews over the next year or so. That is normally considered to be "soon enough" for Wikipedia's purposes. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How could a primary source consistent with the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources be inferior to inconclusive secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are summaries of additional conclusive MEDRS sources and associated news articles from the current version of the article:

A 2013 review on shale gas production in the United States stated, "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells." A 2011 hazard assessment found that most of the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and drilling have immediate health effects, and many may have long-term health effects. A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations."

A 2013 review focusing on Marcellus shale gas hydraulic fracturing and the New York City water supply stated, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate, even if more highly regulated Marcellus gas production is eventually permitted elsewhere in New York State."

A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations impede peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. A 2012 study said that hydraulic gas extraction had a "potential negative impact" on public health, and that pediatric nurses should be prepared to gather information on such topics so as to advocate for improved community health.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has defended their research into hydraulic fracturing while simultaneously attempting to downplay its results.

Secondary news sources covering the primary survey include [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:

Those who live 1 kilometer or closer to natural gas fracking wells are more than twice as likely to report skin conditions and upper respiratory symptoms, such as nose bleeds and coughs, as those living more than 2 kilometers away, a new report from Yale University found.

The study, which tracked self-reported health data from 180 households containing 492 people in Pennsylvania's Washington County, is the largest of its kind, lead author Peter Rabinowitz, M.D., who is now with the University of Washington's School of Public Health, told weather.com.

"We got interested in this issue because there were concerns that had been brought up about people complaining of some health symptoms when living near natural gas drilling or extraction facilities," he said. "At the time we started this study, most of these reports were really just that: isolated case reports of a handful of individuals."

(emphasis added.) EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be getting lost in the content, rather than the method, which is fairly simple. List the secondary, peer-reviewed sources which address the topic. Strike out any of the earlier ones which have been cited in the later ones. You're now left with a short list of "current" ones. Summarize what they say. More recent primary sources only come into question where they address a topic that had been identified as important but not researched in depth until after the secondary sources were written. In that case, their content may be used carefully, in suitably circumspect language, never putting their findings in the voice of the encyclopedia, nor making our own inferences about their significance. Such exceptions almost always deserve discussion prior to inclusion. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, please see Respect secondary sources which says (am copying what it says here):

"Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). "

please also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press (copying wht it says here):

"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[20] costs, and risks versus benefits,[21] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[22] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[23] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."

so no, the news reports are not WP:SECONDARY under MEDRS. What you have is a primary source. Please wait until its findings are included a review article that is actually aiming at synthesizing the research that has been done on health effects of fracking. I understand that the EPA is coming out with their review pretty soon. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have one comment. I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to get outside opinion. I see the same people as in the other page (talk page and medicine project) involved in the discussion. What is the point of doing this, then? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably editors who prefer to evaluate these kinds of questions will eventually weigh in after the discussion between the disputants has acquiesced. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is more likely that they will simply WP:TLDR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Although for me there was a bit of WP:TLDR, from what I could gather, we should be basing the article on reliable secondary scientific sources, rather than on news sources or primary scientific sources. The primary scientific literature needs to be digested and substantiated by other scientists before it should be reported as a statement of fact regarding a contentious issue on wikipedia. I say this, despite the fact that I agree with and believe the findings of the Yale study. I simply don't think Wikipedia is the place to first report this information. If you want to disseminate cutting edge, controversial research, start a blog instead. Onefireuser (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of 1982 Lebanon War

Article: 1982 Lebanon War Sentence: "In 1984, the Lebanese authorities publicly retracted their earlier estimate , instead stating "about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion.""

References

This is an astonishing claim. Lebanese sources have reported 20,000 figure total for Lebanese and Palestinian. There are tens of sources for this claim, three of them cited in the article. The lowest estimate is Gabriel, Richard , A, Operation Peace for Galilee, The Israeli-PLO War in Lebanon, New York: Hill & Wang. 1984, which gives 5,000-8,000 civilians, not total. There are two sources cited for the Lebanese official sources claim of 20,000 (Robert Fisk reporting Lebanese police and Red Cross, and this). One of the most recent sources is this by author which gives 19,000 killed and 37,000 casualties in total.

The citation in this book is to a single Washington Post article dated 1984, which does not say anything about retraction. The full quote is "In demanding war reparations, [Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohammed] Haj said that about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion and that more than 1,000 others were wounded". It is not clear exactly what category he is talking about. The claim is so left-field that my only guess is that he is perhaps talking about soldiers in the Lebanese Army, though this is unclear. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This claim is only way out in left-field to those who have been thoroughly inundated in radical anti-Israel propaganda. The Lebanese government, as reported in RS Washington Post and this RS book by an academic publisher, is RS for Lebanese casualties. Kingsindian wants to use original research to bridge the gap between what Osama bin Laden-approved far leftists like Fisk wrote at the time and reality. As the full passage explains, "The PLO fabrications, adopted by the Red Cross and the Lebanese authorities, rapidly circulated around the world. "It is clear to anyone who has traveled in southern Lebanon" that these numbers were "extreme exaggerations," wrote David Shipler. Nevertheless, the PLO news agency soon became the "primary source of information both for Western reporters and for the Lebanese state radio and television." As a result, official Lebanese casualty estimates came to mirror the PLO inventions, recording 19,085 dead, 57% combatants and 43% civilians...In 1984 these inflated estimates were publicly repudiated by the Lebanese authorities, who announced that “about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion." No-one wants to remove Kingsindian's preferred sources, but Haj's statement should be included.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The book is an edited collection so the citation is incorrect. Would you please give the title of the piece and its author that you wish to cite, rather than just a page number. This is necessary because reliability depends partly upon authorship. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The book in question here does not appear to be focused on this war. Given that the war is the subject of many high quality specialist works, it's hard to see why it's being used as a reference. Recent scholarship on the war should be referenced, not books on more general topics. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I do not have the book, but as far as I know, the piece in question is written by Paul Bogdanor. See page 10 here. "Entirely absent from his mathematical manipulations is a rather pertinent fact: in 1984 these inflated estimates were publicly repudiated by the Lebanese authorities, who announced that “about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion" ". If TTAAC can confirm, it would be good. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Haven't seen anything yet that indicates that this is a scholarly work of history. Could those who want to include the work justify it by that criterion. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow the WashPo is reliable source for General words about the casualties--Shrike (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is too not historian so why he should be used?--Shrike (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fisk is not a historian, of course. But he is a journalist who has covered the middle east for decades and his statements are for now limited to reporting what the Lebanese Police sources and the Red Cross said. Nobody challenges that the Lebanese Police or Red Cross made these statements. The book (Pity the Nation) was published by Oxford University Press. I am happy to include more sources, like the more recent one by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb. As for including the throwaway line in the Washington Post, I will repeat the analogy on the talk page: if you find a throwaway line of unclear meaning claiming that 1 million, not 16 million died in WW1, would you include it? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to give a promotional blurb, but the volume features many distinguished contributors from Efraim Karsh to Irving Louis Horowitz, and many of the articles are collected from journals including World Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, and Azure. Bogdanor has written for the Middle East Quarterly, Judaism, and The Jewish Chronicle among others, although he is certainly not a historian. The Lebanese estimate isn't throwaway material in my view. BTW, Bogdanor also cites The Times on the same day as the Washington Post, which may or may not include more detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1,700 persons were killed in Sabra and Chatila alone (source), so the figure of 1,000 seems to be way off. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An atrocity by a vengeful Christian militia? As the source says, the figure is presumably only counting those killed by Israeli troops.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An update: There is another LA Times source on the same day. It states:

Israeli and UN sources said it was the first time they could remember any Lebanese official using such a figure. Early casualty estimates originating in Lebanon after 1982 invasion put the figure at 15,000. UN sources said it was not clear whether El Haj's figures included the casualties during the seige of Beirut.

I ask any fair-minded person whether such an unclear primary source bears the weight of the claim that is being put upon it in the secondary source, that Lebanese officials have "publicly retracted the earlier figure". If Lebanese sources did withdraw their claim and give a figure 15 times lower than the original, it should be possible to find a better and more serious source for this astonishing claim. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As the LA Times also states, "Israel has long claimed that...about 800 Lebanese civilians were killed during the invasion, excluding deaths during the Beirut siege." The Lebanese figure of 1,000 matches up with the Israeli figures exactly. If the "retracted" phrase is POV-pushing, I will amend the text accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable in this context. There are likely to be other poor quality sources in the article too. Fisk, for example, is a reputed journalist but this is a historical topic and the work of historians should be preferred. if scholars differ include both views. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• @TheTimesAreAChanging: The Israeli claim is already present in the article, this is why I did not quote it. If you want to use the text without the "retracted" phrase, then this is simply a primary source reporting one isolated incident. If this is a notable incident, the correct way to do it would to use secondary sources for it to establish notability.
• @Itsmejudith: As I have said already, Fisk's book is used mostly to report the Red Cross and Lebanese police figures. Nobody doubts that the Red Cross and Lebanese police gave these figures. As everyone (including the Red Cross themselves) recognize, the figures given by them are very unsatisfactory, and this is mentioned in the article. It is very hard to estimate the numbers and there are many estimates. As to your suggestion that other views be included, they already are: I mentioned one other view of 5,000-8,000 civilians killed, which is included. Another source gives about 20,000 total killed, with 5,000 fighters. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to cite a book by Fisk, as opposed to his reportage at the time, please present the details. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I have already given it above. But repeating. Book: Pity the Nation

Sentence as fact: "By the end of the first week, 14 June 1982, International Red Cross and Lebanese police figures claimed that 9,583 had died and 16,608 injured. By the end of the second week, they claimed up to 14,000 people died and 20,000 were injured, mostly civilians." (Fisk pp 255-257)

Sentence with in-text attribution: "Journalist Robert Fisk claims that early Israeli figures for civilian casualties were so low as to be "preposterous", and that afterwards it "issued casualty figures for its own losses but no longer offered figures for the invasion death toll among Lebanese and Palestinians" Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's set the bar much higher. I see very few historians in the references. if only Benny Morris has written at length about the war, then base the article on Benny Morris. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I did not write the article. This is not the place to argue about the whole article, the correct venue is the talk page. The last few comments were only referring to the question which Shrike raised as to why include Fisk and not this other claim. To this I replied: there is no comparison between the two claims here. One is a totally uncontroversial fact widely reported everywhere (that Lebanese and Red Cross sources put the figure at 20,000), and the other is an obscure and totally unsubstantiated claim about one isolated unclear incident where one Lebanese official quoted the figure 1,000. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will be including estimates by Amal Saad-Ghoraeb this article in the article, she gives the figures 19,000 killed and 32,000 wounded. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

She is not historian either not she is an academic if she will be used I don't see why Paul Bagdanor could not be used too.--Shrike (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

She is a political analyst writing in a good journal. Reliable. Paul Bogdanor's work may be reliable in many circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And he is journalist writing in book published in Academic publishing house.Can you explain what the difference here?--Shrike (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this "She is not historian either not she is an academic". Historians are academics. Anyway, Saad-Ghoraeb is a widely cited political scientist on South Lebanon and Hezbollah. Her figures are in line with many other estimates, some of which are cited in the article. Bogdanor's article is not about Lebanon war, he is not an expert talking about the war, this sentence is an isolated sentence in a larger essay discussing Chomsky, and this is an exceptional claim based on unclear sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates of birth/death at Michelle Thomas

One cite currently reads, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found under the name "Michelle Thomas"." Comments would be appreciated. In other words: Are IMDb, Findagrave and "I couldn't find it" reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general understanding is that IMDB is not considered a citable reference, because it is crowdsourced. Find-a-Grave is citable only for a picture of the tombstone. Not finding a death in the SSDI is not uncommon, and means very little (if the dead person never received SS benefits, they may not be in the database). But you can find Michelle Thomas's death reported in the New York Times of 28 December 1998, [27], where we are told she died "on Wednesday", which would have been 23 December 1998, at Sloane-Kettering. - Nunh-huh 05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

African Journal of Disability

Is the African Journal of Disability - http://www.ajod.org - a reputable peer reviewed academic journal? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks just like a normal academic journal, i.e. reputable. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So basically it's neither particularly good nor complete junk? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section of Ello (social network)

Please see discussion about sources on Talk:Ello (social network).--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Include criticism but not in a criticism section. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What ^ they said.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wherever it is, it should be properly sourced. Any comment on the sourcing for the criticisms, which appears to be a blog?--ukexpat (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

icasualties.org

Is this a reliable source for casualty numbers on the War on terror article?

Looks like just a website. Not sure what or who it is citing. What exactly is the content which this is used to suppot? Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a blog site to me but can't tell. It only seems to aggregate news stories from other sources. Here is the content and the reference. I can't actually find in the source which story is supposed to be summarized but my thought is...this is not the source, but the original news story...which ever one that might be. If you could help me figure that out we can check to see if the coverage in the article is accurate per the source and then simply use the news story, agency or media site as the actual source.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)