Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

The Road Company

Is it a realiable source? http://theroadcompany.com/ Simone Jackson (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for what? Describing itself it counts as self-published; there is no authorship for the info about shows. So no. Martinlc (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool.com

I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool is an influential movie review site and has been recognized as such by the likes of The Guardian, the NYT and so on. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

permalink to its use here (footnote 39), since it has been edited out. I'm not sure the story quite supports the assertion in the article (that Roth "discovered" it) but that's a different issue. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Only reliable to the existence of a rumour, not that the rumour is true. No editorial review, checking of content, named authors or sources.Martinlc (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Beuller? Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrey Zubov

Since no one commented previously, I'm reposting my question about this particular source.

In the page Shusha pogrom certain Andrei Zubov is used as a reference to support the claims of the massacre, etc. The whole article has serious neutrality issues, and most sources used are completely unreliable, such as law schools, obscure politologists, etc. However Zubov is claimed to be a historian, but the analysis of the source shows that he is absolutely clueless about what happened in the Caucasus at the time. This is the original Russian text:

Британская администрация почему-то передала населенные армянами уезды Елизаветпольской губернии под юрисдикцию Азербайджана. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней, в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши. Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни, и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. Англичане пытались разъединить армянские и азербайджанские войска. Когда же они ушли из региона, азербайджанская армия была в начале ноября 1919 года полностью разгромлена армянами. Только вмешательство англичан смогло предотвратить поход армянских войск на Елизаветполь и Шемаху. [1]

Translation:

For some reason the British administration placed the Armenian populated uyezds of Elizavetpol gubernia under the Azerbaijani jurisdiction. The British administrator of Karabakh colonel Shuttleworth did not prevent the discrimination of Armenians by the Tatar administration of governor Sultanov. Interethnic tensions resulted in a horrible massacre, in which most Armenians in the town of Shusha perished. Baku parliament refused even to condemn the perpetrators of the Shusha massacre, and the war started in Karabakh. English tried to interfere between the Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, but when they left the region, the Azerbaijani army was completely defeated by the Armenians in early November 1919. Only the interference of the English prevented the march of the Armenian troops to Elizavetpol and Shemakha.

As one could see, this guy has no idea about what actually happened in the region, and when exactly. According to all sources, even those quoted in the article the fighting in Shusha took place in March 1920, when Azerbaijanis celebrated Novruz (precisely, on 22 - 26 March 1920). Zubov says that the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis started after the "massacre" in Shusha, and as result of that the Azerbaijanis were defeated in November 1919, i.e. according to him the "massacre" in Shusha was in 1919, not in 1920. Moreover, he says that the British troops interfered to prevent the Armenian offensive towards Ganja, while in fact the British army left Azerbaijan in August 1919. See for instance these sources:

While the Italians (wisely) never got involved in the Caucasus, the continuing pressure of demobilisation and calls for British troops in other places, forced withdrawals from the region. At the end of August, Baku and the Caspian naval personnel were evacuated. By about mid-October 1919 the only troops remaining in the Caucasus were three infantry battalions at Batum.

Keith Jeffery. Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson: a political soldier. Oxford University Press, 2006

ISBN 0198203586, 9780198203582, p 247

However, the British withdrew from Baku and Azerbaijan in August 1919, and the Soviets took over the Azerbaijan Republic in April 1920.

Andy Stern. Who won the oil wars? Collins & Brown, 2005 ISBN 1843402912, 9781843402916

As one can see, Zubov has no idea what he is talking about. He does not know the basic facts, such as the date of the events in Shusha, the date when the British army left the region, etc. In my opinion, Zubov cannot be considered a reliable source on the topic of events in Shusha in 1920. Grandmaster 10:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what smoke-and-mirrors exercise is going on here (i.e. what facts Grandmaster wants removed from the article by removing the Zubov reference) - nothing is ever what it seems. However, there are not "claims of a massacre", there was a massacre (the article exists to describe the massacre), and the phrase a "certain Andrei Zubov" to characterise the source is objectionable. The translated text mentions nothing about "British troops interfering to prevent the Armenian offensive" (the "interference" could mean political pressure, such as via the Paris Peace Conference), and it does not say that British troops had not left the region by August 1919. There were also several massacres, culminating in the pogram event. The whole article is in a mess - but removing sources for POV reasons is not the way to mend it. Meowy 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the source carefully. The author says that this whole thing took place in 1919, not 1920. He says that after a massacre in Shusha a war started in Karabakh, as result of which the Azerbaijani army was defeated in November 1919. In fact, the event he calls a massacre took place in March 1920, a good historian would know that. So if the "massacre" was in March 1920, how could it result in a war that ended in alleged Azerbaijani defeat in November 1919? And then he says that the British command tried to stop the war, but the British army left the region by 1920. Basically, this source is a total mess, and the author has no knowledge of the events in the region at that time. I don't think it can be considered reliable, since every sentence in that source is inaccurate, and contradicts the known facts, supported by other sources. Grandmaster 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading the source (using google translate). In my opinion the work seems to be written entirely from a Russian viewpoint, and in many places with a strong Russian bias, sometimes laughably biased and straying into paranoia (little wonder Russian historians are not well regarded). But what content are you wanting removed from the article? You claim the source supports claims of a massacre. However, there are not "claims of a massacre" - there was a massacre, and the fact that there was is not in dispute. If all you are wanting removed is the section in the intro with the Zubov quote then why not just remove it. It seems out of place there and serves no purpose. The source seems OK for bare facts, but I don't think it will be suitable where the author is interpreting those facts, and it is not suitable for direct quotes. Meowy 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this source should be used at all, due to its poor quality. If the author does not even know such a basic fact as the date of the event, how could it be considered reliable? Plus, it says lots of other nonsense, such as British interference in fighting after the events in Shusha, while the British army evacuated the region by that time, or Armenian offensive on Shemakha, not reported by any other source (indeed, this could have happened during the March days, when dashnaks completely destroyed the city, but not in 1919 or 1920), says that Andranik led guerrilla war in Karabakh, while Andranik never made it there. The list of mistakes in a very short paragraph is very long, so in my opinion this source is completely unreliable. If there was a massacre, there should be no problem with finding reliable third party sources to support the claim. This one is not such a source. Grandmaster 07:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"If there was a massacre". So you are saying the whole article is a fake, there were no massacre, no pogrom, and the whole entry should be deleted? The smoke and mirrors are lifted. Meowy 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the article lacks reliable sources. Grandmaster 11:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Grandmaster's POV, the cited article is quite vague - first the Brits leave, then they reappear... still, if you want to make the public believe that there might any errors in the passage, then each should be dealt one by one, with factual evidence. There is nothing unusual in that one "defeated" army eradicates its opponent on the next day (remember what happened to Asian Greeks in 1922 and where was Greek army in 1921? good). So the question is, have there been any clashes between Armenians and Azeris in 1919? Anything? NVO (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The clashes between Armenians and Azeris started in 1918, and never ceased until the Bolshevik takeover of the region. But the problem with this source is that the author is not much knowledgeable on the subject. The Armenian uprising in Shusha and the ensuing violence was in March 1920. All the sources agree about, including Azerbaijani and Armenian ones. Zubov says something strange. He says that Azeris massacred Armenians for no reason in Shusha, and Azerbaijani parliament refused to condemn that, after which a war started in Karabakh, British interfered to stop the war, but then they left, and after that Armenians defeated Azerbaijanis in November 1919. The author believes that the fighting in Shusha occurred in 1919, since the war in Karabakh started after Azerbaijani parliament's refusal to condemn the massacre in Shusha, and as result of that war Azerbaijani army was defeated in November 1919. But it is a general knowledge that events in Shusha took place in March 1920. And if Zubov means that the war was in 1920, then there was no British army in the region after August 1919. However according to Zubov the British interfered twice, they miraculously reappear after November 1919 to prevent the Armenian army's offensive on Shemakha. In my opinion, this source is highly unreliable. As far as I know, Zubov used to be an expert on Thailand, and he switched to the Russian history in 1990s. I don't know how good he is as a specialist in the Russian history, but he has no profound knowledge of the history of South Caucasus. Therefore I think that Zubov should not be used at all in the articles concerning the region, due to many factual mistakes that he makes and his contradiction to known facts. Grandmaster 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tacosort

Recently, an article I had created about the tacosort sorting algorithm was deleted for a lack of reliable sources. However, since the deletion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology included this in their dictionary of data structures and algorithms in this article: [2]. Would this constitute a reliable source and be grounds to recreate the article using this new information? Mbernard707 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's a start. In general you need multiple independent sources. So one more would probably do it. You really should be able to get this published at SIGCSE in 2010 as student research. That with the NIST source would be enough for me (though I'm pretty darn inclusive and care a lot about the area). I also suggest you work on your analysis of the algorithm. It looked wrong when I looked it over, but I wasn't sure. (CS prof am I). http://www.cs.arizona.edu/groups/sigcse09/ Hobit (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• What is the criteria for inclusion in the dictionary? Is it just sending an email to Paul Black? As you appear to be the creator of the algorithm, and as you appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your work, I strongly suggest that you wait until you have many solid sources before recreating it. 98.122.180.107 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The site is part of NIST and has significant editorial control. Could be viewed as a SPS, but really I'd say it is at least the equiv. of a Washington Post blog by one of the columnists. Not enough by itself, but reliable IMO. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in)

You should probably build up a paragraph on Tacosort within an article on sorting algorithms instead of a separate article. I've been on too many AFDs that went bad even when sources were being found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are UN affiliated orgs reliable sources?

I would like to get some clarification on whether or not documents published by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (specifically this document) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (specifically this document) are WP:RS' in the context of a debate over how to describe the Israeli locality of Ramot. An editor at Talk:Ramot seems to be suggesting that precedence should be given to "mainstream, neutral, English-language sources" rather than those from "other organizations". It is my belief that these UN affiliated organizations are mainstream English-language sources (I'd also argue that they are neutral but that's really irrelevant since NPOV does not preclude expressing POVs that are properly attributed) and do in fact constitute high quality RS's. Could someone take a look see and offer their thoughts? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that "Palestinian Rights" groups can't be neutral due to their declared mission statement. This is even more of an issue when referring to Israeli matters and I'm not even going deeply into improprieties such as several of them (including the UN ones) having militants on the payroll[3] or that they purposely keep Palestinians and their -- now 4th generation -- descendants under the "refugee" status for 60+ years. I can't follow the suggestion of them being neutral in the raised context and I have to agree that precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning against both Israeli and Palestinian rights under the pretense of being a "Palestinian Rights" group.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. What other sources do we have on the locality that you insist on these sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly a political argument, Jaakobou; it's irrelevant to what Wikipedia's policy requires, as set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. I note from our article on the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights that it "is a part of the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat." It's clearly not simply a "UN-affiliated organisation" as Tiamut (I think mistakenly) suggests, it's part of the United Nations Secretariat itself, which is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is headed by the UN Secretary General. In other words, the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights is a core element of the UN, not some sort of affiliated group. It's under the direct supervision of the Secretary General. I think we would assume as a matter of course that the UN Secretariat was a reliable source. We certainly would not reject material from other UN Secretariat divisions solely because someone had a political objection to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying that for me ChrisO. I wasn't aware that the Division for Palestinian Rights was such an integral UN division. In any case, a very good mainstream, English-language source that is a secondary source (i.e. discussing usage of the term "settlement") was (re-)brought to my attention by NSH001 and is being discussed at the centralized discussion page for this mammoth issue (which ressembles in many ways the issue in the current Arbcomm proceedings). Until NSH001 brought it to the table, we were dealing largely with primary sources (i.e. those using the terms only). Now I'm quite sure that others will accede to what is expressed in this high quality RS (It's the BBC style guide for their reporting). Still, its good to know that these UN sources are generally considered reliable. Tiamut^talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

You make a notable point but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to my raised concerns. This concern, btw, is not just my own political one, but a general argument repeated by a number of bodies. It's not a new issue that the UN has several bodies that are inherently anti-Israeli and the recent "Durban 2" shindig is just one of many "UN sanctioned" examples. For example, has this "Palestinian Rights" UN-body ever issued any statements against the deportation/ethnic-cleansing of 400,000 Palestinians from Kuwait?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but that's an explicitly political argument. WP:V excludes political arguments from consideration. A source may say things with which you disagree, but that's where WP:NPOV comes in: you can use a reliable source to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views", but you can't simply exclude a source on the grounds that you don't like what it says. You can use the source to represent the UN viewpoint, if you wish, but I don't think you would have any grounds to exclude it altogether simply because you consider it to be "inherently anti-Israeli". Lots of sources are anti-something or pro-something else, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to point the policies to me as I actually never meant that it should be completely excluded. If you note, my first comment is that "precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning". I also took interest in what other options we have on the material. As a side note, I point out that I supported the use of a "pro-Israeli" advocacy organization when (a) the content was verified to the point where there's no reason to believe anything was mistreated, and (b) no quality, neutral replacement was found. The source wasn't used for language though, so I'm not sure this one fits entirely. I don't object to have all notable POVs represented though.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it isn't our sources that are required to be neutral, it's us as Wikipedia editors. NPOV is about dealing with "conflicting verifiable perspectives". We don't exclude sources because someone considers them to be biased - we use them to represent significant verifiable viewpoints, writing a neutral article that summarises "multiple or conflicting perspectives". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I understand the policies quite well, thank you. To be frank, I don't follow why you're "lecturing" me here as I've not advocated the censorship of notable perspectives (have I?). I have accumulated a reasonable level of experience on this project and it would be nice to have some of the people I sometimes work with assume a bit of good faith. To be a bit blunt, there's a couple other editors on this thread who habitually violate NPOV and I'm simply not one of them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, your rationale could be used to disqualify any pro-Israeli group due to their "declared mission statements" and employment of figures from within the Israeli government and/or military... Is this really your point of view?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2009 12:40

There is no comparison, Pedrito, and I disagree with your perception of the issue. For starters, I'd support disqualifying pro-Israeli advocacy groups that have numerous terrorists on their payroll. Secondly, which "pro-Israeli" groups are you referring to exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that UNDPR would, in general, be a reliable source for use on wikipedia. Note though that the document linked in the first post is a a media review containing abstracts of media reports in the region. Searching for Ramot in the page, I found the following quote:

Israeli bulldozers started to raze agricultural land in the village of Beit Hanina At-Tahta located near the "Ramot" settlement north of Jerusalem for the construction of the separation wall. Israeli forces prevented villagers from approaching their land after having declared the area a closed military zone.

— Ma'an News Agency

If this is the bit we plan to cite, it should attributed to the Ma'an News Agency and not quoted as UNDPR's position. Abecedare (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on using this particular source for this particular issue given that a secondary source discussing usage of the terms has been found. I would note that while I generally agree with what you are saying here, UN sources all use "settlement" to refer to Israeli localities in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line without any hesitation. There is also no indication that this is a direct quote from Ma'an News Agency. Having worked on media summaries like this previously, I can tell you that they are paraphrased and that in general the terminology used reflects that preferred by the organization doing the summarizing. But your detailed reading and analysis is still very much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not represent the crux of the issue. Putting aside whether advocacy organizations are reliable sources (they should not be, and clearly there's no consensus that they are), the question is whether these orgs' terms are given greater precedence then the terms employed by international mainstream news sources. The readers are probably well aware, but what's behind this thread is the debate in the article Ramot whether it should be described as a "settlement" or a "neighborhood". The only sources that use the word "settlement" are the UN-affiliated orgs and Ma'an News Agency, a PA affiliated news source. The other mainstream sources, NY Times, LA Times, BBC all use the term "neighborhood" and never use the term "settlement" when describing the area. So even if were to accept that these terms employed by these orginizations are somewhat reliable, their terms never trump the terms used by mainstream international news organizations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please see this extensive discussion of the question from 6 weeks ago. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, imho, the lead of Ramot does a good job in a NPOV manner of informing the reader that Israel and the United States don't like to refer to it as a settlement. When sources are in dispute, we report the dispute. That's what the article does. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.

Likeminas (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Authoritative"? Yes. "Inerrant"? No. Sometimes some sources are wrong. If you can't figure out which are which, word it something like "It is unknown whether Boliva declared war on Chile", and explain the problem on the talkpage. If somebody figures it out, the article will be improved. If nobody can, then that's the best representation of the events that can be. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources also say that Bolivia declared war on Child, including Erik Goldstein's "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991" and others found here and here. I have to think that those sources can be at least used to say at the very least something like "Bolivia is reported to have declared war on ..."... John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't use "is reported". Either you are sure, then state the fact (with source), or almost sure (source with attribution), or present both positions, with attribution to the sources.  Cs32en  23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest checking through these: [4] Concentrate on the works published by reputable academic publishers – University Presses, Greenwood Publishing, Routledge imprints, etc. For what it's worth, this book, published by a research unit associated with Durham University, states that Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879. But check through at least a couple of dozen reputable works; if there are differences of opinion on the facts among the most reliable sources, include and attribute both versions. Jayen466 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For international relations, this often will not work. Both sides (or all of the various sides) often have the resources to sponsor peer-reviewed research, encyclopedia etc.  Cs32en  23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war so I don't even know if they exist. But, when sources DO conflict, we don't throw up our hands and say it's unknown, rather, we simply report what the various sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. But that is a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are books (in Spanish) written by mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians that claim Bolivia passed several decrees against Chilean interests in the region, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war. Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one Chilean source in there that seems supportive of the claim Bolivia did not declare war but rather simply took highly aggressive actions. However, they do tend to be mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians. The vast majority of what could be called "neutral" sources tend to favor the idea that Bolivia did declare war but, as we all should know, "neutral" does not equal "accurate" or "knowledgeable" and therefore sometimes they can be vague sources that do not provide as much information that is necessary to serve as verification. From my perspective, using a vague source to certify what is supposed to be describing something important is by no means correct.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both) It would be very helpful, if rather than just stating that these sources exist, you actually identified them. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta is a reliable tertiary source but it's also a competing encyclopedia so we should see if other sources are available. Globalsecurity.org originated from the Federation of American Scientists and is very well-respected. Onwar.com I wasn't familiar with, but from searching for it on Google Books it looks adequate. Try for more book sources for the declaration of war. If they conflict on the exact date you can say "early March" and cite them all with the exact date in the footnotes. If the sources conflict on whether a formal declaration of war was made then dig deeper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote from user Arafael, which argues the opposing view of the argument (I'm attempting to be the "neutral" third party between him and Likeminas), which is the one in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March: "Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [5] of March 1: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [6] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [7] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [8] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [9] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [10] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [11] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [12]."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The books that Arafael presents look to be reliable sources. All of them make specific mention of the decree of March 1st, citing the aggressive actions taken by the Bolivian government, but none of them make mention of a declaration of war. If a war was indeed declared during that time or due to that decree, then it seems obvious to me that they would have had to make mention of it (A declaration war cannot be simply "skipped" as it is highly important). Now, I'm currently not an expert at these things (even though I eventually plan to be) of evaluating sources as reliable, but it seems to me that there is also a strong and verifiable position in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March. Even if "neutral" sources tend to claim otherwise, sometimes they are not correct even if they think that they are correct. However, since the lot of you here are more experienced at this, do you think that the sources provided by Arafael are reliable? (Because if they are not, then this whole argument would be done and dead).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. It seems that no reliable sources exist that dispute this. Rather, we have Wikipedia editors who are reaching this conclusion, based on their own interpretation and analysis of sources. Lacking sources that actually state that Bolivia did not declare war, we must simply state what the sources say. Sources that don't mention the absence of a declaration of war certainly could not be used to assert the viewpoint that Bolivia did not declare war. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is there an WP:OR problem if in the first source that Arafael provided, it states: "Declaración de ruptura de comunicaciones con Chile y embargo de propiedades de súbditos chilenos." Roughly translated to: "Declaration of Rupture in Communications with Chile and Embargo of Chilean Properties." This the declaration of March 1st that allegedly is the declaration of war of Bolivia. There is no Original Research when the title of the decree, and the information within the decree, essentially make no mention of war. The other sources, which explain what happened on March 1st, also make no mention of a declaration of war. How is this "our" (I say "our" because I'm defending Arafael's point, please remember that I'm just trying to figure out the truth of the matter as a good 3rd party editor would) "interpertation and analysis" of sources? Have you not read them yourself?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. If a source says that Bolivia did not declare war, then we can report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. If a source does not say that Bolivia did not declare war, we can not report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. I have nothing further to say about the matter. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then, since the sources that Arafael have provided do state that Bolivia took aggressive measures during the declaration of March the 1st and make no mention of no war, then we can and should report that "according to Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean historians that analysed the Bolivian government's decree of March 1st, Bolivia took aggressive measures against the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory, but make no mention of a declaration of war." Having said that, it is neither stated that Bolivia declared or did not declare war on that date, all that is stated (as the sources verify) is that there is no mention of a declaration of war. Since it has also been agreed that the sources are reliable, then there is no problem with them. Oh, and by the way, does your "I have nothing further to say about the matter" mean that you read or did not read the sources? (You seem to have forgotten that question).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"

• Chilean source [13]. Historian Guillermo Lagos Carmona. History of the borders of Chile.
• Bolivian source [14]. Diplomat and historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizón. The occupation of Antofagasta.
• Peruvian source [15]. Historian Atilio Sivirichi. History of Peru

Arafael (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s been my point from the very beginning.

Sice I’m not a historian I don’t know whether these sources are 100% correct or not.

What I do know, is that they are reliable and they state a point I want to reference. That’s all.

To me it seems, Arafael and (now MarshalN20) are adding their own interpretations to the story. It also looks like the interpretation version is the minority point of view.

In any case, please let’s continue the discussion on the talk page.

Likeminas (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the ball and go home just yet. There's a simpler issue that's still answerable here on RSN. We have some sources that say a declaration of war happened. We have other sources that say some action other than a formal declaration of war happened. But those don't necessarily contradict. It's possible something got lost in translation, and it's also possible the process of "declaring" war worked differently in the Spanish colonies ( Napoleonic Code ) than in systems based on English law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to magnify the issue by saying "Sources A,B,C say war was declared, but Sources D and E say it wasn't. But what you can do, when using the Spanish-language sources for fine detail, is to put "declaration of rupture" and other alternative terms in quotes. Using so-called "scare quotes" says that there may or may not be some subtle difference, but doesn't actually come out and create a false dichotomy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Squidfryerchef. Likeminas has apparently "taken the ball and gone home" already, but I still would like to reply to what you have stated and to what Arafael has just posted for us above. In the first source provided by Arafael, [16], from what I understood it seems that the Bolivian government understood the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory (without an actual prior declaration of war) as a declaration of war. What followed was that the Bolivian government made the March 1st decree (which was not a declaration of war either), which the Chilean government understood as a declaration of war; which prompted Chile to oficially declare war first. This is what, to me, is the truth. However, I do agree that this is my own original research, but I feel it in my guts that this is what truly happened.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, since WP:OR is not correct to use (at least not until I become a certified historian), I also agree with your statement of "declaration of rupture" (which is what the Bolivian government declared, essentially). Still, by examining the next two sources provided by Arafael, [17] and [18], they basically state (in clear statements) that the Chilean government took the Bolivian decree as a declaration of war when it wasn't one. Allow me to post the specific information here:

"Y no fue ese país sino Bolivia la que emitió un decreto interno que posteriormente se lo interpretó como una verdadera declaratoria de guerra." (From Diario La Razon). Translation: "And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war."

"Bolivia se limito a declarar el 1 de Marzo, cortadas las relaciones con Chile, decretando la expulsion de los chilenos. Este hecho, habilmente fue interpretado por el gobierno chileno, como [...]" (From History of Peru). Translation: "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, skillfully interpreted by the Chilean government, as [...]." What follows in the [...] is, obviously, that the Chilean government interpreted the declaration as a war statement, which the source basically says that it was not.

In other words, these two sources that were presented agree with and directly state (In other words, no WP:OR in this case) that the Bolivian decree of March 1st was not a declaration of war.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The text follows: [19]. Arafael (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Audrey magazine

Is Audrey magazine a generally reliable source? (It appears to be borderline gossip mag) Particularly for this quote from an interview in the article Freida Pinto: Pinto states that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. Sung, Helena. [[20] "Destiny's Child"]. Audrey Magazine (February - March 2009). Retrieved 2009-04-29. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)

Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's appropriate to use a celebrity magazine for articles about celebrities, especially if it's an interview with the celebrity and theyre on the cover page. I looked the magazine over and it doesnt look too sensationalistic to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox News website reliable source?

Is the Fox News website a reliable source? I am editing the Human Rights and the United States page and another editor wishes to use this Fox News article as a source for the number of times waterboarding was used on detainees: Article here. I am happy to use the ICRC report linked to in the article, but I am not sure about the testimony from the un-named "US official". I would also question the reliability and credibility of Fox News generally, but not sure of its acceptability on Wikipedia. Pexise (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean foxnews.com? Yes, it is a reliable source. National news service. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In broadcast media, I think that applies more to the news programming than the talk programming, because individual commentators are of course separate. I tend to think Fox News is generally counted as doing as much fact-checking as any of the other major broadcast media, so I'm guessing they do qualify as a reliable source. That isn't saying that a source from, say, the Guardian or the New York Times might not be a better source, but I have to think Fox News is counted as reliable enough to qualify. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times article simply reports what is stated in the footnote of the previously classified memo. The footnote is viewable here: http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=121. As for the Fox News article, I suppose there would be nothing wrong with using it to verify a statement that Fox News disagrees with the CIA about how many times the CIA waterboarded detainees. Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article explains in detail why the numbers disagree, explaining different usages of the word "waterboard" - the question being what counts as an instance of "waterboarding". Foxnews should be regarded as reliable but care needs to be taken in using this particular article to explain what is meant when one says a terrorist was "waterboarded n times". Readin (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, that would be giving undue weight to Fox News' fringe view that they know better than the CIA what the CIA did. Nothing wrong with noting the fact that Fox News has this fringe viewpoint, however. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For our purposes, Fox News is a reliable source and is perfectly acceptable. I think the real question here is what happens when reliable sources disagree with each other? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot that Fox News cant be considered a more reliable source than the CIA on what the CIA did or didnt do. I'm not a big supporter of "verifiable trumps the truth" (see: User talk:Camelbinky) but in this case it doesnt matter if Foxnews.com or whatever IS correct, the CIA should be the most considered the ultimate source that trumps all news reports or opinions on what the CIA does/did. And of course commentators or other non-news programs on Fox or the website (Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and Bill O'Reilly) are NOT reliable sources no matter how many (or few as the case may be) people agree with them, same goes for Lou Dobbs on CNN. Remember that the wikipedia guidelines and policies on the matter of reliable sources does state that a source must be reliable on THE PARTICULAR TOPIC IN DISCUSSION, it is therefore not acceptable just to say "well Fox is just as reliable as any other news agency and is a reliable source in general therefore a reliable source this time and everytime", they MUST be a reliable source on this topic. They simply cant be considered reliable or as reliable as the CIA on knowing how many times the CIA waterboarded! Fox was not there with cameras and reporters everytime the CIA waterboarded they simply cant know, and one must assume the CIA does, even though the CIA may be lying.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a conflict of interest about what the CIA claims about what the CIA did? I would think that for an issue such as this, the CIA is only reliable for what the CIA says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in a classified memo that they never thought would see the light of day. Dlabtot (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even still, reliable sources are defined as being third-party sources. This is a first-party source. The memo itself is only reliable for what the CIA says. So I would not directly cite the document for a direct statement of fact. That is to say that is there a difference between the following two sentences:

• "The CIA says it waterboarded X number of times."

...and...

• "The CIA waterboarded X number of times."

The memo only supports the former, but not the latter. If you want to write the latter, I would simply attribute it to a different third party WP:RS such as [21] which do contain third-party, statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this Fox News article, the more it looks like 'spin' than an actual news report. The whole article is a refutation of the claim that there were 183 waterboarding 'sessions' - a claim made by no one. See my comments at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#ICRC_Report_2. Dlabtot (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wondered that myself. It almost reads more like an opinion piece. Personally when I add content to an article, I always ask myself whether a source would survive a challenge on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If I'm not fairly sure it will pass muster, I won't use it. The possibility that this particular article might be an opinion piece or that it hasn't gone through the normal editorial review process creates enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't use it. I'd try to find a more solid cite. But again, that's just me.

So to clarify my earlier answer: Is Fox News a reliable source in general? Yes, of course. Is this particular article a reliable source? I think so, but I don't know so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify: I agree with Red Pen's comment that "If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean Fox News produced something with spin?! WOW! No way, must be a mistake. They are "fair and balanced" and have a "no spin zone". No but really- Fox News shouldnt be considered a reliable news source on anything politically based.Camelbinky (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. When it comes to politics, or any topic that conservative politicians might have an agenda on, FOX News is only a reliable source for the opinion pushed in their broadcasts but nothing like a reliable source for what really happens anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox news puts us in a pickle. As does huffington post. Both entities have named authors on the byline, they have editorial staff, they state that fact checking is performed and they are (as has been said above) national news services. Both organizations have seats at the press briefing room in the white house. Both organizations run a mix of reported material and opinion and are usually clear when a piece is obviously one thing or obviously another. So, if we play the straight man, both sources are reliable. They can technically be used to support 99% of all claims made in our articles...

But hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors. Both Fox and Huffpo (among other "news" sources ranging from the unreliable to the fairly reliable) are relentlessly partisan and while they distinguish pure opinion from reported material, their editorial slant sneaks in to reportage constantly. Apart from the obvious bias involved with selection of content (which thankfully isn't too big a deal with us), presentation of facts, use of data and couching of spin will push left for huffpo and right for Fox. Far enough for either organization that I would be hesitant to use them as sources unless I really had to.

So my 'official' recommendation is "Of course Fox News is a reliable source". My recommendation for the personal practice of editors is that the fewer contentious claims we source to organizations like Huffpo or FNC the better. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Fox News doesn't put us in a pickle. We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. We do this all the time even for sources that are much more partisan than Fox. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef. Probably at least half of all users on wikipedia have a political preference in real life (though it would be pretty neat to somehow poll a good cross-section of editors on their preferences and see how it breaks down on political vs. non-political and their leanings left or right and how strongly, though I dont know how that would be done), and those that lean liberal would be more inclined to call Fox News on their bullshit and those that lean conservative probably wouldnt have Fox News' bullshit show up on their radar, and vice versa for a liberal equivalent though none come to mind... :-) So stating that "hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors" is a nice sentiment but unfortunately whenever politics injects even a little on a source our bs detectors arent all calibrated the same way and "some" of us dont have functioning brains. Example- the news reporter, I dont remember if she was affiliated with Fox News or not, that called the "fist bump" used by Obama and his wife a "terrorist fist bump", she was "reporting" the news, not being an opinion or commentator she was a reporter, and how many people with "functioning" brains (ie- they can breathe and walk) probably still believe that it was a sign of terrorist sympathy? And now think to yourself- those people can and do edit on wikipedia, maybe even that same reporter edits on here.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what putting us in a pickle does. We are forced to be overly literal and constrained in citing sourced like fox or huffpo due to their various biases (both acknowledged and unacknowledged). The unspoken contradiction here is that the judgment and volition required to do that is exactly what WP:RS is supposed to supplant. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that is where I disagree with alot (and they might very well be the majority, but I like think we are split equally) of wikipedians, I dont believe that WP:RS is supposed to "supplant" judgement and consensus and discussion. Many editors think what we are doing right now, discussing and having a debate, is something to be feared or its "drama", or something to avoid through the use of set "rules". I think friendly discussion leading to consensus is good and healthy (and yes people will lose and be upset, oh well, that's not drama, that's bad sportsmanship). I've proposed several days ago, and am sure it wont succeed, that wikipedia: policies and guidelines be ammended to have a sentence or two saying "Quoting policies and guidelines is never a substitution for discussion and consensus building". Basically, this is getting off-point. But I dont think it is a contradiction to use wp:common sense and say "Fox News is not reliable in the sphere of the political", our "rules" here in wikipedia are living and changing and evolving things based on consensus and common sense and community building and should be applied not by the letter of the policy or guideline but by the intent and spirit of what the policy on RS is. That is why this noticeboard exists, so that the community may apply RS in whatever manner in which the community wishes at this particular moment, otherwise it would be a quote-fest of "rules".Camelbinky (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a bad thing. I am of the opinion that wikipedia editors are engaged in constant willful ignorance about the creative function of article editing. To read OR (even the parts that make sense) and interpret it correctly is to conclude that discussions like this and decisions to carefully weigh specific sources or make tough content decisions are proscribed. There is some feeling that we don't put forward new research or thought but somehow out comes a neutral, factual and engaging resource. Occasionally some limp response is given, asserting that we are just neutrally summarizing published research in proportion to its influence in the world...if you don't see a half-dozen things wrong with that sentence you should turn in your critical thinking card. :) I think that RS, NOR, PSTS and so forth are good general guides, but that the truth is we select among sources based on our obscured expertise, there is a significant author function in editing, and discussions like this serve as good checks against silliness. Some of that is acknowledged as the "wiki way" (especially the notion of countervailing opinions on a contentious subject resulting in neutral prose...a contention that has been disproven a dozen times over in the last 8 years). Some of it is unacknowledged or steadfastly denied. All that said, I do prefer using sources where the frictions you and I are discussing never come up. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. Perhaps, but not necessarily. Just because Fox News qualifies broadly as a RS, doesn't mean that what they say on a particular topic belongs in that topic's article. Editors must not only weigh WP:UNDUE, they must use editorial judgement and not inject spin into an encyclopedia article simply because it was published in a source that meets our broad WP:RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AMEU

Just wondered; is Americans for Middle East Understanding a WP:RS? See http://www.ameu.org/index.asp Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to this. I wouldn't characterize it as an 'unreliable source', but it's not a reliable citation to support that sentence. The source does not say that The majority of the survivors and their descendants reside in Ramallah. Dlabtot (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• The American Thinker refers to it as "an innocuous-sounding group that is actually a harshly anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian organization..." bias: [22] One only needs to Google it to appreciate that it is an advocacy group for the Palestinians and a platform for anti-Zionist, anti-Israel propaganda. The relationship between bias and reliability is an issue, but if we do not use Israel advocacy groups or Zionist organisations for contentious issues in the I-P conflict area, why would we use this one? Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of bias are irrelevant. We assume all sources to have a bias. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but there's a tendency for lack of reliability among anti-Zionist advocacy groups from the Arab World. Is there a special reason to think that this group has a history for fact checking ? (sample: [23]) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. it might be worth clarifying that I have no knowledge on this group but that, best I'm aware, self-published non-experts are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not self-published. It is a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

Hello, one of the contributors in Republic of China is using the sources below as a basis for some of his edits. In particular, he wants to put in the article that Nanjing is the de jure capital of the ROC. However, some of us argue that these sources are not acceptable since they all take their content from Wikipedia (see the small prints at the bottom of the pages). There are no sources other than these five links, which he keeps bringing them to the discussion. So are these sources considered reliable per Wikipedia's criteria? Laurent (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

They clearly are not. Mirrorsites and sites that take their information from Wikipedia are not reliable source, and those sites clearly state the information is taken straight from Wikipedia. It's not even one of those iffy sources where you think old non-sourced info shows up on another site and later when that site is used as a source here you think- "well, did the info come from them originally and then was put on wikipedia, or was the information on wikipedia first and they got the information from us?" You cant skirt the policy on not using wikipedia as a source simply by using a mirror source.Camelbinky (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that is absolutely correct. Those sources can't be used. Why would anyone think you could use a copy of an article as a source for the article? Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. He has now found this source on encyclopdia.com: [29]. I suppose this one is fine as it doesn't seem to come from Wikipedia? Laurent (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though you may want to do some digging and make sure the Columbian Encyclopedia that the website is "quoting" is legit and reliable. But at face value it looks fine.Camelbinky (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New Man magazine - extremist and fringe?

We have a dispute with User:Hrafn on the use of New Man magazine to cite the following three statements in Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum.

• The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998.
• The museum also bases the Mount Blanco fossil excavation team who go on "digs" and investigate fossil evidence according to a creationist view.
• He became interested in fossils after cleaning and preparing bones at the La Brea tar pits, and made a 10-foot-by-40-foot casting of the Waco, Texas mammoth site, now on exhibit at Baylor University. He returned to Texas in 1984, to make a living as a fossil collector and mold-maker.

Removing the source, Hrafn wrote "New Man is not RS per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources". I looked it up (wrote our article about it yesterday, in fact), and New Man has been around since 1994, with between 100,000 and 400,000 subscribers in all regions of the United States and in Canada, it has separate editors, writers, and publishers. It's a Christian magazine, originally affiliated with Promise Keepers, but not particularly an extreme one. The New York Times has written about it a few times, but never called it extremist.

Now Hrafn writes "... the article in question is rabidly creationist. Creationism is widely acknowledged as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, lacking any scientific merit. Ergo Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies." The article in question is:

• "God's Bone Hunter", by Terry P. Beh, May/Jun 2000, New Man.

At no point does the article affirm creationism, other than stating that is the point of view of Joe Taylor, founder of the museum. It calls him courageous and says he has a strong faith in God, but surely that's not the same as affirming his views - being courageous does not make you right. Instead, the article says "even the Christian scientific community has backed away from this evidence". I don't believe that's "rabidly creationist", and, I don't think it is either in the letter or the spirit of WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources to forbid it as a source for the above three not particularly controversial statements.

Hrafn isn't bringing up any evidence on his side, but does keep reverting. He did, however, suggest we come here (not quite in those words :-)). So, here we are. Our discussion is on the article talk page, Talk:Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum#New Man as a source. What do you think, folks? --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is transparently pro-creationist, but that does not mean it is unreliable as a source for biographical information about the museum's founder. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New Man magazine is clearly Creationist. However, I agree with Paul, for these specific claims it is ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that an article/magazine that is so blatantly & uncritically regurgitating Taylor's position is likewise unlikely to fact-check Taylor's claims about his biographical details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to say it, but WP:RS are supposed to be third-party. Can't you find better sources for this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is thoroughly third party. New Man is a US national (+Canada) publication, based in Florida, not affiliated with Taylor's small museum in Texas. All they share is a rather large country and a rather popular religion. While the article is nice to Taylor, it doesn't specifically advocate his views, and, as mentioned above, states that not all other Christians do either. In my research about New Man for the New Man article, I've never seen them called Creationist. The assumption here seems to be that Christian = Creationist, which isn't really so - most Americans are Christians, but relatively few are Creationists. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the presumption would be that Biblically literalist Christian = Creationist. That Beh is taking a creationist slant is clear from his use of the term "evolutionist", his scare-quotes around "experts", "150 years of evolutionary hype", the "cone of silence" claim of censorship of creationism, his fawning eulogising of Taylor as "courageously daring to do their own primary research and are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared." This is not legitimate or neutral journalism, it is a blatantly creationist puff-piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I thought he was afiliated with the magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Do either of these help? [30] [31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The first one requires a subscription which I don't have, while I think you'll see the second one is already used as a source for what it covers. Thanks, though. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A source that we're already using [32] states that the museum opened in 1998, Taylor is a creationist and is located in Crosbyton. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. (I wrote the article. :-)) That first statement is easy to source, even to the museum's site if necessary. The other two, though, I think are useful to the article, and I suspect strongly will be deleted by Hrafn without it. They're simple not very controversial statements, but there are people who will do what they can to delete absolutely every statement not strictly sourced, no matter how innocuous. Here's the sort of information Hrafn deletes as unsourced: [33]. Though there are multiple other references for the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum article, the New Man article is the longest single source. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The USA Today article [34] I mentioned earlier can be used to establish that this is a creationist museum. So, can we agree the first sentence is covered?

Sure. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the last two sentences, there's no way this [35] is a WP:RS. I wouldn't trust it for biographical information either. Hrafn's concern is well-founded. However, you can use this article for some of the biographical information [36]. It looks like lubbockonline.com has covered this quite a bit. I recommend doing a little more research and rewriting those two sentences to fit what lubbockonline.com says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that, please? Notice that the two RS/N people commenting immediately before you have disagreed, so "no way" seems overly strong. What makes you not only sure, but categorical? --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to.

• "What does this guy have to say that has evolutionists running scared?" Evolutionist is a term used by creationists and rarely used today in the scientific community.
• "For decades these "experts" have told us that dinosaurs roamed the earth for eons" Note the use of scare quotes around the word "experts" to imply doubt in the credibility of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists.
• "threatening long-cherished views of evolution" Threatening? Nonsense. There is no serious debate in the scientific community regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. Nor is there any kind of threat. The evidence supporting evolution is vast and overwhelming. In terms of validity, evolutionary theory is on par cellular theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps even more so than relativity since scientists haven't been able to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. Anyway, see our article on Evidence of evolution.
• "Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, after more than 150 years of evolutionary hype" So 150 years of scientific research and experimentation are being dismissed as nothing more than hype?
• "the 'cone of silence' that has surrounded all opposing facts and ideas" Cone of silence? Is New Man Magazine honestly proposing some sort of conspiracy theory about scientists actively suppressing legitimate scientific research?
• "is beginning to be broken by men like Joe Taylor" Which peer-reviewed, scientific journals has Taylor been published in?
• "are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared" The fossil record is one of the most powerful sources of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. See Evidence_of_evolution#Extent_of_the_Fossil_Record.
• "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." More nonsense. There are plenty of transitional fossils. See our list of transitional fossils.

Need I go on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well put. OK, I'll see if the article can live without this source. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I posted a Google search link at that article's talk page. I think you'll be able to get a lot (but maybe not all) the biographical information you want from those sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the argument, I just felt those details were pretty innocuous so long as they were clearly attributed (now, that I should have said -- you write things like that saying 'the magazine' or so and so, or an article, said thus and thus). But if it had called him 'Dr', or 'archaeologist', yeah, dubious. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quest For Knowledge is mistaken that the phrase about "this lack of missing links" is nonsense. If there is a lack of missing links, that must mean that the links have been found: a view in line with mainstream science! Also, a cone of silence is a completely fictional thing. Either the New Man's author writes very confused prose, or he is subtly satirising the bias he is required to express. However, there is no doubt that the article is very very biassed, but that does not mean that the journal is not as reliable as others as a source for uncontroversial biographical information. One can find biassed, distorted reporting on politics in much mainstream journalism. Paul B (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I think it's sloppy journalism. If you look at the rest of the sentence, it says "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." Subtle satire? I think that's giving them too much credit. Sloppy journalism is just another reason why this isn't a reliable source. Also, keep in mind that reliable sources are those that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does New Man Magazine have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? If so, on what basis? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty serious problem with the New Man references being replaced with citations to different newspapers. There's a couple places that are now tagged as unreferenced that were clearly backed up by the New Man article ( about the La Brea tar pits and returning to Texas ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite bad journalism and stupidity and just plainly being scientifically incorrect the New Man journal IS reliable when it comes to the point of referencing what the museum's intention and goals and the founder's views are. Wikipedia guidelines on reliability are clear that every source is not just "reliable" or "unreliable" but instead each source must be reliable on the topic it is being used as a referenced for. As a source referencing scientific and correct thinking on evolution and geology and science it is fringe and unacceptable. As a source saying what the museum has, does, and believes it is reliable, it has no reason to lie about what the museum believes seeing as how it agrees with the museum. Reliable magazines such as Popular Science, Discover, and National Geographic are reliable on science and evolution but would probably be biased and unreliable on what that particular museum believes, I have read some very strong language in those very articles against creationists that isnt exactly neutral and unbiased. It is all subjective. If there are actual TRUE facts about the museum (not commentary on evolution) in the New Man article and other more reliable sources can not be found then wp:ignore all rules applies and it shouldnt be removed.Camelbinky (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Persistent removal of controvery section from Intelius

IP editors keep removing the whole controversy section from this article as can be seen in this edit. Are these sources reliable enough that the article be reverted and locked from editing if necessary?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-02-04-598541874_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956815/

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5343

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004163328_webintelius04.html

http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=157142

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Verizon+Intelius&cf=all

Thank you

—Zener 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are fine, the 3rd maybe but unnecessary, the 4th duplicates the first, the 5th is ok, the search is not. I'll take a look at the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past, IPs have removed well-sourced criticism from the Naveen Jain article, and a discussion occurred at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen_Jain. Intelius is run by Naveen Jain. I've semiprotected the article to forestall the continuation of apparent WP:COI editing. I don't see any BLP violations in the information being removed, so I think it's fair to expect the IPs to explain their concerns on the Talk page, which so far they have not. Other admins may modify the protection as necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And guess who 63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs) is? Whois tells us: CustName: Naveen Jain Address: Private Residence City: Medina StateProv: WA [37]. Talk about COI!. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is ChartingStocks.net a reliable source?

Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks[38] a reliable source for the article Ning? -Kangaru99 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That site appears to be just some run of the mill blog by no one of any importance or demonstrated knowledge. It doesn't look like a reliable source for any article, and the claims on the page you linked to are especially problematic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Charting Stocks provides stock market news and insight. Recently, the following major media organizations have quoted or referenced the ChartingStocks.net news site: Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report. Muggzzi

The media coverage of ChartingStocks.net can be found here [39]. Per WP:RS, usage by other sources should be widespread and consistent, without doubts about reliability. Additionally, how reliable a source is depends on context. With this in mind, I don't think that ChartingStocks.net is a reliable source on the article Ning:

Not widespread: All the media coverage comes from the same quote that "Bank of America and Citigroup won't live to see May" on 2/20/09.

Not favorable: Here is the quote from Dow Jones News Wire: "Debate over nationalization is becoming a crowded theater, and technical analysis site ChartingStocks.net stepped in and shouted “Fire!” last night". Here's the quote from Schaeffers: "Dow Jones traces today’s pre-market hysteria back to ChartingStocks.net, which claimed last night that “Bank of America and Citigroup won’t live to see May.” In my opinion these quotes weigh against the reliability of the site.

Not reliable in context: Ning is not a publicly traded company, so it's unclear why Charting Stocks, with the tagline "REAL Stock Market News and Insight", would be a reliable source on this subject. --Kangaru99 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a blog and I don't see any evidence that the authors are established experts in this fields. It doesn't seem like it's a WP:RS to me. If there are serious issues with Ning's business model, there should be reliable sources that cover it. For example, Washington Post ran a story that mentions Ning's banning of adult social networks.[40] Google's search engine tells me that CNN also ran a story on the banning of adult social networks [41] although the page is currently blank. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Charting stocks is quoted all over the Internet in various news sites and discussions. A perusal of recent articles posted by Charting Stocks include these news titles, "Rising Dollar Spells Trouble for Stocks," "California Unemployment Jumps to 11.2%; Highest Since 1976," "Largest Drop in Output Since End of WWII," "New World Order With Lesser Role for U.S. - Bloomberg," "General Motors Ex-CEO Gets $23 Million Pension," "GM CEO Wagoner Agrees to Step Down," "Mainstream Media Bailout Bill Introduced," "Audit the Fed; Ron Paul’s Bill is Gaining Support," "Media Calls a Bottom as Credit Market Calls for Panic (Charts)," "Treasury to Buy Troubled Assets…Again; Stocks Jump." It is quite obvious that these are news items. You may not like the news articles published by ChartingStocks.net - but your attempt to marginalize them will be seen clearly by anyone who actually peruses the site.Muggzzi

Keep in mind that discussions and comments to news articles don't count. Anyway, I just ran a Google news search and it doesn't turn up anything.[42] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quest, Google needs the 'OR' operator capitalized, and you probably want to include the archive ( "all dates" ) in the search. Anyway the site is occasionally quoted in the Wall Street Journal.[43]. But at any rate it looks like we've visited that issue, they were quoted by several media for a report on banking troubles this February. If we were writing about the banks we could quote Chartingstocks. But we're not, and the article being debated makes some very contentious claims about the social networking site, with no information about an editorial board or who publishes it. See if you can find other sources on the issue of friend requests being able to be sent across networks and whether that's a drawback. Not RS.

"Quest, Google needs the 'OR' operator capitalized" Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Chartingstocks.net provides news on a broad range of business and financial topical news including businesses with impact in major market areas (like the Internet and web-based business models). They are used as a regular news source by Current [44]. Clearly a legitimate news web portal reporting with expertise on issues directly related to business models, media, investments (like Ning investors), and more. Below are a few examples: 1. "California Unemployment Jumps to 11.2%; Highest Since 1976" (Friday, April 17, 2009) Reports on rise in California's unemployment rate over last 12 months. 2. "Spring Rally Has Reached Completion"; (April 14, 2009) Reports on the wile ups and down of the markets and quotes NYU Professor Nouriel Roubini on the cause for market fluctuations. 3. "New World Order With Lesser Role for U.S." (April 2, 2009) Reports in depth on the passing of an era for U.S. leadership. Quotes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and others 4. "Future Point to Another Decline; Is it really because of GM?" (March 30, 2009) Reports on the sharp down turn of stock futures and possible reasons for the drop. 5. "Mainstream Media Bailout Bill Introduced"; (March 27 2009)

Reports on the "Newspaper Revitalization Act." Quotes Senator CardinMuggzzi

Here, we need a little more than that a source covers a broad range of topics. Especially for something controversial, we'd want to see staff writers, something about the publisher, and especially an editorial board. The Chartingstocks site is kind of a mystery, it doesn't list those people. Even the WHOIS information doesnt tell the publisher. Is there another source that can tell us more about the editors of Chartingstocks? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Times

[45] Apparently this is not a reliable source, allegedly because it links to a travel site. This is being used to justify removing a cite on Ushuaia, substituting with a dubious tag. I personally can't see a problem with the cite but as it seems to be the locus of a content dispute thought I'd bring it here. Justin talk 21:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair this is really just the New York Times reposting something they borrowed from Frommer's. So the reliability of the source can't really be attributed to the New York Times, but rather Frommer's. That being said, though, Frommer's is a pretty respectable travel guide. I'd have to see exactly what information folks are disputing to say more. I'll take a look. — e. ripley\^talk 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable only for what they themselves witness, but also for information that they choose to pass on from other sources (unless the reliable source indicates that a certain source is dubious). Otherwise, whenever a major newspaper begins a report "According to a highly placed source in the White House..." we wouldn't be able to use it because it comes from an anonymous source. We depend on reliable sources to evaluate the credibility of less well-known sources for us. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. However, this was copied directly from a Frommer's entry; the Times, I'm sure, considers them a fine source for travel information, but that they chose to recite it in an entertainment section doesn't automatically mean it's been given some extra stamp of approval in this instance. Take a look at the link and you'll see what I mean -- this isn't a Times-generated article where a reporter chose to cite an unnamed source, it's information lifted directly from Frommer's (and identified as such with a Frommer's ad graphic). — e. ripley\^talk 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable frommers is. Folks with experience working w/ travel guides can comment, maybe. I will say that 'in between' content like that shouldn't be cited as the times. It should be as Frommers. The link can point to the times, but I have every reason to believe that this is content produced and served automatically under contract and that the times probably doesn't excercise control over the content. Whether or not the times considers them a source is largely speculation. We don't know if this was a partnership, paid placement or what. Depending on the motivation for the placement, what the times thinks of them is obscured to us. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Generally speaking, Frommer's is a long-time and respected travel guide. — e. ripley\^talk 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable?

Is Planet Bollywood a reliable source? It seems to somewhat gossipy to me. I also noticed that on its About Us page it says it has been featured by major news organisations, but not used as a source. None of the articles appear to have credited authors, just the somewhat ambiguous (and misspelled) byline "Planet Bollywood Special Correspondant". Copana2002 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff BLP

I'd like some feedback regarding the inclusion of a Facebook link to a page for a group supporting Philip Markoff (the accused in the Boston Craigslist killing and assaults).

A rather contentious editor, Theo789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who I believe previously edited as 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has insisted on this wording and link:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search Facebook Page Phil Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty </ref>

I have removed the Facebook link and swapped it for the following identical text with a reliable source as citation:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref name="supporters">{{cite web|url=http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=794986&category=REGION |title=Craigslist killing suspect has supporters|last=Gustafson|first=Kristi L.| date=2009-04-29|work=Albany Times-Union|accessdate=2009-04-30}}</ref>

My understanding of policy is that Facebook is not a reliable source, and links to it are to be avoided, per WP:ELNO. Since the Albany Times-Union RS citation covers the matter and is not problematic, I have tried to explain to User:Theo789 that we should go with the RS, not the Facebook link, but he has repeatedly reverted and attacked me and my edit as somehow representing that Markoff is guilty, which in fact has nothing at all to do with it.

Please note that this is not a content dispute - the text is identical. It is completely a sourcing issue.

I'm not an expert on precedents regarding Facebook links here, so I would appreciate some opinions on how to proceed. And we can use some help over on that article to keep it neutral - Theo789 has not sought or received consensus for his edits, and is just doing as he sees fit, insulting editors and ignoring policy. (See Talk: Philip Markoff#Commentary and Talk: Philip Markoff#Edits by Tvoz, for example - other examples in edit histories and elsewhere on the Talk page.) Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Tovz... In the absence of a relable secondary source (such as the Times-Union article) we could have allowed the Face Book page (as a primary source, verifying its own existance). But the Times-Union article is a better source for the same information, and so should be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar - I may need you to reinforce it with this guy, but I'll try first. I'll holler if I need a hand. Tvoz/talk 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

← Now this same editor has added this footnote which is a link to a Facebook discussion page. Could you explain to him why this is not an acceptable source? I'm about to give up on this. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Fellowship

An editor wants the publications of the Shakespeare Oxford Society ([46]) to be considerecd RS. The SOS, which is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, is dedicated to the belief that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. His argument is that "the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration." [47] The fact is that all these people are committed Oxfordians (Stritmatter is also Wikipedia editor under the name user:BenJonson). The journal is a purely private publication with an absolutely polemical agenda. As we know, it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants. The fact remains that this is the internal publication of an organisation dedicated to a fringe theory. Paul B (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not call the idea that de Vere was Shakespeare a fringe theory... it is a minority viewpoint, yes, but one that a lot of people, including some very well respected scholars take seriously. However, I do agree that the SOS is not large enough for its journal to be considered more than a Self-Published source. Thus, it can be considered reliable for some types of statements, and not reliable for others (See: WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And which "well respected scholars" do you refer to? I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the overwhelming body of scholarship on this issue. Your reference to WP:SPS is irrelevant unless you can show that relevant scholars have published in in reliable sources and are recognised as more than marginal contributors. Paul B (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, not RS, self-published, usable only in very limited circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to ask this here—since this is an unreliable source according to our policies, we can confidently reject it for the Shakespeare article, whatever the result of the present thread. Unless we stick to the principle of best sources, Wikipedia will rapidly fall victim on many different articles to fringe theories (Blueboar, I'd define a fringe theory as one for which there's no valid evidence; I'm not aware of any well-respected scholars who believe this stuff) and become useless. Quality of source is the key: there's a large industry devoted to the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays, but it has not penetrated good university presses. The same with many other fringe theories. It would be a victory for this industry to break Wikipedia's defences. qp10qp (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the initial report by Paul Barlow above - he cites the wrong website completely. The Shakespeare Oxford Society is not the source being suggested. Mr. Barlow surely knows this and may be trying to poison the waters before an honest conversation can be had. Mr. Barlow, who recently defended "nastiness" as an appropriate response to those of us interested in the Authorship debate, has not presented an honest case. To be clear, the source being submitted (I should know as I submitted it) is the journal of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Here is the correct link to the website [[48]] and here is the correct link to the particularly well-referenced article that I wished to cite [[49]]. Further, I was being very selective (as Blueboar suggests), only wishing to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar. Here is the edit that offended Mr. Barlow and resulted in this conversation being brought here [[50]]. Now that the correct information is on the table, perhaps we can have an honest discussion. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We could have an honest discussion always. I refered to the wrong website by mistake

Other than in Shakespeare Matters or other publications of the Shakespeare Fellowship, have Wright, Londré, Pluto and Stritmatter published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications? What about Barbara Burris? Has she? Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Strittmatter and Wright have. I will research the others. I would also like to add the following in response to the initial accusation. I agree with Blueboar that the authorship debate is not a Fringe theory, but a minority viewpoint. It has been supported by scholars, professors, Nobel prize winners, Supreme Court Justices (including a good percentage of the current court), not to mention some of the greatest writers of all time including Mark Twain, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman. Also, Sigmund Freud, Orsen Wells, Tyrone Guthrie and many other notable figures from world history also doubted the mainstream view. And hundreds of current or former academics. Several universities do, indeed, teach the authorship debate and host annual international conferences, as has the prestigious Globe Theatre (London) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (Ashland). Hardly Fringe.Smatprt (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The claims by Paul Barlow in this thread seem to me to be full of abundant misdirection.

• The wrong source is named.
• "not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page" is cited as reason for the (incorrect) source not to be RS.
• "an absolutely polemical agenda"
• "it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants."
• "fringe theory"

These seem to me to be misdirections and trumped up alarms and inflammatory falsehoods to cover the fact that Paul simply does not like the well-sourced, meticulously researched and cited information contained within the source and noted in the Wikipedia article. I might add that Paul seems to me to be attempting to exercise WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, the bulk of which he created and which he seems to be patrolling so as not to allow sourced viewpoints which disagree with his own, which is in violation of NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. We like to discuss sources here. Please refrain from commenting on other editors, or continuing disputes, and stick to discussing sources. Dlabtot (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no misdirection in any of my comments. I referred to the wrong webpage by mistake. Since I linked to the talk page, it's hardly deception, and the Fellowship is just as unreliable as the SOS. It certainly has a polemical agenda. It certainly is a fringe theory. It certainly is "possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants." All this is true. It is also true that the SF does not publish "meticulously researched" work at all. It is a purely polemical, amateur, fringe publication with no independent peer review. Paul B (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough; however other posters should be held to the same level of accountability and relevance, that is, recognition that (1) Shakespeare authorship scholarship is not a fringe theory but rather an ongoing scholarly investigation exploring the gaps in Shakespeare scholarship; (2) the "agenda" of such sources is not "polemical" but investigatory; (3) this has nothing to do with creationism, crystal healing, or any such insubstantial intangibles; (4) the fact of having a Wikipedia page or not is not a criteria for a source's reliability. Also, the information mentioned in the Portrait article has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question but rather to do with the identification of the sitter of a portrait believed to be Hugh Hamersley by some (one investigation) and Edward de Vere by others (two investigations). Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One investigation was by a non-specialist in 1940, whose investigation was motivated by ideology and whose publication contained known false assertions. There is also strong suspicion that he falsified his results. The second is by an amateur in a fringe publication. The Hamersley identification was made by established experts and its results were published in reliable journals. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Wright, (obtained from Concordia University website): "Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom." Reliable source? I would hope so. Smatprt (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Strittmatter, (obtained from UMass Amherst): "The marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, by Roger A Stritmatter, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Abstract - This dissertation analyzes the findings of a ten year study of the 1568-70 Geneva Bible originally owned and annotated by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and now owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. (Folger shelf mark 1427). This is the first and--presently--only dissertation in literary studies which pursues with open respect the heretical and thesis of John Thomas Looney (1920), B. M. Ward (1928), Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1984) and other "amateur" scholars, which postulates de Vere as the literary mind behind the popular nom de plume "William Shakespeare." The dissertation reviews a selection of the many credible supports for this theory and then considers confirmatory evidence from the annotations of the de Vere Bible, demonstrating the coherence of life, literary preceden, and art, which is the inevitable consequence of the theory. Appendices offer detailed paleographical analysis, review the history of the authorship question, consider the chronology of the Shakespearean canon, and refute the claim of some critics that the alleged connections between the de Vere Bible and "Shakespeare" are random."Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stritmatter has also been published in the ”Review of English Studies", n.s. 58 (2007), co-authoring “Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, among other independent journals and publications.Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Felicia Londre: Dozens of books, articles, essays (from a quick search on Amazon Books) The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present (The history of world theater) by Felicia Hardison Londre and Daniel J. Watermeier; De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londré; No Applause--Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.(Book review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; Words at Play: Creative Writing and Dramaturgy (Theater in the Americas) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - April 1999); Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) by Felicia Londre (Paperback- Nov 2, 2000); Alexander Shurbanov and Boika Sokolova. Painting Shakespeare Red: An East-European Appropriation.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Drama by Felicia Hardison Londre; Federico Garcia Lorca. by Felicia Hardison Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1984); A History of African American Theatre.(Book Review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1998); The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : F by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 2000); The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (A Frederick Ungar Book) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 1999). Wow - Now I'm impressed. Ms. Londre appears to be more reliable than many of the sources being used in the articles in question.Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Anne Pluto:(brief websearch) Much Ado About Nothing, Anne Pluto editor, Oxfordian Shakespeare Series/Llumina Press; Pluto is a published poet and professor of English at Leslie University. Will attempt to do more research on her this weekend. But in short, yes she has been published on Authorship matters. Smatprt (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's a poet, not any kind of an expert on Shakespeare, and her "publication" is through Lliumina press, which is a self-publishing press. [51] The rest of your verbiage is similar misdirection designed to create the impession of scholarly weight, but listing people who are almost all marginal. Paul B (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Marginal is simply Paul's opinion and is off topic. The editorial staff meets the threshold. Period Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no reason to clutter up the page with off-topic references such as publication of History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present. It just causes eyes to blur and in my case has lead to a case of WP:TLDR. I asked whether these folks had published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications because that's what the policy requires. All this other stuff is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The quick, non-cluttered, answered is yes, 3 of 4 have, as have several contributing authors who are members of the Fellowships' Board of Trustees. If that is all the policy requires, then the threshold has been met.Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the quick, non-cluttered answer that actually includes the citations? By the way, the policy we are talking about is WP:SPS. Even if these criteria are met, use of the source would still require caution. Dlabtot (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - here is a short non-cluttered list. Quotes are not mine, but are from the online descriptions or forwards. While I still agree with Blueboar that the Fellowship source should be considered a peer-reviewed journal, both he and you both have cautioned about use of the source to limited circumstances. I will certainly respect that advice, and understand that you (Dlabtot) are referring to the SPS policy only.

• The Anglican Shakespeare, Elizabethan orthodoxy in the great histories, by Daniel L. Wright. Published in 1993, Pacific-Columbia Books (Vancouver, Wa)From the forward -"For author Dr. Daniel Wright this view of Shakespeare’s purpose in writing the history plays was significant in his eventually accepting (and now actively promoting) Edward de Vere as the true author of the Shakespeare Canon (Dr. Wright now heads the Dept. of Humanities at Concordia University (Portland, OR), and in 1997 founded the Edward de Vere Studies Conference, held each spring on the Concordia campus)."
• Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, by Roger Stritmatter and Lynne Kositsky. The Review of English Studies 2007, 58(236):447-472. Alternate dating of the Tempest to pre-1604, the year of De Vere's death.
• Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible, by Prof Roger Stritmatter, Oxford Institute Press, UMass. "Dr. Stritmatter's revealing study of the annotations and marginalia of Edward de Vere's personal Bible, now in the possession of the Folger Shakespeare Library."
• De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londre. Softcover, McFarland & Co Inc Pub, ISBN 0786423838 (0-7864-2383-8)
• Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays, by Felicia Hardison Londre ISBN 0815338880. Publisher: Routledge. "Selections discuss the play in terms of historical context, dating, and sources; character analysis; comic elements and verbal conceits; evidence of authorship; performance analysis; and feminist interpretations."
• Shakespeare Around the Globe : A Guide to Notable Postwar Revivals by Samuel L. Leiter, Langdon Brown, Felicia Hardison Londre,Tice L. Miller. ISBN 0313237565 / 9780313237560 / 0-313-23756-5. Publisher: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated. "An important resource for any scholar working on the production history of Shakespeare's plays"

These authors have also published numerous essays and articles, and have lectured on authorship issues around the globe. If you want further additions to this list, I'll need to contact them for those specific details. In addition, if you want publishing history on any of the Fellowship Trustees, I can provide that as well.Smatprt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The single possible exception is Wright. The other two figures mentioned are Stritmatter, who worked for his PhD solely to promote Oxfordianism. That was his purpose and that has been his purpose in everything he does. In academia he is thouroughly marginal. Londre is a writer of generalist books on theatre, not a specialist on Shakespeare. These are three people. There are thousands and thousands of Eng lit scholars throughout the world. Also, this query concerns the reliability of the source, which is the internal publication of the Shakespeare Fellowship. It's not the reliability of texts published through legitimate sources. A creationist magazine, for example, does not become a reliable source because it has someone on the editorial board who has also published on some aspect of geology or natural history in a mainstream publication. If we allow that argument we open the doors to everything. Paul B (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS states: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That's why I asked that specific question, and that's why publication on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other reliable third-party sources is relevant to the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and I hope I have answered your question. I agree that the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other soruces is relevant to the discussion. It's the overlying theme, after all. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "produced by an established expert". This concerns specifically an article by Barbara Burris, who admits that she is a complete amateur. As I understand she was an early member of the Fellowship. I know of no relevant qualifications that have ever been claimed for her. Smatpmt is trying to misdirect (after the usuaal accusations directed at me) by listing people who are associated with the Fellowship, but whose writings are not being discussed. Even if the editorial board members had published on authorship matters in reliable publications, which I don't think they have, that would not make their journal reliable, since it is a specifically polemical publication with no independent peer review. The specific article (or rather part of it) can be seen online here [52]. Again, if this argument is accepted then any content of any fringe theory journal can be allowed just because a claim can be made that someone on the board published something in the field. Paul B (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are specifically talking about the article by Barbara Burris, then no, she is not an established expert. This is one of the times when we have to be very specific. This sort of problem always reminds me of a certain 'cult archaeologist' who claims that HSS has been around for millions of years and that aliens influenced him, yet managed to get published in a couple of at least somewhat respectable archeological magazines (on less controversial topics I hasten to add). Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... The Shakespeare Fellowship's website has been discussed and cited in a positive light by no less that the New York Times. I think there is a good argument for calling its website a peer reviewed journal. If so, the papers that they host or link to are more than just SPS. Yes, some of these papers are written by amatures. However, they are amatures who has been able to get their work published in a peer reviewed journal. This counts for something. We may think the work is full of flaws and that the authors are completely wrong, but I do think we have to consider them at least boarderline RS... certainly reliable for a statement of opinion if not for a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. According to this guideline: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context". The context here is that this source has no credibility.

By the way, newspapers, even the best ones, are not a good source for Shakespeare scholarship either. There's no shortage of high-quality Shakespeare scholarship, believe me. qp10qp (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying the source has no credibility is misleading. Just because a scholar of note supports a minority viewpoint does not mean they have no credibility. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am not saying that the NYT is a reliable source for Shakespeare scholarship... I mention the NYT mearly to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship's website might be considered an accademic journal. If that is the case, then the papers that the Shakespeare Fellowship publishes shift from being purely SPS, to being papers published by someone "with a reliable publication process". The Shakespeare Fellowship obviously thinks Burris has at least some credibility, or they would not have published her paper. As for context... the context is the debate over the authorship of Shakespeare. Burris's view may well be a minority one, but it is one that has been deemed worthy of publication by a notable society... a society dedicated to the discussion of exactly that issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing your point, I am saying that it is wrong. And I am saying that a citation in a newspaper is irrelevant. The Shakespeare Fellowship is not a reliable source for Shakespeare studies. It is a POV organisation publishing a POV organ. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS for Shakespeare studies. A fringe organisation pushing a fringe belief (in the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship and the public at large). Verbal chat 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the question, isn't it?... but for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is just a POV/Fringe organ... if this is the case, then the NYT article makes it a notable POV/Fringe organ, and as such its POV should be included in the article (per WP:NPOV). We can mention that it's opinion is POV/Fringe if need be... but it should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way... People often mis-use WP:FRINGE to omit any discussion of Fringe theories... but WP:FRINGE specifically says that we should discuss notable Fringe theories: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." ... in the case of the debates over the authorship of Shakespeare (and especially the possibility that he might have been Edward de Vere) a quick glance at Google Books shows that multiple major publications have at least discussed the possibility, and thus it is notable. This has no bearing on the discussions about the Shakespeare Fellowship or Burris... I raise it only to say that the theory should be discussed. If there is a better source, that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is not a discussion of whether the authorship controversy should be mentioned or not. It is a discussion on whether this publication is a reliable source or not. It is a profound mistake to assume that any publication passing a low threshold has a right to be cited in a Wikipedia article. There are thousands and thousands of sources for Shakespeare, including some from which we can reference the authorship issue, and we should use only the best ones. qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... that is a different question (not one for this noticeboard). My point was simply that the Shakespeare Fellowship seems to pass RS (just). But if there are better sources that discuss the various theories on who Shakespeare might have been, obviously we should use those instead. Which is the best source for this is an editorial decision that should be made by consensus at the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The question we have apparently been asked is determine whether an article published by the Shakespeare Fellowship is a reliable source "to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar", not to cite that that Shakespearean authorship has been disputed (which is easy to source from many, many indisputably reliable sources). The V and A representatives are named living people who in an email correspondence with Burris apparently made certain statements.[53] Burris, the reporter of these comments is, all (including the SF website) appear to agree is "an amateur art historian", not a published scholar in the field. She is publishing her work in a newsletter affiliated with an organization dedicated to the promotion of one particular viewpoint of Shakespearian authorship. Despite the listings above, the newsletter does not appear to be peer-reviewed in any real sense of the term given that none of the editorial board listed is an art historian; in fact Burris' article was critiqued later by others, as also noted by the website itself. [54].

So, no, I do not consider this newsletter to be a reliable source for this information or any other information. This particularly the case because it involves quoting living people. I am also concerned about undue weight; if these views of scholars from the V and A are notable and significant, then they will be also be expressed and published in other, better, sources. --Slp1 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes and other major news organizations have been used repeatedly to reference entries about the Cobbe Portrait in the same article. But they can't be used about the Hamersley portrait? Why? Because the wiki article editors are overly biased against anything that involves the Authorship debate. If the Cobbe portrait was purported to be of Oxford, the RS standard would have been changed to suit the whims of these biased editors. This kind of double standard should not be allowed to continue. Blueboar is correct that the NYTimes bolsters the case for both the Shakespeare Fellowship and the Burris article. The Fellowship journal is Peer Reviewed just as the Shakespeare Quarterly is. The Quarterly is biased towards the Stratford View and against any authorship discussion at all. At least the Fellowship is open to all scholarship and allows critiques of its writers and articles. The Quarterly is RS, as are other journals that agree with the mainstream view. The Fellowship journal should be too.Smatprt (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt, The difference here is that the NYTimes does not talk about the portrait, Burris, the e-mail from folks at the V&A... I only raised it to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship might be a reliable journal. It does not support what Burris says. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the NYTimes article I'm looking at does mention the Burris info (but not the V&A quotes). We must be looking at different articles! Here is the link (see paragraph 5) [[55]].Smatprt (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So use the NYT article for the information it contains; thus it needs to be presented as claim by Burris in a publication by the fellowship, not a fact. --Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for cluttering up the lists, but many of the books mentioned in the longer posts have applications to the study of Shakspeare and Shakespearean Authorship, including books related to the theatre (of course). To be more concise, however, we have agreement that Dr. Wright is RS. \As to the other three - Yes, Strittmatter has been published on the subject by independent publishers, so he passes the test (regardless of his motivation). As has Londre. And while Pluto may not have published work on the subject, one can certainly imagine why having a Professor of English on the review Board of a scholarly journal would be helpful, if not necessary! I think this group obviously passes the muster. If they find an author's work worth publishing, that should count here. Blueboar is correct on this.Smatprt (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to confuse identifying who would be a reliable source in their own right per SPS, with who is qualified to peer-review articles about art history. Peer review means exactly that; you need to have a peer, ie somebody who knows about art history on the review board for the purpose of checking facts and accuracy. None of the people listed have any qualifications in this field; how can they give a peer review in this case? That's why reputable independent journals usually have large editorial boards; so that they have access to the relevant expertise to do the reviewing. And why they send submissions out to other reviewers who have expertise in the area. I note, for example, that the Shakespeare Quarterly has more that 20 people on their board in one capacity or another.[56]--Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Slpl, that was an excellent post. Using the NYT article, and presenting the information as a "claim" by Burris, etc., makes complete sense. And your clarification of "peer review" should help everyone involved with this discussion. In this regard, it should be noted that the Shakespeare Fellowship has a Board of Trustees of 9, in addition to its 4-member editorial Board. The Trustees include researchers on various aspects (law, science, literature, etc.) who are called upon when their expertise will be helpful in reviewing submissions to the Fellowship journal or website. Of course, the wide experience of the editorial board certainly covers many aspects of Shakespearean studies, many of which have applications to the Authorship debate, including Shakespeare and religion, Renaissance history, Theatre history, English Lit., Poetry, and Philosophy, to name only a few. As such I think for the purposes of Shakespeare Authorship information, the Fellowship's publication can indeed be considered an academic journal. However, I also agree that there is no Art Historian on the review Board of the Board of trustees. My comment on this would be in line with what Blueboar has already suggested - that the Fellowship believes in Burris' credibility or they wouldn't have published her paper. As such, it should be quotable, but only as a "claim" made in the Fellowship journal, a journal that represents a minority viewpoint. NPOV would seem to require its inclusion just as the Authorship debate was included in the FA on Shakespeare himself. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and I am glad that you consider my insights/suggestions valuable. However, despite your clarifications above, I cannot still agree that the Fellowship newsletter can be considered a peer-reviewed journal whose contents can be used as a source, except for the views of the SF where appropriate. Peer review also means being reviewed by a broad range of academic peers, not just a subgroup of those who are all proponents of a particular minority theory or view. We don't accept creationist or fringe medical journals as reliable sources, for exactly the same reasons. If the submitters to the newsletter can't get their research published in better journals than the newsletter, then there is likely a reason why. This view appears similar to that held by Paul Barlow, Dlabtot, qp10qp and Dougweller, and Verbal above.

In this particularly case, you also cannot assume or state that the Fellowship believes in her credibility. The SF website itself only states that she "claims" that the clothes come from a different period.[57] and the newsletter itself contains a disclaimer to say that the views of the contributors do not necessarily reflect that of the Fellowship.--Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the NYT article make Burris's claims acceptable in a Wikipedia article? The NYT article is a news article, and news articles often mention writers that might normally not be considered reliable sources here. 'Newsworthy' and 'reliable source' are not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. The NYT is a reliable source; and the NYT article contains information about the dispute about the portrait, and some of Burris' claims are mentioned as part of this. I would say that this information (only) could be included (though see below for caveats) The NYT mention does not mean that reliability is extended the newsletter (and the information in it) of course.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Slpl - are you saying that as long as a posting states that the information is "claimed... as reported in the Shakespeare Fellowship journal" then the information is usable? If so, then I find that requirement agreeable. I don't think anyone is trying to hide the fact that these are claims, or that they originate under the auspices of the Fellowship. I would still disagree that the material is "Fringe", and will argue that the material is rather "minority viewpoint". Given the breadth of notable individuals who adhere to the minority viewpoint, the subject has surely left the definition of "Fringe". As Jimbo posted "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Based on the prominent adherents I have already listed, the Authorship debates fits this definition exactly. Can we agree on this?

Also, allow me to clarify what I (and I believe Blueboar) was saying in regards to credibility. I am saying that the Fellowship believes that Burris is credible as a researcher who would not attribute comments to the V&A officials that were fictitious. No one, except Paul Barlow, has made that insinuation. I was not implying that the Fellowship believes that what every writer contributes can be taken as a fact. Does that make sense?

Finally, my only remaining issue would be over the Journal's status as a reliable source. The problem with your comment about getting research in "better" journals, is the sad fact that those journals are strictly mainstream who actively banish worthwhile discussion of anything having to do with the Authorship debate, with many going so far as to state - as a fact - that no such debate exists. This is of course ridiculous on its face, but it is also the sad truth. This kind of problem is acknowledged in various sections of WP policy relating to alternative views and minority viewpoints which continually remind us that minority viewpoints must be reported, as long as they are reported as such. I have no problem with that. Smatprt (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should use the NYT, only, as a reference; you'll need to negotiate with editors on the page concerned about what can be cited from the NYT, but as far as I can see, they report a claim by Burris that the fashions were more consistent to 1580, when Hamersley would have been only 15. There's nothing in the NYT article to say that the SF subscribes to her view. But you need also to consider that the NYT, as a newspaper, is probably not the greatest source for any of this either, and you may need to debate this with article editors in the know, but you would be on stronger ground to begin with. The newsletter is not, in my view (or many others who have commented) a reliable source. Can't you find a real art historian who has made this point about the portrait in a reliable source. Why haven't they, would you say?

I would say that this is because "reliable sources", as defined here, are strictly mainstream, and as such simply do not print material that challenges the traditional viewpoint. Minority viewpoints are thus only printed in minority publications which rarely, if ever, are considered RS by the mainstream wikipedia editors that control content.Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the authorship debates has prominent adherents or that it is a minority view that needs mentioning; but there is no need for the SF or its publications as reliable sources for this. There are much better, much more clearly reliable, much more notable sources about this available; and these should always be used. As you seem to understand, WP follows the mainstream view, like it or not. No editor here is considered competent enough to judge the merits of these arguments and minor points related to them, so if you want to get the word out, start with the academic conferences and journals and convince academia with your excellent scholarship; even get them to try to refute the claims; when somebody in reliable sources pays attention to the arguments then WP will happily report them too.

Your beliefs about what the Fellowship believes are unfortunately irrelevant. As noted above, the SF's own statements do not appear to corroborate your confidence, since they report her views as "claims". But I am not sure the point of this conversation, since I do not believe either Burris as quoted in the newsletter to be a reliable source, most particularly for any claims about living people.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points and while I may not agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you in a reasonable manner. For that, I thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section and, based on this discussion and the suggestion made by Slpl, have replaced with material that cites the New York Times article. Here is the dif edit: [[58]]. However I also note that Blueboar still considers the Fellowship cite RS (barely), that SoftLavender and I both agree, and that Dlabtot has stated that the Shakespeare Fellowship newsletter can be used as a source under limited circumstances. Thanks for the input, everyone. Smatprt (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Soflavender and you agree. That's irrelevant. Your input is utterly predictable, as, of course, is mine. The fact that you choose to "include" such opinions as part of a summary indicates the level of its reliability. What matters is independent opinion. BTW, Barbara Burris makes a number of completely false statements, most amusingly referring to the 1847 mezzotint as a "woodcut". In her article she states that she sent Susan North the "woodcut" of the painting. In other words Susan did not even see the original, or even photograph of it (this is the mezzotint. The clothing is so dark it can barely be seen.). We then get excerpts from letters, but we don't know the real context of what is being said. Content might have been heavily edited. Frankly, the reason to suspect this is the long history of misrepresentation and distortion associated with Oxfordian literature. Smatprt may get indignant about this, but it is hardly news. Susan was involved as a consultant in the 2006 exhibition, and her quoted views (not referring to the Ashbourne do not seem consistent with the Burris article. I have not contacted Susan directly, though my wife knows her, but I think the time has come to do so. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the summary above listed by Slpl, you Paul were listed, as having the same view as Slpl. So having SoftLavender and myself listed in the opposing summary is perfectly appropriate. And your continued attacks on Oxfordians have no place on this page. Have I gone into misrepresentation and distortion by orthodox scholars? No. Why not try and stay on point? Since I have removed the reference to Susan and the V&A, instead referencing to the NYTimes, and since Slpl has edited my post, I don't see the point in your BTW posting.Smatprt (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the long history of misrepresentation and distortions in Oxfordian literature (which is still continuing) is hardly an attack.Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And has no place on this page, no more than the long history of misrepresentations, deceptions, assumptions and circular logic in mainstream Shakespearean literature. I mean, how many "scholars" and "peer-reviewed journals" have made mistakes over something as simple as Shakespeare's birthday? Please. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Such representations and distortions about William Shakespeare are not the accepted scholarly consensus among literary historians, which is the difference, and which really is the heart of the topic in this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most groups are pretty bad at self policing or acknowledging their own mistakes. But this is all off-topic and these generalizations are not what this notice board is all about. As far as I can tell, we're pretty close to being done here, so I'd like to thank the regular editors of this page for their helpful insights and suggestions. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Publication date

I know that WP prefers newer sources to outdated ones, for example a 2003 source is better than a 1920 one. Where's the policy/guideline dealing with that? Squash Racket (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't automatically prefer newer sources to older ones... we prefer the most reliable sources on any given topic. In most cases a more modern source will be considered more reliable than an older one (as it will probably have taken into account subsequent scholarship, discoveries, and events, which might have changed the scholastic view of the topic)... but there are exceptions. Modern sources are not always the most reliable. There are some old sources that are still considered the difinitive work on their topic. It really depends on the topic and sources in question. The determination of which sources are best to use in a given article is left to the consensus of editors at the article talk page (as they will know the specifics of both the topic and the related sources far better than those of us who focus on writing policy.) Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook or Twitter?

Can a post on Facebook or Twitter ever be a WP:RS? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Tea Party protests#Mike Huckabee. The background (at least from my possibly slanted POV) is that on April 29 President Obama commented on the Tea Party protests. On the same day, former Governor Huckabee posted on Facebook and Twitter "Astounded Pres. Obama still doesn't know tea parties were led by moms, dads worried about future...that's serious and no game!" Huckabee's official website links to both, so I assume they aren't fake accounts. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter accounts might pass muster as Self-published primary sources for use in an article on the account holder (ie Huckabee's Facebook page might be used as a source on the Mike Huckabee bio article), but not in other articles. If Gov. Huckabee's comment is notable enough for inclusion, a secondary source will have picked up on it and reported it. No need to quote from Facebook or Twitter. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If a publiched news source quoted the Twitter, then the Twitter becomes a primary source and doesn't need to pass SPS. Whether it's useful to our article to quote Twitter is up for debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Huckabee's Twitter post was cited by Think Progress, but unfortunately that's not an RS because of Wikipedia's bright-line rule against blogs. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That "bright-line" rule against blogs isnt so bright-line per discussions going on in many places. IF the twitter or facebook quote is useful and needed, ignore all rules comes to mind. I think we see community consensus going against a clear cut line against all blogs.Camelbinky (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Senses of Cinema

...is an online journal devoted to film. About the journal: it has an ISSN (ISSN 1443-4059), is financially assisted by Screen Australia and Film Victoria, indexed by Google Scholar and the MLA (Modern Language Association of America) International Bibliography, and is listed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. It does not seem to claim any academic affiliations or be run by credentialed scholars (its founding editor is an "independent filmmaker"), but does seem to be cited in the literature.

Is this a reliable source? Any comments appreciated. Skomorokh 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Google scholar indexing is not a good indicator of reliability (even as a rough guess) but listing by the MLA is (though this may be less true now than it was years ago). I'm not thrilled by the nature of their "about us" page. My suspicion is that this may be treated like any other published literary 'zine. Not iron clad, but good enough for us. That's just a gut judgment, as I have not yet read their articles. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ajaxian

Is Ajaxian a reliable source for information on software or websites? This came up in an AFD. To me it screams non-RS but I've never been particularly trusting of blogs and other not particularly traditional websources so I'm trying to see if I'm in a minority here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an expert SPS. It looks usable for information, but I don't think it counts towards notability in an AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HipHopDX

www.hiphopdx.com has, for a long time, been used as a reference to source album sales. For a long time, I've deemed this site unreliable as it wouldn't get past GA as a reliable source, let alone pass an FA. I tried search for information of Cheri Media Group (the apparent host of HipHopDX) and I've found nothing, except its website, which provides absolutely nothing. I'd like to get other eyes on HipHopDX to determine whether or not this should be used as a source. — Σxplicit 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have editors and writers [59], I don't see what the problem is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does having writers constitute a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's the main probably I see. Also, would this be able to pass an FA? — Σxplicit 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Having staff writers and an editorial board is a start. While we have the language about "reputation" in our guideline (and remember RS is only a guideline; the less restrictive WP:V is the policy), for uncontroversial topics writers and an editorial board is unsually enough unless we hear otherwise on reputation. At any rate, HipHopDx has been cited by a number of news outlets, such as NME, the New York Post, the Jamaica Observer, news.com.au, New York Daily News, Sports Gamer, TV.com, AskMen, Hollywood News, and others, which speaks positively of it. [60](Google News Archive search) You do have to be concerned though whether a count of albums sold is encyclopedic information. If we'll have to update those numbers all the time, we probably shouldnt use a running count and instead concentrate on whether an album made Platinum or how many copies were sold in its debut year. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not specifically out for updating sales every week, but getting a closer approximate of current sale figures, as some albums don't have any information past the first week from other sources. So in this case, it seems HipHopDX would work. — Σxplicit 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

References on Hauke Harder

Tough one, as most of these are in German. For your convenience, here is the link for Google Translate: [61].

The majority, if not all, of these references, look to me to be not reliable sources, but simple announcements of performances, program notes, or self-published. Where the sources do appear reliable, Hauke Harder is just briefly mentioned.

FYI, most of these sources have been added after I nominated the article for deletion.

Your comments would be appreciated. As a regular poster at RSN, I'll recuse myself from the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read and analyzed the references. See below. I express no opinion on WP:NOTABILITY (or not) of the subject.

Program notes, 3rd party Promo website, artists group Promo website, self Program notes, 3rd party Promo website, artists group (?) Publisher's catalog listing Concert review, private (?) Promo website, artists group Reference to article on German Wikipedia Program notes, artist website RTF file (did not open due to fear of virus) Authorship of scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications: 1st author (1), co-author (8), sole author (2) Promo website, self Catalog of an exhibition Promo website, self Promo website, art gallery dupe Review of mult-artist festival, private (?) dupe Program notes, multi-artist, private (?) Program notes, multi-artist, 3rd party Program notes, multi-artist, 3rd party

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yacht Delivery

http://www.charternet.com/greatgear/captains-free.html

file:///C:/eric/profesiona%3b%20mariner.htm

file:///C:/eric/Automatic_Identification_System.htm

file:///C:/eric/bermuda%20maritime.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossito (talk • contribs)

Not sure what's going on with this. I've left a message on Ossito's talk page to explain a bit more. — e. ripley\^talk 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If the question is: are these reliable... the answer is no, Not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

A dispute over accuracy has arisen in the article Led Zeppelin over the number of albums the group has sold worldwide (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales). A figure of 300 million is cited by some sources while 200 million is cited by other sources. It has been suggested that the references showing 300 million are a case of circular sourcing (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#300_million. The sources supporting the 300 million figure are: CNN [62], VH1 [63], The Local, a Swedish online newspaper [64], The Daily Telegraph [65] and the Mail & Guardian, a South African weekly newspaper [66]

Two of the better sources listed above, CNN and The Daily Telgraph are contradicted by other articles published by the same orginizations: [67] and [68]

Sources supporting the 200 million figure include the group's record company, Atlantic Records (see atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin) and Led Zeppelin's official web site (see ledzeppelin.com/news), plus these publications: The Times [69], The Guardian [70], The Independent [71], Press Association [72], Los Angeles Times [73] and Billboard [74].

Also, two published book sources cite 200 million:

Schinder, Scott; Schwartz, Andy Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever (2008)

Hulett, Ralph; Prochnicky, Jerry Whole Lotta Led: Our Flight with Led Zeppelin (2005)

Can any of these sources be considered more reliable than others? Piriczki (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this might be an unanswerable question. The good news is that we don't have to answer it. All of these sources could be considered reliable in context. I don't see any reason why we can't make note of the discrepancy within the article and let readers make up their own minds. It doesn't have to be bloated; it could be as simple as "The group has reportedly sold between 200 - 300 million records, depending on the source. [refs] Though, I am curious to see if the sales figures in the book are footnoted and to what source. — e. ripley\^talk 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When reliable sources conflict, we simply report the conflict. We don't try to figure out which is 'more reliable'. Dlabtot (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, what would be more reliable to source Case Closed air dates. toonzone.com or anime.futurizmo.com. Toonzone has the airdates in once place but I'm not sure about the relibility of the site. Futurizmo lists episodes off the adult swim schedule from their site so it seems more reliable. Please reply to my talk, sorry if that's troublesome. DragonZero (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex - Is a primary source required?

It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[75]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[76]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[77]

--Bureaucracy (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "Shady Reference #2", Troubled Memory, is published by the University of North Carolina Press. The book is thoroughly footnoted, though the notes for page 448 are not available on Google.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[78] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

--Bureaucracy (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. IronDuke 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? --Bureaucracy (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No. We are saying that the best way for us, the anonymous editors behind wikipedia, to judge if a neutral encyclopedia would mention this detail is to see if someone else mentioned it first. In very narrow cases are we to use primary sources, mainly situations where detail gleaned from primary sources offers necessary context for the subject as a whole and it would be silly to demand secondary sourcing. I don't think this is one of those cases. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel--Bureaucracy (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:

• Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
• Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
• A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection

Per the publisher's website.[79]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[80]

BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check. --Bureaucracy (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[81]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to contact Powell. Troubled Memory was published only nine-years ago, and it is possible that he still has his copy of Finders Keepers, or a partial copy. If (possibly a big if) he was concerned enough about this doubt to take action to clarify the matter, he could make small amounts of Finders Keepers available online without breach of copywrite.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.

Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.

I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?--Bureaucracy (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • At this point I'm not going to entertain the notion that all of these books have fabricated the same claim. There is a more likely but still incredible claim to be made that someone like Tyler fabricated the passage and later scholars just repeated the falsehood. That, to me, is only compelling in the presence of positive evidence. Is there some reliable source that makes the claim that Duke did not author the book? That the book did not contain those passages? This kind of this is a content decision and so should be made on the article talk page but my read is that we can't in good conscience throw out ~9 sources because we don't see confirmatory primary documents. If you want to email Powell and ask him, please do so. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not to say that I think the sentence belongs in the article. It's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph and seems designed to show how lewd Duke was while writing under a pseudonym. I know that both Finders-Keepers and African Atto were written in persona, arguably one that Duke projected upon the intended audience. The article should use sources supporting a claim like that to contextualize the segment. But until that happens we might consider just cutting the sentence. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases in which secondary sources discuss primary sources that are not readily available. The primary source may be a rare manuscript or a long out of print book which exists in only a few copies. We have to trust the secondary sources according to their reliability, not according to the degree of access we have to the primary sources. Whether or not the sentence belongs in the article is not a matter for this noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:

I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)

I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."

Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:

p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."

pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."

p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."

I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.--Bureaucracy (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Help Determining if this Qualifies as RS in Planned Parenthood

Hi. An anon editor has added this line [82] to Planned Parenthood. On the face of it certainly qualifies as criticism, but the source may not reach the standard of WP:RS. I'd welcome the help from more experienced editors than I on this matter. Thoughts? Mattnad (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WND has come up a couple of times, see the archives. Opinion has been nearly unanimous that it is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. WND, not a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be usable as an example of Fundamentalist opinion. However for this particular matter you should be able to find a more mainstream source. Likely WND was used because its archives are freely accessible online. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the source. It's a WND article (not a link to another) and with close reading, there's no mention of either an official lawsuit, or formal charges. The headline is somewhat misleading in that is says PP was "charged" but the charges were not official (as in criminal or civil legal action). Looks like without mainstream coroboration, this is not RS enough for an article (in my view). Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the article could be reworded to say that a complaint was filed with the state EEOC. The complaint does appear in other (mainly religious or advocacy) sources such as the Catholic News Agency[83] and the Pro-Family Law Center[84]. No info so far on what the EEOC made of the claim. It's our call if we think it's important enough to include in our article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef (again), editors need to understand that being a reliable source is not a matter of just "is" or "isnt" for all time in all circumstances. A source that is unreliable because it is a fringe or extremist view can be used as a reliable source if it is being used to reference the views of that very group as long as the wording makes it clear that it is the viewpoint of that group and may not actually be a fact.Camelbinky (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can be used in that way, but then at that point we also have to ask other questions beyond just if it's reliable, such as if the view is notable and if its inclusion violates WP:UNDUE, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But, and I believe Squidfryerchef may have been hinting at this he/she can state whether they were or not, that- the issue of the information in the source is notable enough for its inclusion is an issue to be decided at the talk page for the article and by those editors there and not an issue that the noticeboard was made to decide. This noticeboard is specifically for deciding if a source is reliable in individual cases, not for deciding if individual pieces of info are notable for an article.Camelbinky (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end, another editor removed the sentence. I've searched for any outcome of the complaints and found none. At lease for now, we have little to add except that complaints were made. No known reporting/evidence that they were proven or that there were consequences for planned parenthood. Right now these 5 year old accusations seem to have been noted only by organizations who already have a negative view of Planned Parenthood due to the abortion debate. and (for now) probably falls below a notability threshold. I'll add a similar statement on the talk page so the discussion can continue if so desired by interested editors.Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Mail again

Prior discussion here

I am trying to have a discussion with O Fenian about this issue but he just deletes my material. I think that he needs to either discuss this or stop interfering with my posts. I have accepted that I may have caused the problem because of breaches of protocol but he refuses to discuss the matter just removes my posts. I refer to the eralier discussion where he has tried to ignore teh Western mail source and pointed to supporting sources which reinforce the material from the Western mail - which he disnisses as a tabloid - and even the reports from another editor of a collection of MacLochlainn's letters that are archived in teh national library of wales.--86.131.127.183 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like one of the edits in question is here. Anon, you say this information is sourced to the Western Mail, but the link you provide is to An Phoblacht, which appears to be put out by Sinn Fein. Do you have an actual link to the Western Mail for the information you're trying to insert? As an aside, this article is in pretty terrible shape as it stands. — e. ripley\^talk 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The online materal is limited as it relates to 1980-1981 and most newspapers archives are only available off line at that time. However the edit quotes the date of the Western Mail article (actually front page) and I have photo copies of them in my possession because of some work I am doing on prisoners in English jails. The letters are held in teh National Library of Wales and I will be travelling there to view these as I am told a collection of his letters to Dafydd Ellis Thomas - the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly - are also archived there. I realsie teh article is badly written and I will do some work on that once I am sure I am doing the job properly and am not going to have it constantly cut arbitrarily. I can stand over everyone of my sources but it seems the pserson who is single handedly cutting them out has no such knowlesge of Gerry MacLochlainn (born Gerard McLaughlin) or of Wales. I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed. It cannot be teh case that everything has to be supported by online sources surely.--86.161.95.46 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the previous discussion on this board and my comments on the article's talk page, you would have seen that I had asked for direct quotes from the offline sources, due to your misuse of online sources. Therefore it would be best for you to provide those as requested instead of beating this dead horse. O Fenian (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IP address, do please register. Sources don't have to be published online. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sources don't have to be available online necessarily (however it's generally preferred, so that people can check your work). I think providing some direct quotes from the material in question would probably help. — e. ripley\^talk 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ARA Rivadavia

There's a very good Spanish source for Rivadavia here, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? (Google Translate link) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Online newsletter post attacks living persons

Are posts ([85][86]) by someone who describes herself as a freelance journalist, published in Counterpunch online newsletter, reliable sources for Reporters Without Borders article? Luis Napoles (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Luis, ever thought of having the common courtesy to inform me you're referring this matter to this noticeboard - given that the dispute is between the two of us over Counterpunch? Fits in the pattern which got you blocked two days ago [87].

In favour of the source:

1. Used extensively as a source in books published by university publishers, such as Rutgers University Press [88]
2. It's used extensively across wikipedia as a source.
3. Contributors come from across the political spectrum, including Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and William S. Lind of the Center for Cultural Conservatism.
4. Barahona is a freelance journalist - so what? She's not self published. There are hundreds of freelance journalists used as sources in both wikipedia and in books. We going to start banning freelancers from being sources if they're published in a publication such as Counterpunch?

If I was a carpenter (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All of your edits on your account have been attacking a living person (Robert Ménard) and an organization (Reporters Without Borders) using online newsletter posts as sources. Anyone can post accusations involving the United Nations and a former director in web and then insert "controversy" to the United Nations article.

WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

Barahona is, according to her self-description, a librarian who posts stories to an online newsletter. Anyone can do that and therefore she does not resemble a reliable source.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Counterpunch is not a self-published source. I strongly doubt they publish everything that is sent in, no more than an academic journal does. What we really have here is an issue of undue weight. It's okay to add sources that question why Cuba is ranked as it is in the list ( I myself have a few questions about how the UK could possibly be ranked over the USA ), but the article is spending too much space on the Cuba debates and it is not well-organized. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Using a primary source as a source for someone's full name

In Gavin Menzies I used The Navy List as a source for his full name. On the talk page I'm told I can't, because this is a primary source. So, I presume, would be a birth certificate. So what do I use? I think we can use primary sources for this, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't know if The Navy List should be considered a primary source... but even if it is, I think you are talking about an appropriate use of that source. There is a common misconception that Primary Sources are never to be used. That is absolutely incorrect. I can not stress this enough: Primary sources MAY be used. They just have to be used appropriately. We have to be alert to potential misuse... especially using them in support of OR. But primay sources MAY be used. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say that it could be used in this case. I often use primary sources for early life matters that may not be covered in secondary sources, and most likely if they were to be found in secondary sources, would derive from the primary source anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Navy List is a published book go to http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/ and search for Navy Lsit and you'll see currnet and some older editions on general sale. Older editions are held by many large reference libraries. Certain detials of his career will also have been published in the London Gazette. David Underdown (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is CEPR and its articles a reliable source?

This source on RCTV in Venezuela, article by Mark Weisbrot: CEPR Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction, By Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot, June 1, 2007

cepr.net is not the same as cepr.org, but one of the authors, Robert W. McChesney, can be considered an expert in the field, as Research Professor of Communications at the University of Illinois. I assume there are different opinions on the subject, so it's probably best to attribute the statements to the sources.  Cs32en  15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the about us page at the website, I would say it is reliable. Certainly for a statement of opinion, and probably for statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CEPR is a think tank in Washington with a *very* overt political bias that has tobe referred to as left-wing. I am not saying there is something wrong with that but their "facts" on subjects like Venezuela are certainly subject to questioning. I highly recommend anyone using them as a source to include the fact that they describe themselves as overtly in favor of the governments of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa. see this: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wes/weswpa/2008-001.html http://lasarmasdecoronel.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellow-traveler-and-gangster-mark.html

WP:RS does not mean "conforming with the majority opinion". How do we know that Francisco Rafael Rodríguez, the author of the paper you refer to, is unbiased and reliable?  Cs32en  02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

reliability check

http://www.platinum-celebs.com? I ask to vet this edit. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For frugality, I'm reusing the same header: TVDiscs.com is used as sourcing for List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes; can somebody vet? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Ilan Pappe a reliable source?

Some input would be appreciated as to whether Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter in the UK, is a reliable source for Wikipedia on the history of the Middle East and related issues. Originally from Israel, Pappe has a PhD in Middle East history from the University of Oxford, and has written eight books on the subject. [89] Here is an article about him in The Washington Post, [90] and here in The Guardian. [91]

Pappe has been strongly criticized in Israel, including by other historians, for his academic work in supporting the Palestinian version of events. It was because of that criticism that he left his position as senior lecturer at the University of Haifa to take up an academic appointment in the UK. The criticism includes that his work contains errors, and I believe even the implication that some of it is fraudulent. He was particularly criticized for supporting an academic boycott against Israel.

As I see it, he is a reliable source within the meaning of Wikipedia:Verifiability, the policy. However, a number of editors are saying on Talk:Exodus from Lydda that there is a consensus on that page that he is not a reliable source, because of the criticism made against him, and because he is an anti-Zionist activist, and therefore he cannot be used in that article. See the discussion here. I'm bringing the issue here for further input. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable, or course. Ironically, this issue arises from a disagreement regarding using him as a source at an alleged massacre. It was his support for another "massacre", later found to be a blood libel, that was the cause of his downfall and why he is considered a disgrace in the mainstream community of Isral-Palestine historians.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give the names of the academics who see him as a disgrace, with cites? Also, it's not clear what you mean by his "downfall." He has a professorial chair at Exeter University. Many of us would wish for a downfall as prestigious as that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying Pappe had a "downfall" by being awarded a professorial chair, reminds me of a story the Northern Irish footballer George Best used to tell. A brilliant soccer player, one of the best in the world — something the Irish were very proud of — he also had a reputation for being a playboy and for not practising hard enough. He was lying in bed one evening in the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane with Miss World, and had just ordered caviar and the most expensive champagne on the winelist. Room service arrived, courtesy of a waiter who also happened to be Irish. The waiter looked at George, looked at Miss World, looked at the alcohol, shook his head sadly, and asked, "Georgie boy, where did it all go wrong"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much useful feedback you'll get here, but you deserve credit for trying. :) It might be most useful to steer discussion toward the context in which Pappe is proposed as a citation.

From my perspective, he holds a professorship at a major, reputable university and publishes extensively in the scholarly literature. That said, he also appears to be widely recognized as occupying one extreme of the mainstream academic debate on the topic. Both of these elements should probably be taken into consideration. I don't think you can exclude someone with his scholarly credentials from Wikipedia - after all, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be described - but at the same time it probably makes sense to provide readers who (like me) have never heard of the guy with some immediately useful context. What is the proposed content that would be sourced to Pappe? MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no particular content at issue, MastCell. The editors on that talk page are saying Pappe shouldn't be used as a source for anything. The content that he would be used for, normally, would be about the expulsion of Palestinians from certain towns and villages during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, so his work is relevant in Exodus from Lydda. He's currently used there only as a secondary source quoting a primary one, but he will probably be used more in future, if he's allowed to be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how one can make a blanket decision to exclude Pappe (or at least his work published by reputable, scholarly sources) from Wikipedia. That seems entirely inconsistent with policy. Certainly the specifics of how he is cited and contextualized would be grounds for discussion, and his position on the academic spectrum should be clear to the reader. But if there's a movement toward declaring his third-party-published, scholarly work "unreliable" across the board, then that seems wrongheaded to me. Unfortunately, by the looks of it, I doubt you're going to hear much in this thread beyond a forceful restatement of various previously expressed positions. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Pappé on Israeli history is barely more reliable than Ward Churchill on Native Americans or Juan Cole on what Ahmadinejad really means when he says, "wipe Israel off the map." Since Pappé's notability is not in doubt, any pronouncements of his that have received independent coverage can go in WP articles, but I would never use him as a sole, or principal, source on history.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable. Pappe is an anti-Israel activist who is not shy about his ideology influencing his historical writings [92]. That includes some quotes from an academic claiming Pappe fabricates, makes many mistakes and that he is not a reliable source on the IP conflict. This is also interesting, for a general feel of the guy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already said more or less the same thing on the relevant page, but - whether individual editors here assert he is "reliable" or not, right or wrong about topic X or even whether they like his politics or not is kind of beside the point. And sourcing criticism of his positions to CAMERA, or Alan Dershowitz or Efraim Karsh or whoever seems somewhat ironic, given that most of them are seen as being equally controversial or partisan by other observers, both on and off WP.

There are objective ways to measure these things, which WP rules are quite clear about - does he hold an academic position? Has his work on the topic in question been published in peer-reviewed journals, or his books by a reputable publishing house? Many academics, historians and "experts" hold political views, and are in dispute with their peers about both those views and sometimes their substantive work. That is the nature, surely, of academia and scholarship. This does not in any disqualify them from being used here (generally) as sources for information. --Nickhh (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable as one of several interpretations of available historical information by experts in this particular field. I generally agree with MastCell's take on the issue above. Pappé publishes in an area that is characterized by widespread disagreement between experts and institutions that we regard as reliable sources. These disagreements are both about facts and about their interpretation. Thus, for most of the statements where Pappé can be legitimately given as a reference, it is usually appropriate to include the views and information presented by other experts and institutions as well.  Cs32en  20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me for most purposes, based on chair at Exeter and lack of genuine academic downfall. As MastCell points out, what he is being used for is always important, and putting his views in context may be useful. Extremeness depends on which spectrum he is being placed in. In the context of Israeli universities, yes, but if one includes Arab academics and ones considered sympathetic to "the Arab side" ; or that of formerly Israeli academics now in the UK, like Moshe Machover and Avi Shlaim, less clearly so. The most serious problem that might arise would be if he is used for an obscure or unlikely claim which looks like it should be controversial, but rebuttals cannot be found. Considering his prominence and number of detractors, and the noise and volume of the I-P debate, this is an unlikely scenario, and could be resolved by just saying "according to Ilan Pappe"..John Z (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Much of his writing is unreliable, and none of it is among "the most reliable sources" (quote from WP:RS), for the following reasons:

1. Much of his writing is neither peer-reviewed nor published in academic publications.
2. He explicitly claims that his writing is not neutral and that he is proud to bring his politics into it.
3. He is an extremist political activist who advocated boycotting his own university.
4. Many of his peers (historians of the Arab-Israeli conflict) have written in peer-reviewed publications that he manipulates and/or falsifies evidence, and generally, that he's a hack.
5. So far as has been shown, not one of his peers has disputed the above assessment.
6. He endorsed, and still endorses, a student's thesis that was found by a university committee to be false and libelous. (Unsuprisingly, the thesis accords well with his extremist political views.)

Even if he were a reliable source, his writings are by his own testimony an exposition of his own POV and not an attempt to neutrally describe events. Since his POV is a fairly fringe one, we would still be required to give him little to no weight per WP:NPOV.
In addition, there is rarely, if ever, a need to use his writings. The topics he writes about are generally covered by many good historians. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, his views may be regarded as fringe inside Israel, but they're not in the rest of the world. To address one of your other points, his peers clearly have disputed the assessment of Pappe by some Israeli historians by giving him a professorial chair in history. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first point: Pappe is regarded as fringe (and much worse) among historians of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, many of whom are Israeli; no reason to assume prejudice among historians based on their nationality. On the second, see Ceedjee below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the most important : Pappé is wp:rs

But not on one point. His peers didn't support him. Some of his peers and more precisely, he got the job in an University where Uri Davis was already working. Exeter University is not a reliable university for content issues relating to the I/P conflict. That is just at best a question of standards concerning the freedom of speech, at worse, a political act. Ceedjee (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction and notes:

A) A review body of academic peers overturned Pappe and deemed the "massacre" thesis by Katz (Pappe's student) to be based on bogus information after the supreme court looked at the evidence and decided that the soldiers were right in posting a libel suit (Kats was forced to apologize as well if I understood the sources correctly).

More details here : Yoav Gelber, Folklore vs History: Tantura Blood Libel

B) You have to admit that there's an issue where he calls the fighting in Jenin "a massacre" and insists that the testimonies from there are supposedly all factual and that Israel and the U.S.A. conspired to hide the carnage. This thesis is easily refuted not only by the mainstream reports about the final death toll (53-56 Palestinians, 23 Israeli soldiers) and that initial promised numbers (of 500+ "massacred" Palestinians) but also by this article (scroll down) where a National Post journalist who examined a claim by a local grocer (in Jenin) that a truck was used to hide bodies and the truck ended up having food for the soldiers... no bodies (side note: I've verified that this is the genuine NP article). Everyone knows that Jenin was an impressive propaganda act so his support in that one just makes him into a conspiracy theorist and an extreme anti-Zionist.

C) I'm surprised that SlimVirgin neglected to add Norman Finkelstein to the discussion as Nickhh and Nishidani were really interested in lumping both together.

To sum things up, Pappe (as well as Norman Finklstien) is not exactly the type source I'd use for historical accounts on Israeli matters. If there are special cases where SlimVirgin or other editors think he (i.e. Pappe and/or Finklstien) should be used -- rather than in general use -- then I'd be happy to consider the value of the content in comparison to what others say about the described event.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) fix link 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should examine the implications of the remark 'Pappé is not exactly the type of source for historical accounts of Israeli matters'. Actually, what happens to Palestinians is not exclusively 'Israeli history' or an 'Israeli matter'. There is another party to this, namely the Palestinians. This is as much, bref, Palestinian history as Israeli history, and that is why, in NPOV, we cite sources that have a Palestinian angle here as well.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nishidani,

If all you wanted was to cite him as an example for the Palestinian perspective then why didn't you say so? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are 398 references in google book to Pappé's book : "The making of the Arab-Israeli conflict". That means that book is a reference.
Ilan Pappé's writings are used as references. That's it for wikipedia.
Now, if you go into details, you will see that several things he writes in his last book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine are exactly the contrary of what he wrote in the first one... Pappé (1992) is not Pappé (2006) but that is not possible for wikipedia to manage such issues. I don't see on what reasonnable principle we could reject Pappé, unless rejected by most of his peers, which is not the case [yet]. Ceedjee (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply being cited in books does not make one reliable, either according to WP:RS or according to reality. It does make one notable, but there is no dispute that Pappe is notable, in the same sense that Malcolm X is notable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable. There is no record of him promoting a blood libel, as suggested. He supported a thesis. That thesis was based on oral narratives made decades after the massacre of al-Tantura. Its author recanted, then recanted his recantation. 14 errors, in a thesis that ran to some 500 pages were discovered. Whatever the facts, citing the controversy around them cannot be used to impugn Pappé as one position within the historiography of Israeli/Palestinian history. To cite just one example, the to-date, most definitive historical work, of notable neutrality, on Palestine (3 of 4 volumes so far published), by Henri Laurens, one of France's most distinguished experts on the Arab world, of the Collège de France, runs to over 2,400 detailed pages, and in dealing with the Tantura controversy cites, as does Benny Morris, both versions, that of Morris and that of Pappé, though he himself judges that prisoners probably were shot there. (La Question de Palestine, vol.3, Fayard 2007 p.107. and note 15.p.737). If scholars of the stature of Laurens cite Morris and Pappé for alternative versions of disputed events, and leave readers to follow up or decide for themselves, I think we should trust them, and not allow diffidence over sources allowed to peons like ourselves to to fudge or prejudice an issue accepted by a good many mainstream academics.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

110% right. Ceedjee (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Not 110% right. He is, btw, still advocating the Jenin "Massacre" blood libel (see above comment). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Some links to how he is viewed by his peers.[93][94].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointless citing Morris and Karsh against Pappé, simply because the views they hold in common against him they respectively hold against each other. See Morris on Karsh and Karsh on Morris. Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

120% right. Here is also the answer of Pappé to Morris. Ceedjee (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

7.602% right. Notice that while one is published in the New Republic the other is published in the Electronic Infitada. But regardless, they both accuse him lying in order to advance his political causes. There's nothing more that precludes someone from being considered reliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris, Undeserving of a Reply, Middle East Quatterly, 1996 : "Efraim Karsh's article on the new Israeli historiography is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply."

We just lack the interview of Morris in Ha'aretz, and we will have all the stuff.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Morris' opinion on Karsh is a red herring. To the extent that it is relevant, it shows that these two scholars that are enemies have come together to agree that Pappe is a liar and can't be considered reliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What you both missed is that Pappé and Karsh agree that Morris is not reliable and Morris and Pappé agrees that Karsh is not reliable. Ceedjee (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Going along with the red herring..........Unlike the unanimous accusations faced by Pappe, Morris is not accused by Karsh of lying in order to achieve political gains and Morris is never accused by Pappe of lying in regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In any case, it sounds like you're backtracking from your original stance that Pappe is reliable so long as he is not "rejected by most of his peers".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The above is exactly why we don't exclude sources because someone says they're unreliable. If he's an academic historian, and he has published in the field, he's an RS for Wikipedia, no matter what some other historians say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review means nothing?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• People aren't sources. People write things, which can then be published in sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ask yourself this... if he had similar credentials in some other field of study, one that did not involve religio-politics, would we question his reliability? I think not. We would probably say that his views may be controvercial, but that controversy makes them noteworthy and significant. At minimum he is reliable for attributed statements as to his opinion on middle eastern history. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the rule goes for other topics, but I gather that if someone would advocate a boycott on the university that he's teaching in and was calling sources reliable despite them being considered by the mainstream global (not just Israeli) media as "bogus" (Jenin "massacre") that it would be preferred to use mainstream and neutral sources over him. Seems like common sense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He's reliable. If others disagree, then include them as well per NPOV. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable source but weight should be given to opposing opinions from other Israeli academics. There may not be any consensus on the last 50 years of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but both viewpoints should be presented in order to ensure WP:NPOV. Excluding his opinions and statements would be POV. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with Dlabtot's comment, sources are deemed reliable by WP:RS if they are peer-reviewed or published by academic publications. Pappe has written books that are neither, and it seems to me that the question is: should those books nevertheless be considered reliable because they were written by Ilan Pappe? My opinion, as detailed above, is: no.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be peer-reviewed or have academic publishers; and in any event, he is an academic, so he's subject to peer review all the time. Could I ask that people actually read the policy? It's at WP:V. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SV: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Brew, please read the policy at WP:V. And the RS section you refer to describes what we mean by scholarship. It does not say that we may only use peer-reviewed source material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And "peer reviewed" means that the work will not be published if the peers don't think it worthy of being published. Certainly his work has been reviewed by his peers after being published, and the typical review is "Pappe sucks, big time". I also note that his books have not been published by academic presses since 2003. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's more then that. The vast majority - if not all - of is peers, across the political spectrum have accused him of lying in his scholarship in order to advance his political causes. There is nothing more damming to the reliability of a scholar. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority - if not all - of is peers, across the political spectrum have accused him of lying in his scholarship in order to advance his political causes. Citations please.--G-Dett (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno how fast you read, but you can start with these two. Let me know when you're done. [95][96].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.--G-Dett (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. Am I missing something? This is your evidence? On the basis of two commentaries written by political enemies of his – both published in notoriously anti-Palestinian non-peer-review magazines, one run by Marty Peretz and the other by Daniel Pipes – you've decided that the "vast majority - if not all - of is peers, across the political spectrum have accused him of lying in his scholarship in order to advance his political causes"? Criminy, brewcrewer.--G-Dett (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How many would satisfy you? 100, 200? Benny Morris, a new-Zionist, is squarely within the left wing of the political spectrum, which was were Pappe was situated prior to supporting the blood libels in Jenin and al-Tantura, which have now been debunked by everyone outside of fringe and antisemitic cirles as hoaxes. Pappe is still holding strong with both canards. Do you have any "citations please" that they are his enemies? Are you going to dismiss new assertions that he's a liar as the rantings of his political enemies? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Seth Frantzman in MEQ also calls him a manipulater of evidence. So far that's 3 peers who say he fails elementary scholarly standards, and 0 who defend him from those charges. This is besides the committee from his own university that castigated him for endorsing a false and libelous thesis. Will the difference between 4-0 and 10-0 change anyone's mind, or is asking for more sources just a way of stalling? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pappe meets our definition as a reliable source. If something that he says is disputed by someone else, the remedy is simple. State in the article "Ilan Pappe claims that .... but so-and-so counters that ...." That's how you respond to views by reliable sources that may not be universally accepted. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Random break

Request. Can any of the editors that support considering Pappe reliable please state how they resolve Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship instead of just stating as a matter of fact that he's reliable? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, that section does not support what you are saying. And in any event, the policy is WP:V.

You gave two links in response to G-Dett's question above - Benny Morris and Efraim Karsh have criticized Pappe (and he has criticized them). You said all or almost all his peers have condemned him. Who else, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've provided two scholars from both sides of the political spectrum that say he's an opportunist liar. You can just sit back and your chair, and demand "more, Brewcrewer". Now it's your turn. Provide some mainstream scholars that say that Pappe is reliable and authoritative on I-P issues. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in mild disciplines like literature, academia can be bloodsport; Pappé is a scholar in a highly contentious field. It's pretty normal for scholars – especially highly politicized scholars like Morris, Pappé, and Karsh, in a highly politicized field – to be tearing each other apart. None of which makes them "unreliable" per Wikipedia standards. There are no scholars in this field who don't have things like this written about them. I'm sure Pappé was embarrassed to be caught out by Morris when he got Arafat's birthday wrong, but really, this kind of thing is normal. How you've proceeded from two negative book reviews by political opponents (one in a popular magazine and the other in a non-peer-review publication of an ideological think tank) to the conclusion that he has been discredited by "the vast majority - if not all - of his peers" is cause for wonder.

The thing to do with controversial scholars (whether they're in English literature or Middle East history or anything else) is to present relevant challenges of their specific findings, where those findings have been notably contested. The simple fact that their work has been challenged (especially in a controversial area like this) is not in itself grounds for dismissing their reliability.--G-Dett (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a joke like getting birth dates wrong. It's something fundamental that goes to heart and crux of reliability. Pappe has admitted to pushing his ideology in the face of facts pointing otherwise. No legitimate historian would dare make this assertion and would certainly be embarrassed to make such a claim. Papper neither backtracks from this scheme or is embarrassed about it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pappe has acknowledged that he is a political activist, as well as an academic, and sees nothing incompatible about that; indeed, it's an important part of European tradition that intellectuals speak out about matters they know and care about. But I am fairly sure he has never said that he does so "in the face of the facts pointing otherwise." Do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Forget what he's been accused of by mainstream scholars. From Pappe's own mouth:

1. "I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened"
2. "The debate between us is on one level between historians who believe they are purely objective reconstructers of the past, like Morris, and those who claim that they are subjective human beings striving to tell their own version of the past, like myself."
3. I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings, but so what? I mean it is the case for everybody.
4. "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers."

What we're seeing here is unabashed interest in pushing an agenda over facts.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, well done. Like I said, a Ward Churchill / Michael Bellesiles / Juan Cole type of figure. Caveat lector.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All we have here is an illustration of a position called, I've said it often, epistemological naivity, the idea that facts are the object of historical enquiry, and the sum of facts determines narrative (it happens to be, generally, Morris's approach). This is held by virtually no one these days, and Pappé's remarks merely reflect, if rather simplistically, a fairly common opinion among historians. If you read them against the following remark, from the incipit of a very influential book on the historical imagination, you will perhaps begin to appreciate the point.

Continental European thinkers - from Valéry and Heidegger to Sartre, Lévi-Strauss and Michel Foucault - have cast serious doubts on the value of a specifically "historical" consciousness, stressed the fictive character of historical reconstructions, and challenged history's claims to a place among the sciences. At the same time, Anglo-American phiolosophers have produced a massive body of literature on the epistemological status and cultural functions of historical thinking, a literature which, taken as a whole, justifies serious doubts about history's status as either a rigorous science or a genuine art. The effects of these two lines of inquiry has been to create the impression that the historical consciousness on which Western man has prided himself since the beginning of the nineteenth century may be little more than a theoretical basis for the ideological position from which Western civilization views its relationship not only to cultures and civilizations preceding it but also to those contemporary with it in time and contiguous with it in space. Hayden White, Metahistory,John Hopkins University Press, 1973 pp.1-2</blockoquote>

I.e., Pappé thinks all history is ideological, the area he works in subject to eurocentric ideological bias, and takes as his remit a position of phenomenological sympathy for the 'Other' excluded by this Western-ideological historical framework, namely 'the Palestinian Arabs'. You can see this work quite neatly in his studies of the 1920s, less well known, but illustrate the gains his method can produce in reading key events from the possible perspective of the community of Arab notables when told the Balfour Declaration meant Empire would sweep their world from under their feet. His position simply means that in any interpretation of an aggregation of facts constituting an historical event where two parties, of widely differing culture, background, social formation and politics are in conflict, the historian is obliged to try and re-imagine the event from a double perspective, to put himself inside, esp., the boots of the loser. Morris, notably, cannot do this for Palestinians, but he constantly exercises this right to 'sympathy' for the only historical actors he thinks important, his own group. Pappé's scandal, is that he transposes this sympathy for the vanquished, and is less intent on archival justifications. Tutto qua. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable, because he has books published by Cambridge University Press and Routledge, which are among the very elite of academic publishing. Thus, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, cf. WP:SPS. Vesal (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The following proposed structure of the discussion does not follow the principle of NPOV.  Cs32en  00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I restructured it, thoguh I'm not sure it would fit your interpretation of the policy. I'd be happy to hear out where you feel there's a problem (if you still feel there is one).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Supporting points

Following notes should clarify the reasons for supporting Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein and Al-Jazeera as reliable sources on I-P conflict articles and, specifically, for stories about "Israeli/Jewish/Zionist atrocities".

1. Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein are people and as such can't by definition be sources. We don't cite things to people, except in very limited circumstances as spelled out in WP:SELFPUB. Where Pappe or Finkelstein's viewpoints are published in reliable sources, they can be cited in accordance with our WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. This noticeboard can be useful for discussion of whether publications meet our criteria for reliable sources and whether citations are appropriate in context. Within an article the amount of weight to give competing views that have been published in reliable sources is an editorial judgement that should be worked out among editors on the article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Al-Jazeera is widely recognized as a reliable source. Like all sources, it does have a particular viewpoint. Unremarkable claims can be stated plainly. Remarkable claims should be explicitly attributed. e.g. "According to Al-Jazeera..." Dlabtot (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• add your comment here.

Exceptions

1. I support the usage of the above mentioned to present the Palestinian and/or Arab perspectives. They should, however, be very much avoided when used for stating historical facts and non-campaigning* sources (or at least ones that keep it "in-check") should be used instead.
   
   * Sample campaigning: Pappe - boycotting Israel among other anti-Zionist activity; Finkelstein - supporting Hezbollah among other antisemitic activity; Al-Jazeera - promoting "resistance" (or "Mukawama") and the perspectives of "resistance" groups... and organizing a birthday party to a child killer. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttals to "supporting points"

• Comments regarding #1+2:

• Pappe or Finkelstein are fringe perspectives and, much like the 9.11 conspiracy theorists, they have promoted widely rejected theories from within the Arab World narratives (which include a lot of antisemitism). They could be reliably cited for my suggested exceptions but cannot be used as "pappe says Israel massacred the Palestinians in Jenin and that Israel is committing genocide" without some note that his view is an extreme minority and that he's, at best, a prominent anti-Zionist. Similar exceptions could be made for Finklstein and Al-Jazeera who more often than not, promote "mukawama" misinformation. Just because they replace the word "Palestine" on the middle east map with "Israel, Gaza & West Bank" when they report Israel is "massacring" Palestinians, it doesn't mean that they are a RS for the I-P conflict (thay are notable, but unreliable). Quatar's money doesn't make you reliable and Al-Jazeera, much like Al-Arabya and their follies[97] don't make for reliable reports on "Israeli atrocities" or "Gaza Holocaust" (when 20 people die in February 2009). Still, I agree that they could be cited for the Arab view. e.g. "Pappe explains the Arab view that....". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC) clarify a bit 07:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  p.s. for the record, I think Al-Arabya are more reliable than Al-Jazeera but while both pass notability and can certainly be used for the Arab perspective, they cannot be cited for "Zionists kill children" type of information without an exception "weasel" (read: conservatively written) note about who they are. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I've been watching things here from a distance and wanted it to stay that way, but things are quickly getting out of hand here:

• First and foremost, the debate is getting pretty ugly and there are a lot of un-substantiated claims of Anti-semitism, Blood libel and the like which fly in the face of WP:BLP. This policy also applies to talk pages. Please refrain from attacking authors based on your own personal opinions or I will take this thread as a whole to WP:BLP/N.
• Secondly, this is about individual sources. I don't care what anybody thinks about an author: if he/she publishes academically (i.e. as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship), then that's it -- it's a WP:RS. This is independent of personal opinions on the authors. Challenging this concept opens a can of worms allowing the removal of any academical WP:RS based on the existing or perceived biases of the author.
• Thirdly and lastly, many of the editors arguing here against Ilan Pappe or Norman Finkelstein have themselves promoted sources from supposedly biased academic sources, especially when that bias matches their own POV. This type of hypocrisy and double-standards points directly to WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT and is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia.

So, can we put this discussion back to specific sources and away from bashing specific authors? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2009 09:29

Comment. Agree entirely with Peditro. This entire discussion is pointless, because people are not sources, documents are. If there are concerns about particular documents authored by one controversial scholar, they can be discussed where appropriate (context matters, so an article talk page would be the starting point) with input requested here or via an RFC. The main issue would be WP:NPOV, not WP:RS - if a claim (whether controversial or not) is sourceable only to one author (controversial or not), it should be attributed explicitly (or if the claim not notable enough, omitted). Rd232 ^talk 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In Pappe's own words

from A History of Modern Palestine page 11 [98]

My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.

• Pappe considers the request that he stick to facts and truth when "reconstructing past realities" as vain and presumptious. His bias is acknowledged, as well as his contempt for facts and the truth. His book is considered "revisionist" and "unique" [99] as part of its praise. Just what you don't want in a historiography book in a controversial area. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to play Devil's Advocate and insert a comment here... you will note that Pappe places quotation marks around the word "truth" in the passage quoted above. To say that he has "contempt for facts and the truth" is misinterpreting what he is saying. He may have contempt for a truth... but not the truth.

Wikipedia recognizes that different people will view "Truth" differently... it is a recognition that is encapsulated in the criteria for inclusion stated at WP:V: "Verifiability, not Truth". We don't have to agree with what Pappe says, as long as it is Verifiable that he says it. There may be some validity to calling his work "Fringe"... but if so, then he is notable fringe, and his view needs to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Blueboar on both the interpretation of this given text (which doesn't apply to all the others) as well as the issue of notability. As such, I believe that on occasions where his perspective on Israeli-Palestinian issues is needed to clarify the Arab perspective, he could be cited as a "prominent anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappe" or something similar. I can't see him used though when better sources that don't ascribe to extremist propaganda (esp. with the Jenin "massacre" blood libel) exist. I figure that similar notes could be added to Norman Finkelstien in articles where he has unique expertise but I'd hate to see him used in Holocaust articles for his Holocaust denial and other such "shenanigans". As for Al-Jazeera, I'm fairly certain that they could be used on many issues, but they should be noted as "Arab perspective" when reporting "Massacres" by Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. While we're on the subject of anti-Zionist (or worse) sources, I've recently noticed one of the editors involved on the promotion of Pappe and Finklstien to be using the website PalestineRemembered.com and I'd appreciate some perspective on the matter from this forum.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pappé just points to the fact that there are events in history which are disputed, and he implicitly argues that presenting a single account of those events would not be warranted (because evidence is inconclusive). He also implies that he might not present all possible accounts, due to his "bias". He doesn't need to, as he's not an encyclopedia ;-) We should take these words as an encouragement to include his accounts of these events, as well as the accounts of others, in the respective articles.  Cs32en  17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's false logic (no offense). Because a fringe source has a fringe perspective on an event, it doesn't automatically makes his anti-Zionist perspective relevant for the article. It would be better to use scholarly sources that don't ascribe to a blaming the Jews mentality. The point where he suggests Israel and the U.S.A. conspired to hide the "massacre" of Jenin (the battle that Jenin militant Zaharia Zubeidi calls a victory)... I have no objection to adding him as "Arabs and prominent anti-Zionists have described the event as a massacre" but to use him as a generic reliable source is destructive to the neutrality of the encyclopedia. Certainly when more reliable and mainstream sources exist.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can easily accept the issue of "truth" in relation to wiki. However, he clearly shows contempt for facts as well. He is a noted "revisionist" and while some may agree with his perspective, it should be presented for what it is, biased ...and his own opinion. To present his narrative as factual is to do our readers a disservice and present a biased perspective as a valid representation of history. If one insists on using his version of history, any article would need to be balanced with an equally biased perspective from the Israeli side. It would be better to present the unvarnished facts if one were sure what they were -- as closely and honestly as we can. If we can't ascertain the facts, at the very least, we should work for balance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is an article submitted to a journal a reliable source for this edit?

The edit at Christ myth theory states that "A recent examination of an ultra-violet photograph has revealed conclusively that the scribe wrote originally "Chrestianos" and that the "e" was changed to an "i"". The article in question is here [100], the journal is Journal of Higher Criticism, which has an interesting collection of authors, some of whom I'd probably agree with, others seem pretty fringe. The author, Oskar Augustsson, doesn't seem an expert on this, and publication in this journal does not, I believe, make him a RS. I also believe that it is a big jump from the bit in the submitted article by Rao to "revealed conclusively". The edit has been removed several times. This may be part of an atheist/Christian argument, but this atheist is only interested in whether it's an appropriate edit. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. It is not at all obvious who controls publication in the journal - in particular, I found no editorial board or mention of peer review, but only Price as the editor in chief - and he is associated with a non-accredited school. Also, analysis of a physical document seems to be more into the realm of chemistry or archaeology, not higher criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

'Conclusively' is evidently unjustified.

(a) Ida Giovanna Rao, whom he consulted for the paleographic analysis says the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for one to believe an ‘e’ lies under the ‘i’.

(b) Augustsson then independently obtained an ultraviolet photograph that allowed him to remark that the change from ‘e’ to ‘I’ was clearly visible

(c) He ventures his own opinion in the remark:‘I consider it now totally safe to say, in accordance with the examinations made by Andresen, Lodi and Rao, that the fourth letter in ‘Christianos’’ has indeed has been changed from an “e” to an “I”.

(d) Rao's evidence bears strong weight. It is referred through Oscar Augustsson, whose credentials are unclear, but there is no reason to doubt he's done his homework, and that the publishing journal is an outlet for frontranking textual critics and philologists.

(e) However, to use 'conclusively' for what is an outsider's judgement (Augustsson's work methods and position appear to resemble those of R. Gordon Wasson here, apparently), cannot be allowed in this case. You would need a paleographer, preferably a textual critic of Tacitus, to endorse his deductions and a follow-up where the judgement was not contested, but rather confirmed, to use that adverb.

The point itself is moot, since, on checking my editions of Tacitus I see that the passage with Chrestianus/Christianus is followed by the words: 'Auctor nominis eius Christus. The textual tradition of this manuscript of Tacitus bears no traces of 'Chrestus', which one would expect. Indeed, it stands to Augustsson's credit that he concludes his essay noting precisely this: 'For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript does not contain the name Chrestus’.

That said, the paper is a very good one, precise, observing all of the proper protocols of method. But one would very much doubt that such minutiae from just one manuscript are relevant to the article. I.e. in a word, the source is very good, the article also, but there is nothing conclusive about this, and it may be irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I've checked the Christ myth theory page, and the section on Suetonius is simplistic and a WP:SYNTH and in part a violation of WP:NOR that is partisan. This section shouldn't be there, unless amplified and refined.

Critics argue that "Chrestus" was in fact a very common Greek name and may have been a person of that name living under Claudius rather than a misspelling of Christ. Also it is pointed out that Suetonius refers to Jews not Christians in this passage, even though in his Life of Nero he shows some knowledge of the sect's existence, indicating that "Chrestus" was not "Christus".[citation needed]'

The section can be rewritten on the basis of the close examination of Suetonius in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000 pp.29-39 (so should the following section on Tacitus). Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The passage should certainly be rewritten, but the basic assertions are unproblematic. There is dispute about whether "Chestus" is a garbled reference to Christ or whether there was a person named Chestus who was a Jewish agitator in Rome. Van Voorst discusses this in an even handed way on p 32 of Jesus outside the New Testament. The main problem with the passage as written is that it seems to be trying to convince the reader that Chestus is not Christ, rather than simply explaining the differing points of view. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Higher Criticism is not a reliable source. It does not employ blind peer-review, and its editor, Robert M. Price, is a "professor" at an unaccredited theological seminary. It's basically a venue for the publication of fringe theories. Nishidani's suggestion to rewrite based on Van Voorst is a good one. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is certainly very doubtful, but the main problem here seems to be the use to which this passage is being put - as though scribal corrections of spelling imply some sort of conspiracy. The balance of the evidence is that the scribe quickly corrected the manuscript equivalent of a "typo", since Christus is spelled with an I in the next line, as has been noted. Augustsson does say that "Chrestus" does not appear, but if he really wanted to clarify the point he would have noted that an unaltered "Christus" does, which is the centrally important matter. Instead he evasively notes the negative that something isn't there. Other aspects of his argument seem to involve double-think and self-contradiction - for example using the fact that two distinct inks have been noted to argue that there was only one change that included both inks! It is difficult to see why this article should be considered reliable, but it is even more difficult to see why its content has anything whatever to do with "Christ myth theory". Paul B (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that my interest is basically about the source, and that the bit about 'conclusively' comes from our article Tacitus on Christ - if the source shouldn't be in one article it shouldn't be in the other, and certainly not 'conclusively'. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Slips of the pen" happen just as if not more often than slips of the tongue. The journal is not a reliable source, the paper seems to make statements stronger than those of the people it's quoting, and, overall, the source looks at least to me very unreliable. I can't see any reason to include it anywhere. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Salon on Rachel Corrie

Salon.com article

One editor of the Rachel Corrie article has opined that the above source is unreliable for one of two reasons:

1) The article is a movie review. It is indeed, but it is clearly a review of a recently-released documentary on Rachel Corrie's life. 2) The article quotes unreliable sources. My interpretation has always been that once a reliable source quoted an unreliable source (or, in this case, a collection of them) the origin of the information was no longer relevant.

Does anyone believe that either reason (or another not listed) is sufficient to impeach Salon as a reliable source in this context?

It is a movie review and interview. It is further officially an "independent blog" which means Salon does not exercise editorial control over its content. Material attributed as being said by Simone Bitton is likely properly attributable to her as her opinion only. The rest of the article is, at best, a blog opinion by Mr. O'Hehir. As for a reliable source cleansing an unreliable source, that is a matter of contention -- reliable sources have run stories which turned out to be hoaxes, and that does not me one can use a discredited article just because the RS had been taken in. Collect (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is specifically called an "independent film blog" ("Andrew O'Hehir's independent film blog offers reviews, news and interviews.") meaning that it reviews independent film, rather than that it is independent of Salon's editorial control. The attribution of Bitton's material is not in dispute. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- he reviewed Eastwood. Still officially a "blog". Hence, his opinions are his opinions. Her words are citable as her words. Neither reaches the level of "independent fact" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, any furhter comment in light of Ray's explanation below? Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems reliable enough to me. Quoting directly from WP:V, footnote: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Salon is an online magazine, and they put this professional writer up on their website. That's pretty much the definition of editorial control. Of course, I'm not exactly a complete stranger to the current argument, either. Ray^Talk 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Film affiliated with subject appropriate as source?

• Werner Erhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question has arisen at Talk:Werner_Erhard#Introducing_poor_sourcing_for_.22award.22, about usage of a "documentary" that has as its executive producer the attorney for the individual that is the subject of the film (read: not independent source, conflict of interest, etc.).

• More information from an article in Newsday:

"The movie claims to ask "hard questions" about Erhard's life and work, though concerns about the film's agenda already are circulating on the Web. Walter Maksym, who has served as Erhard's attorney, is listed as an executive producer of the film on the Internet Movie Database."

Guzman, Rafer (August 14, 2008). "Movie Buzz: WHO Werner Erhard, THE DEAL The founder of the controversial training program called est". Newsday. Newsday, Inc. p. B9.

• Confirmed at IMDB [101]
• Prior work of executive producer of the "documentary" = Erhard's attorney, Walter Maksym...

This "documentary" is not an independent source, fails WP:RS as a piece affiliated with the subject, and should not be used as a source. Rather, we should strive to find independent secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V.

Would like to get some outside feedback on this from editors previously uninvolved in this dispute/topic. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What informatioon is attempting to be sourced by the movie? I mean, if it's objective facts about him, I don't think it really matters. If it's info that's controversial, then I'd say probably not. In other words, if someone is using it to say "Erhard has been married for 30 years, and has blah blah blah.." I think that's ok. If it's used to advance a position about Erhard then I would say "no", not unless there is a competing side to that argument being presented in equal light.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's used to advance a position that the subject received an "award", from an organization affiliated with the subject himself. See Talk:Werner_Erhard#Youth_at_Risk_.22award.22. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this is reflective of the source (the video). If I'm understanding you correctly, it wouldn't really matter if USA Today reported on this award, because it's basically given to him by an organization that is affliated with him. I think the video itself is irrelevant, because of the information being provided is a violation of NPOV (and I'm not a BIO-expert so I wouldn't know...probably should consult that project if you haven't already) then it doesn't matter who is listing the award because we wouldn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wind power source

• Environmental effects of wind power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this web page a reliable source? -- [102] It is being used here: [103]. Johnfos (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - its an advocacy organization. The "Victims" button on their site is rather revealing as to their bias. If quoted in secondary sources, then it could be used, according to relative weight, as opinion. In this particular case (the picture) cannot be used - its simply advocacy, with no inherent reliability, and thus not usable as fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be used as a reliable source for any information on what that particular advocacy group believes in. It doesnt need quoting in a secondary source in that particular case. A source is not just "reliable" or "unreliable" per the guidelines a source must be reliable in the topic to which it is being a source for, a normally reliable source may not be reliable on a topic it is not authoritative on and a source normally not reliable may be reliable for a topic to which it is the authoritative source on. In this case it is reliable to say what an advocacy group which is opposed to wind power believes in, since a normally reliable source for wind power would be unreliable to cite what the opposers of windpower believe since it would be against the pro-wind power group's interest. Advocacy is perfectly fine as a source as long as it is clear the facts may not be facts but are the opinions of a group. Opinions are perfectly fine on wikipedia and dont need to be sourced in a secondary place.Camelbinky (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, that is just gobbledegook to me. What is this supposed to mean???

"A source is not just "reliable" or "unreliable" per the guidelines a source must be reliable in the topic to which it is being a source for, a normally reliable source may not be reliable on a topic it is not authoritative on and a source normally not reliable may be reliable for a topic to which it is the authoritative source on."

-- Johnfos (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A source can not just be labelled as unreliable or reliable for all instances of its potential use. That is right in the guidelines dealing with reliable sources. It plainly says that a source, even if reliable in most cases, MUST be reliable on the topic you are using it for. ie- a magazine that is reliable such as Discover or National Geographic if they say that creationists believe such and such, it wouldnt be a reliable source for that statement because of their potential conflict whereas a magazine promoting creationism, which would be unreliable on science and evolutionary theory IS reliable when sourced for what creationists believe. Its all there in the policies and guidelines dealing with reliable sources. Look it up. Perhaps it was gobbledegook to you in the way I worded it, or perhaps you simply believe a source is eiither reliable or unreliable and there is no grey area, in which case consensus on policy and guidelines disagree with you.Camelbinky (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is essentially self-published, so could only be cited according to the WP:SELFPUB criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Without delving too much into researching what is basically a photo with some words on it, on face value it does seem to pass wp:selfpub in my opinion. I could be wrong but defer to Dlbatot if he wants to look into it.Camelbinky (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. This is not the Wind Watch article and the subject is not Wind Watch, so no, it fails WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But the topic IS wind power, so an argument could be made that if someone wanted the article to be neutral, and I'm sure we all do, then ALL sides pro AND CON about wind power MUST be allowed to be presented. Info from a source published by an anti-wind power environmental group would be reliable to use for THEIR position on the negatives of wind power on a section in the article about environmental groups that hate wind power, which the article should have such a section if it wants to be written in an NPOV way and not seen as a pro-wind power advocate just because it is an article ON wind power. In that instance it does pass selfpub since then it would be about themselves, selfpub does not mean to be interepted as meaning self published material can only be used on ARTICLES about themselves, but instead any article in which the publisher's views should be represented because they contribute to an understanding of the article, in this case on the cons of wind power. This is getting off topic and if you want to continue a discussion on the philosophical meaning of WP:SELFPUB we can do so on either of ours talk pages.Camelbinky (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

windwatch.org is not a reliable source. It could be used, however, in an article about wind watch. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral in the sense of WP's NPOV does not mean equal time or that critique must be included just for the sake of critique... NPOV's central requirement is WP:WEIGHT... And without any indicators to tell us the relative merit or weight of the self-published opinion on the wind watch site, which is something only secondary sources can tell us, it cannot in any way or form adhere to WP:NPOV. And the site doesn't fit under any of the exceptions to WP:SPS, and directly violates #1,#2,#4 of WP:SELFPUB.

If you want reliable sources on cons in this particular area, which aren't already covered by the article. Then i'd suggest that you look into the building codification debates and subsequent post analysis reports. Both of which, at least in Denmark, is official and part of the public record.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not a reliable source for facts. It may be used as a reliable primary source for claims made by the advocacy group. WP:WEIGHT determines if this group is notable enough to have its opinion represented. I have some doubts, but that is a topic for another place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. For the claims of this advocacy group to merit inclusion in an article that is not about themselves, they'd have to be published in an independent source. Material from their website is clearly self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If only we could harness the wind power generated by Wikipedia's many noticeboards....Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comment. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

70 year old newspaper articles

Currently in Business Plot and related articles Smedley Butler etc. , one editor is removing "70 year old newspaper articles" as sources. His reasoning appears to be that 70 year old newspaper articles somehow cease to be reliable sources. I do not wish to be entangled with this person any more than is necessary, so can someone review the "70 year old newspaper articles" and determine if they have now ceased to be reliable? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that the newspapers themselves are reliable, the point is that a congressional committe found that what they said was false. So what the newspapers said at the time, before the committe came to it's final conclusion, is irrelevant because they were disproven by history and the facts. What someone wrote about Hitler in 1934, shouldn't be seen as an accurate protrayal of him today. The sames goes for the Business Plot. annoynmous 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any source whose information has been superseded loses reliability. The same newspaper, reporting on information that hasn't changed, like the daily closing value of the Dow Jones or the temperature for a certain day, may be considered reliable for that material. There may be some value in contrasting earlier views with later views, in line with "In was first thought that...but later evidence showed that..."   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that annoynmous does not actually give a citation for this congressional committee report that he says superceeds the New York Times. If I have a choice between a newspaper report which I can check, and an uncited mention of a congressional committee report... I'll go with the New York Times every time. That said, if he can provide a citation to the report... then perhaps. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Never mind... it is cited later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Will Beback. And a sentence to that effect "It was first thought that... but later...blah blah blah" actually would be a great addition to an article, articles should never just have what is thought today, they should delve into past thought on a topic as well. Otherwise there might not be any mention on all of Wikipedia that people once thought the world was flat!Camelbinky (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that historical perspective is important and all those old newspaper articles are in the Business Plot article. I feel they are innapropriate for the Smedley Butler article because it gives the impression that the plot was just some fringe theory of his when in fact a congressional committe confirmed most of what he said. This I feel is an attempt by certain editors to whitewash history. annoynmous 01:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Or an attempt by omitting reliable sources to whitewash history. WP policy has generally been that reliable sources ought not be removed just because IDONTLIKETHEM. Collect (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the rationale given, Collect. Rationale given is that the data is no longer considered accurate. In fact, has found to be inaccurate. I fail to see why you are arguing to keep sources shown to be incorrect. Drop this, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources have not been shown to be incorrect, as a matter of fact. And the editor who is insisting that the Congress proved the plot existed is going agaoinst current cites from hostorians <g>. Collect (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What current historians say is surely not covered in a 70-yr-old newspaper clipping. You are now moving from RS questions to Content Dispute; this is the wrong venue for that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Being an RS is not temporary. An RS 70 years from now is still an RS. Some academic types will debate that if a secondary source is old enough it becomes a primary source, but both still RS. This is an article about history. Some of the souces quoted are going to be historical. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that last comment... reliability is NOT a permanent status. A source that was once considered reliable might not be considered reliable today. And a source that is deemed reliable today may well be deemed unreliable in the future. The flip side of this is that a source does not become automatically unreliable purely for being old. Some 70 year old sources are reliable, while other 70 year old sources are no longer reliable. It depends on the source. It depends on whether subsequent scholarship has shown the old source to be flawed.

It also depends on how you are using them. A source may be reliable for a historiographical statement (what the consensus 70 years ago was), but unreliable for a statement as to current thought. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

American Journal of Family Therapy

Could I have an analysis of the American Journal of Family Therapy? It appears to be the primary publisher of noncritical articles about parental alienation syndrome, which is a curious pattern. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It has an eigenfactor of 0.13891, if that helps. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On first review, I don't see anything to indicate a problem with its reliability for Wikipedia. It's a peer-reviewed journal with a 37-year history, published by Routledge, with a solid editorial board [104]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. it is a journal of demonstrably abysmal quality. In Journal citation reports, it ranks 27th of the 30 journals in Family studies, and 85th of the 87 in clinical psychology. It is just such journals which tend to publish articles from distinctive non-central POVs. Many academics join any editorial board that asks them to; it does not necessarily involve any work. DGG (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's twitter

How reliable is this for sourcing statements by Fry? We know that it is Fry because he's one of the most famous people on Twitter, having made the news several times for it. The tweet in question is about when he expects the next series of QI, which he hosts and is filming today, to air. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Without looking into the details, I'd say it's just as reliable as if he would make such a comment on his homepage, or blog. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I thought. For context, this is the tweet and I was expecting to use it on List of QI episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question... does Twitter archive old posts? In other words, will this be available for verification in, say, two month's time? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they do, for at least two or three years. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I think it would pass as a WP:SPS... of very limited use... reliable for a statement as to what Fry has posted on Twitter, but not for much else. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely reliable and neutral source removed for no valid reason

Resolved

 – No dispute concerning the reliability of a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:NJGW is edit-warringly trying to whitewash the article The Mismeasure of Man by removing an absolutely neutral and non-controversial source that directly support the information as it is presented. The source is:

Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2002). "Memorium for Stephen Jay Gould". Biology and Philosophy 17 (3).

and the reason for removal is that the source is an "obit"!! Hcp7 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for removal is that it is a throw-away remark made in an obit and used to characterize a book in the first line of the article's lead. It's a violation of wp:WEIGHT and no wp:CONSENSUS of academic opinion is demonstrated by the source. NJGW (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no dispute that the source is reliable, I'm marking this as resolved. Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edward Gibbon and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Although

The criticisms upon his book...are nearly unanimous. In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, the 'History' is unsurpassable. It is the one English history which may be regarded as definitive. ...Whatever its shortcomings the book is ... historically unimpeachable ...<ref>Stephen, Sir Leslie, "Gibbon, Edward (1737-1794)," [[Dictionary of National Biography]], vol. 7, eds. Sir Leslie Stephen, Sir Sidney Lee (Oxford: 1963;1921), 1129–1135. </ref>

and The work is notable for its erratic but exhaustively documented notes and research<ref>Wikipedia article on [[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]</ref>

its also 200 years old. Does this stop it being a reliable source?Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The book is a classic, much the same way as for instance Mommsens Römische Geschichte (and much more entertaining to read), and the work does show that Gibbon had an impressively extensive knowledge of the sources. That being said, I highly doubt any contemporary classical scholar would use it as a secondary source in research on the Roman Empire. Nowadays the book would be read only for pure literary enjoyment. I do not think it would be a good idea to use this book as a source in articles on Roman history in Wikipedia (except perhaps in the historiographical overview), as there are bound to be more recent sources on any theme imaginable within that particular subject. However it is difficult to answer your question accurately without knowing precisely what the problem is. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Saddhiyama has it right... It can certainly be used for historiographical information (ie in an overview of how views of Rome's history have changed over the years) but more modern scholarship should be used for factual info. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It can also be used for good quotes, if something is added to indicate the age, e.g. as Gibbon said in the 1780s, .... His summations of the general nature of an era or a person remain useful, but one also must consider his known biases. Byron's comment on gibbon's treatment of christianity was, "Sapping a solemn creed with solemn sneer," and that approach has never been done better. Be aware that the DNB article you quote was itself written a century ago. The old DNB is useless for authenticating what is a reliable authority. DGG (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indiaglitz.com

Is Indiaglitz a reliable source as used in Villu (film)? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)