Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Feature articles and what they can be used for

Over at Wikiproject Video Games a recent issue brought this to the forefrount and we are trying to figure out what these reliable sources can and cannot be used for. Specifically, whether can be used for making statements in video game reviews without attributing it to the studio, the development team or specific member of it. IE, would sites like IGN and Gamespot be okay? What about sites like Gamasutra which focuses more on developers and development-related issues that a general-interest website?陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

IGN and Gamespot are well-known gaming sites, and I would think they are okay to be sourced just as long as you attribute it correctly. As far as attribution goes, remember that using common sense works quite well.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So your saying for claims about a video game's development, its okay so long as you say something like "According to IGN..."?陣内_Jinnai 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would think that in every case attribution would be a good idea, unless it's a statement of fact such as when a game was released or how many players there are. Also, personally I would think that since a review is often simply personal opinion, and since those opinions tend to vary widely, and since there are likely many published opinions, one wouldn't want to overwhelm an article with attributed opinions. It seems like an article should be mostly facts, and then a few opinions about how a game was received. It sounds like a site such as Gamasutra could be used as a source to add some interesting context. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the source is being used. Is it being used for a statement of opinion or a statement of fact?

• If it's an opinion, in-text attribution should be used. For example, "IGN called RacingGameX 'the best racing game of the year'."
• If it's a fact, is there any dispute over the fact?

• If not, in-text attribution is not required. For example: "Nintendo makes the Wii" is perfectly fine whereas "According to IGN, Nintendo makes the Wii" wouldn't sound right.
• If there is a dispute over the fact, use in-text attribution. For example, "According to IGN, the Wii has sold X units while Gamespot says Y units have been sold."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that those sources contain a verity of content, some of which would not be usable. Forums, for example.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about info on the development/production of game(s). on feature articles; not forums, not walkthroughs, not even reviews, but feature articles like "History of role-playing video games" or something along those lines. The question is asked here because as mainstream press sources in video game industry they should be known for fact checking and have inside connections to video game industry. However, the counterargument is there is no way to know if what they say is their opinion or fact for development info, unless its attributed or backed up by the developer/producer elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Echoing Jinnai's clarification, most editors are already in agreement with the suggestions above: review pieces should be used primarily for the author's opinion with attribution. However, this question stems from other content on sites like IGN and GameSpot. Particularly feature articles found here and here. What guidelines should be followed when citing those articles? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

It might help to give us a specific example of a sentence that you'd like to cite to one of these articles. But there is no requirement that a secondary source such as IGN or Gamespot also be confirmed by a primary source (i.e. the game developer). It's nice if you can find it, but it's not required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

well an example doesn't come to mind as it evolved from discussion of a review which isn't quite the same. But basically it would be like IGN claiming that during the development process of Dragon Warrior they had an idea for multiple characters instead of a single hero, but were limited due to the cartridge size (this is confirmed by the creator). While the latter part certainly would be a factor that restricts content, it is generally considered insider knowledge as to what was cut and if the creator had not gone on record, how should a case like that be treated if they go out a claim it without attributing it?陣内_Jinnai 19:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If a third-party such as IGN or Gamespot publishes this, it's no longer 'insider' knowledge, right? Again, I would just cite the source. There's no need for the developer to confirm the information. If you're really in doubt about the factual accuracy of the statement, you can always use in-text attribution ("According to IGN..."). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

American Renaissance (magazine)

I recently noticed that the “racialist” publication American Renaissance (magazine) is used as a source for a Criticism of Wikipedia and I immediately removed it writing This publication not WP:RS except for own views; please go to WP:RSN and confirm that with opinions there. This diff shows it was immediately reverted with no real explanation.

Talk page discussion is split, but obviously policy trumps talk pages. As I wrote there “Frankly, only reason I haven't gone to WP:RS yet is this might be about the only article where American Renaissance's opinion on 3rd parties would be allowed to be used because it is a criticism of Wikipedia itself.” I later suggested a section of “fringe group” criticism, but have to wonder if it even would be appropriate there given it promotes some thing it says isn’t racism, but most people would think is! [Later comment: my apologies for not investigating the publication and seeing how racist it really is!!}]

Others' thoughts on whether it is WP:RS for this or any other purpose besides describing itself?? Given current focus on criticisms of wikipedia, probably a good idea to expedite this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a very "weak keep" on this one. The magazine is being quoted for its own opinion, which is all it is reliable for. Yes, its an opinion about a third party, but since in this case its Wikipedia, rather than a living individual raising WP:BLP issues, I would include it on the grounds that its slightly informative and makes clear its quoting a racist source.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, another user brought up the issue that there have been false inferences by the publication itself that something was originally published there or printed with permission, and that that might be the case here also. That has not yet adequately answered. So that is another issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Does not look like problem. Stix writes for AR and NCF and it is not important if he post his article also at his blog earlier or later than it it was published by AR. --Dezidor (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AR is well known pro-white magazine that cooperates with university professors and writers like: American_Renaissance_(magazine)#Notable_contributors_and_speakers. They are leading representants of their point of view. Of course some another groups or individuals do not like them. It is same case like Norman G. Finkelstein. --Dezidor (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at American Renaissance's first page from the link you posted, it obviously makes fun of blacks, Latinos and immigrants in a racist way, even inferring or just plain stating they are a bunch of looters and jailbirds and incompetents! This Jared Taylor article says the magazine takes no position on Jews, though I doubt the average Jewish reader of the article - or anyone else sensitive to real antisemitism would agree. So please don't compare it to Norman Finkelstein!! I'd say the publication definitely falls into WP:RS: widely acknowledged as extremist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are out. Many professors and notable authors and activists write for AR or speak at their conferences. For example Paul Gottfried, Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, Frank Borzellieri, J. Philippe Rushton, Raymond Wolters... Your Wikipedia:I just don't like it and your personal feelings are not valid arguments. Of course some individuals or political groups like SPLC and ADL do not like them but their point of view is just another point of view not fact.

By the way Gottfried, Levin and other authors and speakers at conferences are Jews so you fantasies are totally absurd. --Dezidor (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dezidor, nothing you say refutes Carolmooredc's assertion that the magazine/website is an extremist source. The fact that controversial professors contribute doesn't mean it isn't extremist.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote. It is same case like Norman G. Finkelstein. Some people like them, some hate them but they represent significant point of view. Their so-called "extremism" is political label/libel by ideological enemies [1]. Nihil novi sub sole. --Dezidor (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Finkelstein will show up at one of their conferences. And any white person can be racist. (As can people of any race.) Ubique Racism CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why should he? His primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust and their primary fields are topics like race and immigration. They host professors, other experts and activists from their field who also co-create American Renaissance magazine. --Dezidor (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about Finkelstein, we're talking about American Renaissance. What is your definition of "extremism"?   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no genereal definition of "extremism". Poorly sourced article extremism doesn´t look helful. Term "extremism" is now generally used as a part of political fight. Many left wing liberals call conservative groups as "extremist" and vice versa. But what should by the definition for Wikipedia? If we want to respect political neutrality (and not promote political positions like "conservativism is better that liberalism", "anti-racism is better than racism" or "moderates are better than hard liners") than extreme sources and extreme points of view are sources and points of view that are fringe and are supported by really few people who have no weight. They are not supported by notable politics, political activists, academics, writers etc. For example AR is represenant of significant view point and the magazine cooperates with professors, well known writers and member of European parliament. That is why I support same solution that I supported eariler in the case of Finkelstein. That´s why groups like Libertarian National Socialist Green Party are different cases than American Renaissance or Finkelstein. --Dezidor (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Despicable publications exist. They are entitled to exactly the same level of NPOV articles as any other publications, and the discussion here should deal with sources and not with the publication itself. As long as the source is properly indicated, that is the real criterion. Imagine some folks consider the SPLC just as "despicable" but it is routinely cited for its opinions in many articles on WP. It is not up to editors to decide that any despicable topic is somehow less entitled to a balanced encyclopedia article. In cases of BLPs, this ideal is even more important. In any given article, of course, the question of weight also applies, but not the issue of opinions cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• FBI agents are reportedly investigating claims that the cannabis smoking loner was linked to American Renaissance, an extremist anti-government and anti-immigration group that is also known for its anti-Semitism.
  • I thought I'd be shot, says woman who grabbed gunman David Gardner. Evening Standard. London (UK): Jan 10, 2011. pg. 8
• The JDO website describes American Renaissance as "a collection of Jew-Hating and racist neo-Nazi & KKK." Marilyn Mayo tracks both groups as a director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. "You have one extremist group fighting another extremist group," she said. "In fact, the American Renaissance is not a neo-Nazi group. It's a racist group."
  • Militant Jewish group seeks to block N.C. gathering of white supremacists Jim Morrill. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: Jan 24, 2011.
• The Jewish Defense Organization is calling on supporters to push the Crowne Plaza Dulles Airport hotel into canceling a Feb. 22-24 conference for the New Century Foundation and its American Renaissance magazine. [..] Both organizations have been labeled by civil rights organizations as extremists. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the New Century Foundation a "hate group" and Taylor a "white supremacist."
  • Extremists' Meeting Prompts Protest; Militant Jewish Group Urges Herndon Hotel to Reject 'Neo-Nazi' Conference Fredrick Kunkle - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 16, 2007. pg. T.5
• In April 2000, Professor Frank Ellis was guest of honour at a conference organised by a far-right eugenics group called American Renaissance. His employers at Leeds University allowed him to travel to the US for the event, but withdrew their approval once they learned he was to share a stage with extremists.
  • Education: Higher: Hold the front page! The students have a story: When a university paper has a scoop, the national media descend on campus Riazat Butt. The Guardian. London (UK): Jun 20, 2006. pg. 12
• In 2000 he defied the university when he spoke at the conference of far Right U.S. magazine American Renaissance on the subject of 'Racial Hysteria in Britain'. Other contributors to the extremist publication include BNP leader Nick Griffin.
  • Students in revolt over 'racist' lecturer ; ACADEMIC STANDS BY CLAIM THAT BLACKS ARE INFERIOR Daily Mail. London (UK): Mar 7, 2006. pg. 19
• Race-relations expert Jared Taylor keeps company with a collection of racists, racial "separatists" and far-right extremists. [..] Race-relations expert Jared Taylor publishes American Renaissance magazine, which features an array of pseudoscientific studies that purport to show the folly of multiculturalism and the inherent failure of the races to live together
  • On Martin Luther King Jr. Day last week, when much of the nation took a... ]; [REGION Edition] Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jan 23, 2005. pg. J.1
• The magazine, which is edited by the self-styled "neighbourhood Nazi" Derek Turner, provides links on its website to American rightwing extremists who say that black people are more dangerous than whites. [..] On its website the magazine provides links to extreme American rightwing organisations such as American Renaissance.
  • Far right MP dropped from Duncan Smith campaign Nicholas Watt, Political Correspondent. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 28, 2001. pg. 1
• A recent conference in Virginia was a reminder that the harsh rhetoric and extremist views that fuel racial divisions are hardly things of the past. [..] At the fourth annual American Renaissance conference, participants heard that white women have larger birth canals and blacks have narrower hips and back jaws, proving, the speaker said, that whites' brains are superior. [..] At a time when rapid demographic change promises to change the face of America, and maybe further complicate difficult racial issues, the American Renaissance conference was a stark reminder that the harsh rhetoric and extremist views that increase racial divisions have not gone away.
  • WHEN WHITE SUPREMACISTS GATHER, THEIR TALKS CAN GET VERY DETAILED; [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition] Terence Samuel Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Apr 6, 2000. pg. A.6

The issue here is whether American Renaissance qualifies as an "extremist" source. Quite a few sources characterize it that way.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sources of them do you personally find reliable as sources for facts not for opinions? Jewish Defense Organization? SPLC? Fake information about Jared Loughner and AR? Newspaper that supports Labour party? Ironic phrase "neighbourhood Nazi" that British left misused to attack Derek Turner (journalist) and Iain Duncan Smith? --Dezidor (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ADL calls both the JDO and AR extremist. This list does not quote JDO itself. SPLC is a reliable source, but just one of many. Are you saying that all of these are unreliable sources for the assertion that AR is "extremist"?   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about ADL and how it calls JDO or AR? That sources you or Jayjg wrote are reliable as sources for opinions not for facts. Same case as academics who support AR or Finkelstein, Chomsky, Dershowitz... There is no general consensus, just many points of view. --Dezidor (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a general consensus among reliable sources that American Renaissance is not reliable, as has been demonstrated above and below. Please review WP:V and WP:RS for more detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A small sample of sources:

• "...American Renaissance, a pseudo-scholarly journal and associated foundation..." Dominic J. Pulera. Sharing the Dream: White Males in a Multicultural America. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, p. 303.
• "...American Renaissance, a racist periodical devoted to the idea that whites are smarter and less “pathological” than blacks." Euan Hague, Edward H. Sebesta, Heidi Beirich. Neo-confederacy: a critical introduction. University of Texas Press, 2008, p. 302.
• "...virulently racist American Renaissance magazine..." Abby L. Ferber. Home-grown hate: gender and organized racism. Routledge, 2004, p. 75.
• "...the pseudo-academic racist American Renaissance organization..." David A. Neiwert. The eliminationists: how hate talk radicalized the American right. PoliPointPress, 2009, p. 59.
• "...the virulently racist American Renaissance magazine..." Barbara Perry. In the name of hate: understanding hate crimes. Routledge, 2001, p. 136.
• "...the racist American Renaissance magazine..." Michael Newton. The Ku Klux Klan: history, organization, language, influence and activities of America's most notorious secret society. McFarland & Co., 2007, p. 190.
• "...the racist American Renaissance magazine..." Kristin Ann Bates, Richelle S. Swan. Through the eye of Katrina: social justice in the United States. Carolina Academic Press, 2007, p. 109.

American Renaissance (magazine) quite obviously fails the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some academics and political activists like them and work with them, some hate them and write in negative way about them. It is not surprising that people like Heidi Beirich from SLPC call them "racist". That´s nothing new. AR represents minority point of view in the USA. That´s also nothing new. --Dezidor (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not relevant to my post above. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Minority views are included, but extremist sources are excluded. AR is an extremist source, according to reliable mainstream publications. If we can find the same view expressed in a reliable source then we can include it.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Theosophical Society

Take a look at this material. We basically have a devotee of Theosophy -- she's executive director of the Theosophical Publishing House -- make sweeping claims about her own organization. It seems to me that more independent sources are needed for us to assert the Theosophy Society's impact. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be acceptable if presented as a statement of attributed opinion (in this case, Shirley Nicholson's opinion) as to the impact of the Theosophical Society... but I would agree that it is not acceptable as a statement of unqualified fact (which is how it is currently presented). Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor is still making repeated attempts to include this, without engaging in discussion. I wonder whether semi-protecting the article might persuade him/her to talk? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, this time referring to me as a 'vandal' in the edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

schoolnet

Hi, - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnovel.htm is this reliable on the article about the living person - to support this content - Columnist Jack Anderson reported that, Charles Colson asked Novel to build a degaussing device that could erase copies of the famous Watergate tapes from a distance, which were stored at a secured locationspartacus.schoolnet.co.uk - over 2100 links from this wikipedia

I would say no - it's not at all apparent, at least as far as I can see, who wrote the content on this site, or what if any editorial process it went through. Barnabypage (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has come up several times on RSN and is consistently regarded as not reliable. It appears that the content is all written by John Simkin[2] and that this is a Self-Published Source. Fladrif (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting - articles been userfyed so the question not currently an in article issue anyways, the situation that we have over 2100 externals to this website and it is classed here as not reliable it's hard to comprehend. Is anyone that has discussed this previously got any idea why this wiki should have so many links to a site that is judged as unreliable? Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• - I was looking and this from three years ago with the comments of two Administrators that support the site, although, times change. Although - if its not reliable why have we got over 2100 links to it - imo that reality asserts a degree of trust and opinioned reliability. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember previous discussion that ruled this site unreliable, so agree with Fladrif. It would be good to examine all the referencs to it. It could meet EL criteria sometimes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is used a lot in UK-related articles. For example History of West Ham United F.C., an important football article, uses it extensively. It was discussed at WikiProject Football fairly recently; [3], with the idea being that RSN hadn't ruled it out and it was still useful. It must be decision time, and I think we have to say it is not generally reliable. Clearing it out of all articles, if that is indeed consensus, will be a mammoth job. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the past discussions suggested that the site is not adequate as a source, but it's good enough for external links sections.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian and Hebrew language sources for Michael Cherney

Michael Cherney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been an ongoing edit war over this bio, where a user (now blocked for 24 hours) has repeatedly inserted material about alleged criminal activities of living people. This diff includes two contested edits.

The first is sourced to Izrus, an Israeli based Russian language site. This Haaretz article suggests that the site is a captive organ of controversial Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman who is described in our Michael Cherney article as a friend of Cherney's.

The second set of assertions, originally sourced to PR Newswire, has now been sourced to two Hebrew sites, this and this with (suspiciously) the same headline given.

Would anyone able to read Russian and Hebrew care to comment on whether these sites 1. support the assertions made in the article and 2. are reliable sources? Thanks.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you turn on the translation function in Google Chrome, the sites will come up in English. Just tried it and it works. Lawblogger18 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a topic which is being handled twice on this noticeboard now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I opened the first discussion and got feedback only on the use of PR Newswire in the Cherney bio. I opened this one to see if I could get some feedback specifically on the Russian and Hebrew sources. Hope that's all right. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! OK. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject page Michael Cherney has been locked while the dispute continues. Assuming the sources say what they are claimed to say, do any editors have a view about whether or not the above sources - namely Izrus,globes and ynet - are reliable ones? JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I continue to think Izrus is suspect for the reasons I gave above (attack organ of Cherney friend Avigdor Lieberman). Globes is a respected business publication but a search at their English site produced nothing on any spelling of Cherney, wiretaps, etc. I noticed the disputed assertions are currently out of the locked version, but this is all still of interest as we can be sure that as soon as its unlocked, more mysterious users will turn up to re-insert the content with "vandalism" messages.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Globes is the established, business news publication in Israel. Should there be any doubt of this fact, I kindly suggest editors to contact the local Israeli consulate and ask their media representatives, as I have. Please find the following translation from Hebrew to English of the Globes article in question: "The story of spying on Cherney: Avigdor Ekin is charged with eavesdropping. The economic branch of Israeli state prosecution filed an indictment against right wing activist Avigdor Eskin who followed orders of Alexey Drobashenko to spy on Oligarch Michael Cherney in the summer 2007. Eskin is charged with illegal eavesdropping. According to the charges, in April 2007, Drobashenko, CEO of one of the companies of Oleg Deripaska (the richest man in Russian and in the past partner with Cherney in the huge aluminium Rusal company), turned to Eskin who in that time was involved in Deripaska's PR. As a result of this request Eskin started various PR activities against Cherney. In the range of those activities Eskin met with private eye Aviv Mor and asked of him to follow Cherney. In the future, Mor together with Rafi Pridan and started to gather info on Cherney and his associates, where Eskin acted as a broker and passer of info between private eyes and Drobashenko, whom he met once in a while. Also is stated in the charge that while gathering info on Cherney, the accused Eskin, Mor and Pridan eavesdropped on conversations of Elena Skir, private secretary of Cherney, without her knwowledge. For all that they got from Eskin 50,000sh in cash. In September 2010 charges were served against Pridan and Gurevich, who was also involved in the case and was also prosecuted for his involvement in the kidnapping of businesswoman from Jerusalem in April. In January 2011 Aviv Mor was found guilty (with his admittance to eavesdropping on Elena Skir) in the deal he cut with the Israeli Prosecution. He got 6 months of public service and 20,000 NIS fine." YNET is the Website of the established and largest daily news publication - Yediot Ahronot - in Israel. Should there be any doubt of this fact, I kindly suggest editors to contact the local Israeli consulate and ask their media representatives, as I have. Please find the following translation from Hebrew to English of the YNET article in question: "Activist for extreme right wing is being accused of secret listening on Cherney. Avigdor Eskin is being charged that three and a half years ago took initiative to do secret listening on a business man, on behalf of a worker of a Russian Oligarch who had a dispute with him. Prosecuting country office served yesterday to the District Court in Jerusalem an indictment against extreme-right-wing-activist Avigdor Eskin, for secret listening on Michael Cherney which are not in accordance to the law. The accusation shows that in April 2007 Eskin who was noted as someone who did ceremony of pulsa-denura on deceased PM Rabin, received request from Aleksey Drobshenko, an employee of the Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is in dispute with Cherney on the subject of money and business, who asked him to find a private detective company which can gather info on Cherney to hurt him. As a result, Eskin asked private detectives Rafi Frider, Aviv Mor and Maxim Gurevich to help him gather infomation on Cherney and all sides agreed that info on his Cherney’s associates. Prosecution is stating that in the months of August and September of same year Eskin and the accomplicies performed secret listenings on the private phone in the house of Elena Skir, the secretary, in Tel-Aviv, without her knowledge or agreement. According to prosecution, Gurevich would get tapes that contained the listenings, and after that he would pass the transcripts to Eskin. Prosecution charges that Mor and Pridan received from Eskin 50,000 NIS in cash. About a year ago the District Court in Tel-Aviv found private detective Mor guilty of violation of privacy and sentenced him to 6 months of public service and fine. Against Gurevich and Pridan were served similar charges." globaljournalist (talk)Globaljournalist (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that YNET could be reliable for the substance of court proceedings. We would need a better English translation than this, though, for verification. Is there a Hebrew-English translator (not English-Hebrew, of course) around? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Globes and Ynet are WP:RS sources. Unfortunately I have little time to translate, but if anyone tells me what fact needs to be found in the article, I'll see if it's there. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. See this diff for the information in the article sourced to Hebrew language publications which has been the subject of dispute. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The general gist of the paragraph seems to be accurate, but it was clearly not taken from either of the two sources provided, which are almost identical and neither gives the same information as in the paragraph. Firstly, the indictment was handed on January 4, not January 3, and most of the other info is absent. I'd leave the following information:

On January 4, 2011 an indictment of Avigdor Eskin, a political activist, was submitted an Israeli court. The indictment relates to the case of illegal collection of information about Michael Cherney at the request of Oleg Deripaska.

Hope that was helpful. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Very, thanks. If you don't mind, one more question: if the two sources are reliable, how can they possibly run the same article? Is it like something in a US newspaper attributed to a syndicated news service? Or is it possible they both reprinted a press release of some kind? The controversial edit was sourced to press releases in PR Newswire before being changed to Ynet and Globes. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Hillel Levine's biography of Chiune Sugihara a reliable source

Chiune Sugihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both at the article's talk page and my talk page issues have been raised about a biography by Hillel Levine used in the article. There was a lawsuit challenging its accuracy, although family members were divided, see [4] and[5]. I can't find out what happened about the lawsuit. I'm raising it here because a new editor is having problems with the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The biography of “In Search of Sugihara”contains only two or tree studies written in Japanese. This shows clearly that Pr. Hillel Levine cannot read Japanese.

Though we see this page :“As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home near Tokyo Bay that year….”, it is ridiculous, because Mr. Chuine Suguhara has NEVER lived in Tokyo.

The interviews done by Pr. Hillel Livine are not always credible. Japanese schalars and journalists do not appreciate his so-called study concerning Mr. Chiune Sugihara.

If the writer would like to write the motivations to rescue the Jewish refugees, he or she have to think about the evidence that Mr. Chiune Sugihara is a christian of Russian Orthodox Church.

Cf. A Hidden Life: A Short Introduction to Chiune Sugihara by Stephen Keeler http://www.pravmir.com/article_282.html

Mordecai Paldiel, director of Yad Vashem, quotes in hisｓｔｕｄｙ　ｉｎｔｉｔｌｅｄ

“Diplomat heros of the Holocaust”（KTAV Publishinh House, NJ, 2007, pp.55-56）ｔｈｅ　ｗｏｒｄｓ　ｕｓｅｄ　by　Ｍｒ. Chiune Sugihara explained his act to rescue the Jewish refugees : I do it just because I have pity on the people. They want to get out so I let them have the visas.

We can see also in postface of the Japanese biography written by Mrs. Sugihara the words of Mr. Sugihara : I may have to disobey my government, but if I don't, I will be disobeying God.

Cf. http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~chiunesugihara/

The name and all the quotations from Pr. Levine’s study should be deleted completely in that page of Wikipedia.Tizizano (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine is a professor specializing in this area, and the book is from a major publisher, so I think it meets WP:RS and WP:V. Here is a mediocre Times review. Like any other source, it may be questioned, opposing material introduced, or with regard to objections raised here, by-passed when better sources are available. But I don't see the grounds for saying its never to be used. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jonathanwallace

You say, “Levine is a professor specializing in this area”, but it is not true. Pr. Hilel Levinis a professor specializing in Polish anti-Semitism. He CANNOT understand Japanese AT ALL. He has no books or articles specializing in Japanese matters. If you read his work intitled “In Search of Sugihara”, you know that his study was co-operated by a Japanese interpreter.Tizizano (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dougweller I’ve read the article,“Family split by book on Japan’ Schindler” Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the journalist has really an interviewed with one of Mr. Sugihara’s sons. Mr. Billy Adams committed even the orthography of his son’s name, Nobuko. Nobuko is a feminin name in Japanese. It is not also probable that there is a split of opinions between Mrs. Sugihara and her fourth son, Mr. Nobuki Sugihara. They lived in the same house and often made a conference together.Tizizano (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobuki, it’s a boy’s name. Noobuko, it’s a GIRL’s name in Japanese.Tizizano (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of a Japanese interpreter would not in itself make the book unusable as a reliable source. Professor Levine is a recognized Holocaust scholar and the book was issued by a significant publisher. The lawsuit filed around 2002 has never led to any reported judgment I am able to find; my guess is it was dropped or possibly settled. In either case, it provides no basis for holding the book can't be used as a source. From WP:TRUTH: "Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article.... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jonathanwallace

First, those who can’t understand Japanese are not able to study what is concerned Mr. Chuine Sugihara. The so-called study by Pr. Hillel Levine doesn’t show any Japanese resources in its bibliography, because he cannot read Japanese. An Important question : Do you understand basically Japanese language ?Tizizano (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC) > Professor Levine is a recognized Holocaust scholar and the book was issued by a significant publisher.

It is a different thing. He is NOT a recognized JAPANESE MATTERS scholar at all.Tizizano (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy I am aware of which says that Prof. Levine's biography may not be cited if he doesn't speak Japanese. By the way, you haven't even produced a reliable source saying he doesn't, I am merely assuming your assertion is correct. Rather than arguing that Levine's bio should never be used, I advise you to focus on particular disagreements. For example, I know Levine's book says Mr. Sugihara spied for the Japanese government. If you have a Japanese source that says he did not, this should also be included in the article to ensure neutral point of view.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jonathanwallace

The relations between Mr. Chiune sugihara and the Polish Intelligence Agency are completely investitated by a Polish excellent scholar, Dr. Ewa Palasz-Rutkowska. It’s a summy of her study : http://www.asjapan.org/Lectures/1995/Lecture/lecture-1995-03.htm For futher reading : http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429408~frm=titlelink?words=romer,a

Levine’s study contains full of mistakes concerning Japanese matters and it is also out-of-date. Pr. Hillel Levin doesn’t know even such a polish study.Tizizano (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion（“this should also be included in the article to ensure neutral point of view.”）, however it’s different to admit the uncountably many mistakes committed by Pr. Hillel Levine, who cannot read, write and speak Japanese and has no competence to achieve studies concerning Japanese issues.Tizizano (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It　seems　ｔｈａｔ　ｙｏｕ　ｄｏｎ‘ｔ　ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄ　what　Ｉ　ｓａｙ． Ｓｏ，　I　repeat　ｔｈｅ　ｆａｂｒｉｃａｔｉｏｎ　ｗｅ　can　ｓｅｅ　ｔｈｅ　page　of　Ｗｉｋｉｐｅｄｉａ．

> Sugihara explained that the refugees were human beings, and that they simply > needed help. As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home > near Tokyo Bay that year:“You want to know about my motivation, don't you? > Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees > refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help > but sympathize with them.

Mr. Chiune Sugihara lived after the World War II in Kugenuma in Fujisawa city ａｎｄ　ｍｏｖｅｄ　ｔｏ　Kamakura ｃｉｔｙ,　ｗｈｅｒｅ　ｈｅ　ｄｉｅｄ　in　１９８６．

Ｆｕｊｉｓａｗａ　and　Ｋａｍａｋｕｒａ　ａｒｅ　ｓｉｔｕａｔｅｄ　in　Ｋａｎａｇａｗａ　Ｐｒｅｆｅｃｔｕｒｅ,　which　is　separated　with　Izu　 Ｐｅｎｉｎｓｕｌａ　ｆｒｏｍ　Tokyo Ｂａｙ．Please see the Japanese map carefully.

Ｓｏ，　ａｎｙｏｎｅ　cannot visit　“his home near Tokyo Bay”．It　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ａ　matter　of　“ｎｅｕｔｒａｌｉｔｙ” ｂｕｔ “ＦＡＢＲＩＣＡＴＩＯＮ．”Tizizano (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the p. 259 of “In Seach of Sugihara”, “About a year before his death in 1986, Sugihara spoke to a visitor in his home close to Tokyo Bay.” But Japanese translator who knows of course Mr. Chiune Sugihara has NEVER lived “in [the] home close to Tokyo Bay”changed into “Kamakura.”

Pr. Hillel Levine tells a lie !!! So, I’ll persuade to delete all the quotations from Levine’s pseudo-study which is not credible at all. We can show you dozens of mistakes committed by him.Tizizano (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to persuade people to delete material, you'll have to be a lot more persuasive. Tips:

• Don't use zenkaku rōmaji. For those whose computers are set up to show it, it looks like shouting; for others, it will appear as empty rectangles, quotation marks or similar.
• You invite people to look at a map. Here's one. The reader can see that Kamakura is indeed not on Tokyo Bay. The reader can also see that Kamakura is close to Tokyo Bay (for drivers, if not for pedestrians).
• Nobody will be persuaded by your assertions that some professor is a liar, or that unspecified people say in unspecified places that he is a liar.
• People may be interested by such talk (though probably not in the way that you hope). It may persuade them that you are a crank and better blocked.

Now, if you have a reasoned argument to make about Levine's credibility, then make it, presenting evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Horay

• First, I would like to change “a lie” into “an error”.
• I pose you a question. What is the reason for that the Japanese translator changed it into Kamakura ?
• Second, I am an University academic and I have much more knowledge about Mr. Chiune Sugihara. It’s me that made a Japanese page of Wikipedia.
• Third, Pr. Hillel Levine cannot read, write and speak Japanese. Why do you think that he is specialized in this field ?
• Fourth, the note 59 of that quotation indicates that “Unpublished interview of Oxley.”Oxley ? Who ? UNpublish ? No date !!
• We see the page this phrase : “About a year his death in 1986”, but at this period, Mr. Chiune Sugihara were seriously ill and he couldn’t welcome an interview from anybody. Even at the ceremony of Jerusalem, his fourth son attended for his father. Was I able to explain to you　? Tizizano (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to make guesses about the motivation of a translator, or to comment on Levine. Anyone here can claim to be anyone, and so a claim to be a "university academic" is meaningless. I do not have Levine's book and so cannot comment on Oxley. Imaginably, somebody in Japan could welcome a short visit by somebody but not want or be able to fly to Jerusalem. Do you have a cogent, empirically grounded argument to put forward about Levine's book? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Horay and others

> Now, if you have a reasoned argument to make about Levine's credibility, then make it, presenting evidence.

Mr. Horay, in order to present you the evidence which make us believe his incredibility, I would like to you only one clear example. Watching this example, you’ll be easily aware that Mrs. Yukiko Sugihara, old woman of about 90 years old, was angry about him.

See p.64 of this book (ed. 1996). I quote : “Tokyo of 1920s : Yoshiwara, the world-famous and much-imitated pleasure zone of old city …. Chu’ichi Ohnishi, then the Japanese consul of Harbin. Shimura tells how they first stopped at the Turkish bath.”We can also see in the page 65 this phrase : “Now, he proudly indicated, it was called Soapland….”

Do you know these Japan-made-English words“Turkish bath”or“Soapland”? These are special equipment for sexual service women do for men. Of course, they are the words fabricated after WWII. These words which are of neologism in the recent period in Japan doesn’t exist even in“Tokyo of 1920s”.

I would like you to read carefully pp.64-65 of Levine’s book. Are you always sure that his so-called study has enough credibility ? Tizizano (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Now in Tokyo, we are at night. I’ll take a sleep and I’m sorry not to answer to you quickly. See you tomorrow.Tizizano (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tizizano, my (probably) final comment. In the law of evidence, there are concepts of "admissibility" and "weight" which are relevant here as analogies. You think you are arguing that Levine's book is "inadmissible", but in reality your arguments are ineffective for that purpose, and work only to say "Levine shouldn't be given that much weight". That is a fine argument for the article talk page, or can be pursued by adding opposing, appropriately sourced statements in the article. I'm going to try not to reply any further, because we are getting into argument sketch terrtory ("Yes it is! No it isn't!"). Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Jonathanwallace & others,

I would like you to see in the middle of this site. This is a list of judgements of the year 2005 enumerated by a professor at Matsuyama University .

http://www.47news.jp/CN/200504/CN2005041301004496.html

Please read this in translating Japanese into English. (05/4/13) means the 4th day of April, 2005. On this day, the Judge Mr. Izumi Takizawa of the Tokyo District Court has delivered judgement on Shimizu Shoin, the publisher which translated “In Search of Sugihara”for the libel on Sugihara family.

In order to discuss what is concerning Mr. Chiune Sugihara, it is necessary to learn Japanese first and foremost. Pr. Hillel Levine who cannot read Japanese documents is not qualified for the research of Mr. Chiune Sugihara. In Japan, even a high school boy has of course much more knowledge of Japanese history.

His so-called study “In Search of Sugihara” is of no academic value.　

In the page 68, Pr. Hillel Levin asked to the former Russian wife Klaudia Appolonov :“What did he call you ?”I asked Klaudia as she lifts a cup of tea to her lips with a hand that is amazingly steady, “Yukiko,”she answered.

“Yukiko” is the fisrt name of Mrs. Sugihara. Isn’t it ridiculous for Mr. Chuine Sugihar to call the former wife and Mrs. Sugihara with the same name ?

In the page 73 concerning the little sister of Mr. Chiune Sugihara : She had run a karaoke club in Gifu City for many years.

This phrase is translated in Japanese as following : She had run a café in Ichinomiya City for many years. It was translated by Mr. Teruhisa Shino, who had already known the details of Sugihara family. It was proved that Pr. Hillel Levine hadn’t had an interview himself.

Please read this article (13/11/2000) in“Aera” magazine in translating into English.

http://www.asyura.com/sora/bd11/msg/773.html

“Aera” is one of the magzines of high quality published by Asahi Shinbun, the most famous Japanese newspaper which is an equivalent of the New York Times. In this article, Mr. Teruhisa Shino, one of the Japaneses translators of “In Search of Sugihara”, says : “The original [English] text is much more unreasonable. ”All the scholars who have read the original rext think so, too.

It would be arbitrary to believe in what you would like to believe, nevertheless, is it a honest way of describing the historical matters ?

As one of the Japanese scholars, I would like you all to reflect this point of view once more again.

If you would like to find the motivations, in the postface of the Japanese revised edtion“Life for visas”（p.200）, we can see the answer to the decision to rescue Jewsish refugees:

Every time when I am asked why Mr. Sugihara has dicided to issue visas, I remembers his words which were said to me : “I should save those who rely on me , but if I don't I would be disobeying God.”

There are not any other reason behind these simple but impressive words.

Tizizano (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly a reliable source. Levine is a recognized expert on the broader subject matter, and the publisher is a reputable publishing house. The book may be used as a source for the article. If, as the objector claims, there are inaccuracies in the book that are actually relevant to the uses it is put in the article, the solution is to find independent, reliable secondary sources supporting that alternate account. The objections look entirely like unsupported original research and undocumented assertions, most of which, even if taken as true for the sake of argument, are irrelevant to the uses to which the source is being put in the article. Fladrif (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Fladrif,

> The objections look entirely like unsupported original research and undocumented assertions,

I would like you to see above. The proof is entirely documented as were shown pasges of the orinal English book.

Levine's specialities are not Japanese history but Jewish religious studies and Jewish history.Please, please read above and read again his book carefully with your own eyes． Levine is NOT a recognized expert concerning Japanese matters. Nobody calls a person who cannot read Japanese a recognized Japanese expert nor a Japanologist.Tizizano (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

>> I do not have Levine's book and so cannot comment on Oxley. Imaginably, …… >> Clearly a reliable source. Levine is a recognized expert on the broader subject matter, and the publisher is a reputable publishing house.

I’ve never seen such a radom way of discussing and I am little tired to see you not aiming at a precise description without consulting the details of historical matters.

Tizizano (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

First, let's get some misunderstandings and simplifications out of the way.

1. The book is published by the Free Press. Yes, the Free Press is a reputable publisher. However, this does not mean that it hasn't put out junk. Example: The Real Anita Hill, which now even repels its author. Junk aside, even a reputable publisher can put out books that are seriously flawed. Publication by the Free Press should make us pay attention to the content but it's definitely no carte blanche for credibility.

2. It's untrue that "Nobody calls a person who cannot read Japanese a recognized Japanese expert nor a Japanologist." Consider the praise lavished (by Japanese people, too) on Lafcadio Hearn. Now, I would never call Hearn a Japanologist or expert on Japan, but many do.

3. In order to write knowledgably on Sugihara, an ability in Japanese is necessary somewhere. But the ability need not be the writer's own, it may be his or her assistants' ability.

Right then, Tizizano presents two links that I looked at.

First, there's http://www.asyura.com/sora/bd11/msg/773.html . This is a long message by a person calling him/herself "MY" to some message forum. It appears to reproduce an article that appeared in Aera. (This is Asahi Shinbunsha's easy-to-read weekly: fine as far as it goes, but not a patch on the sadly defunct Asahi Jānaru.) The prose appears to be that of Aera (plus coloring by "MY" for emphasis); it is certainly not the prose of a normal contributor to a message forum. So far as it does come from Aera it would appear to be a copyright violation and of course it may have been tampered with; an editor should look in a library for the original article. Still, so far as it is credible, yes, it does raise serious questions about Levine's work -- questions that I shan't summarize here.

Secondly, there's http://www.47news.jp/CN/200504/CN2005041301004496.html . This is both less and more interesting. Less because it's so very much shorter, more because this is a credible, citeable news website. (As for the little photos of semi-naked bimbos on the site's top page, well, this is Japan.) It says that Sugihara's widow won a payment of half a million yen -- peanuts by US standards, but not bad in Japan -- for what was said in (the Japanese translation of) the book.

The problem with Levine's book, as determined by a court in Japan, is not a matter of the description of Sugihara's widow. Instead, it's the estimation of Sugihara's contribution. Very very simply, the book alleges that Sugihara must have had covert help from within the Japanese government. (This of course is a notion that, its truth-value aside, would delight postwar Japanese governments, with their eagerness to have wartime Japan depicted as quite unlike Nazi Germany, and as victim rather than perpetrator.) Sugihara's widow and others vehemently denied this, and they won in court.

I don't claim to have read the detail and I don't intend to do so. However, I see good reason to avoid use of Levine's book. To answer the question in the title of this thread: No it is not. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that, under Japanese libel law, truth is not a defense, a libel judgment awarding trivial damages is singularly irrelevant to the reliability of this source. Fladrif (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If I send you my bank details, will you credit me half a million, Fladrif? After all, the amount is trivial in your eyes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Horay

I'll answer to you. Wait a moment.Tizizano (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised and a little impressed with your sophisticated style and your competence to get an insight into many complicated matters concerning Mr. Sugihara.To know profoundly the motivations to rescue Jewish refugees, I’ll present you a book intitled “A Decision. Visas for Life” which contains the “Memories” written under the supervision of Mrs. Sugihara. Might be a Japanese American, I'll show you the Japanese title : 『決断 命のビザ』（ISBN4-81170308-1）. We can see the passage as following : 「兎に角、果たして浅慮、無責任、我武者らの職業軍人集団の、対ナチ強調に迎合することによって、全世界に隠然たる勢力を有するユダヤ人から永遠の恨みを買ってまで、旅行書類の不備とか公安上の支障云々を口実に、ビーザを拒否してもかまわないとでもいうのか?　苦慮の揚げ句、私はついに人道主義、博愛精神第一という結論を得ました。そして妻の同意を得て、職に忠実にこれを実行したのです」(p.301).

I would like Mr.Horay to translate the passage above and propose you all to replace with this the quotation made by Pr.Hillel Levine from the equivocal interview “unpublished”.Tizizano (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine's biography obviously meets the requirements of WP:RS. He is writing in his area of expertise (Holocaust) and it was published by a reputable publishing house. The fact that he allegedly doesn't speak Japanese is irrelevant. And specific details of reliable sources are often contested, it doesn't make them unreliable - nor, as Fladrif points out, do awards for minor sums in courts where "the truth is not a defense". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, Jayjg

Such kind of authoritarianism would lead us to be blind to the media literacy.　As you says , “the fact that he allegedly doesn't speak Japanese is irrelevant,”however ,the fact that he cannot read the Japanese documents is not irrelevant in order to accomplish the persuadable academic achievement. Pr. Hillel Levine is an authoritarian in the field of Jewish Religious Studies, but he is only a debutant concerning Japanese culture and history. There are many Japanese historians who admire the remarkable achievement by a Polish scholar, Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska we can see her name in the “References”of the English vesion of Wikipedia, nevertheless, no Japanese historian appreciates the work by Pr. Hillel Levine. Mrs.　Michi Sugihara （daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Sugihara）said to Mr. Jonathan Watts，envoyé spécial : “It is full of mistakes and exaggerations, distorts the image of my father, and damages our family's reputation.”（http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/12/research.japan/printTizizano (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• One persuadable evidence

I’ll show you one persuadable evidence as following : in the pp.66-74, Pr. Hillel Levine said to have had an interview with the former wife of Mr. Chiune Sugihara, Klaudia Apollonova. The reader knows by the note 40 (p.290) that this interview was based on the preceding one with Mr. Giichi Shimura held on “July 3 and 9, 1994, Tokyo”. But all the Japanese scholars and journalists know that the former wife of the Consul Sugihara, Klaudia Apollonova was already dead at the age of 93 in the Sergius Hospital in Sydney on the 25th day November, 1993 ! It is proved by Mr.Mitsukuni Hatta who had telephoned to Mr. Michael Apollonov, nephew of Klaudia. This is written in the study intitled “The Tragedy of Chiune Sugihara”（ISBN 4-8117-0311-1）, regretfully not translated in English.Tizizano (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained by several other editors here, your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Levine's book qualifies as a reliable source. The objections you raise have already been responded to. Please read what the reviewers here have said, accept their advice and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Jayjg

“Several other editors”whom you have mentioned have enough knowlegde to discuss about Sugihara matter ? Who can read the documents collected in the Library of the Japanese Ministy of Foreign Affairs, academic studies on Japanese history, anti-Semitism in Japan, Japanese-Polish Military Co-operation, etc ?　

Fisrt, please read the book with your own eyes !!

We could see only one remarkable statement by Mr.Horay, which is following : Publication by the Free Press should make us pay attention to the content but it's definitely NO CARTE BLANCHE for credibility.[emphasis by Tizizano]

• Second persuadable evidence

I would like you to see p.187. of Levine’s book. I quote, : “Sugihara could be extremely accommodating, at times. Dr. Roman Korab-Zabryk solicited his memoir to shore up a thesis …” The scholars and journalists all over the world know that it is NOT Korab-Zabryk but Colonel R. Michał Rybikowski, one of the Polish intelligence officiers who demanded Mr. Sugihara to write a memoir on his information activities between Nazi-Germany and Soviet-Russia. Mr. Michał Rybikowski has donated this“Sugihara memoir”written in Russain to the Polish Military Musium in Warsaw. The photocopie of this memoir is now in hands of Mr. Andrzej T. Romer, collaborator of Dr. Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska.Tizizano (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Levine's biography obviously meets the requirements of WP:RS. He is writing in his area of expertise (Holocaust) and it was published by a reputable publishing house. As I understand it, he's writing about the relations among Sugihara, the local authorities, and the Japanese government. Arguably this has a lot less to do with Holocaust studies than with studies of Japanese diplomatic and governmental goings-on. The Free Press had been an excellent publisher in the 1970s but by the 1990s had sunk to publishing material such as Brock's Anita Hill smear job and, its article here reminds me, The Bell Curve, a book about psychology that has found much reasoned opposition and little support among psychologists. On further reflection, I see no reason to call it "reputable" in the 1990s. ¶ I too don't care how little understanding of the Japanese language the author has, but I do wonder about the Japanese competence of his team. ¶ awards for minor sums Minor sums by which standards? Japanese standards? The court verdict is most interesting as it is to the detriment of the reputation of the wartime Japanese government; and any observer of relevant Japanese court cases will know that far more often than not verdicts go the other way. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, you are raising some interesting points, but they all go to "weight" rather than "admissibility". I don't see any of this leading to a blanket rule that Levine's book should be banned from ever being cited on Wikipedia. This lengthy discussion also leads me to the insight that we tend to figure out that stuff is non-reliable in a para or two. Anything which inspires dozens of paragraphs of discussion tends to be not a reliable sourcing issue but a discussion about nuances of phrasing, countervailing evidence and the like. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The book is clearly reliable in the way Wikipedia uses the term, and may be used here. However, as always, if better sources are available, they should be given preference, or used instead. How to use Levine's book (and whether to use it at all) is an editorial matter best decided at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Horay, Mr. jayjg, Mr.Jonathanwallace & Mr. Cuchullain

There are already three publications from The Free Press which were translated into Japanese : “Denying the Holocaust”（by Deborah E. Lipstadt）, “Jews in the Japanese Mind”（by David G. Goodman）and “In Search of Sugihara”（by Hillel Levine）. The first two books were welcomed to almost all the Japanese readers, but the last one was equivocally estimated especially by Japanese intellectuals.

When Kamakura is said to be situated“near Tokyo Bay”, even a boy or a girl in the elementary school bursts into laughter in Japan. Would be too innocent your infinite reliance on the“Unpublished interview of Brian Oxley”nobody knows. This way of quotation doesn’t depend upon the appropriate procedures to describe what is concerned historical reality.

You all permitting, I dare to indicate some errata in the English version of the topic “Chiune Sugihara”.

i) Sugihara continued hand-write visas, reported spending 18-20 hours a day on them, producing a normal month’s worth of visas each day, until September 4

“spending 18-20 hours”→　from mornig till night That's an unnecessary exaggeration even Mrs. Sugihara doesn’t refer to

“September 4”　→　September 5 It is the day when the train for Berlin started.

ii) The total number of Jews saved by Sugihara is in dispute, ranging from 6,000 to 10,000. It is not in dispute and probably 6,000 at most ; 6,000 refugees include naturally non-Jewish people. The number of 10,000 is an unnecessary exaggeration only Pr. Hillel Levine insists all over the world.

iii) Sugihara stated he stated he issued 1,500 out of 2,132 transit visas to Jews and Poles. “1,500” →“about 1,500”

iv) Others took a more southerly route through Korea directly without passing through Japan. The refugees didn’t enough money to take a roundabout way and they couldn’t take a route “without passing through Japan”That wasn’t permitted by the transit-visa.

v) Despite German pressure for the Japanese government to eigher hand over or kill the Jewish refugees It is not verified by any Japanese documents.　“The Fugu Plan”written by Marvin Tokayer & Mary Swarz contains a lot of imaginations

vi) “As Sugihara stated in a conversation with a visitor to his home near Tokyo Bay that year :　．．．　Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my soes.　．．．” All this quotation seems equivocal. Mr. Chiune Sugihara had no home near Tokyo Bay. We can see the passage in the page 23 of the English version of “Visas for Life” which is very similar to this passage : One woman knelt down and kissed Chiune’s feet when she received her visa. Mr. Chiune Sugihara was a taciturn by nature and made never a boastful talk. Besides, any Japanese knows Mr. Brian Oxley. Who is he ? “The spirit of humanity, philanthropy … neighborly friendship … with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation … and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage.” It is slightly probable for him to speak with such an exceptional eloquence.

vii) “Sempo is not a distinct name but another way of reading the Chinese characters 千畝 for Chiune.” That’s right. “Similary, sugiwara is an alternative pronunciation of 杉原”, his family name. That’s an example of the vacant pedantry usual with a Japanese beginner, like Pr. Hillel Levine. For example, “原”　of “藤原”is properly pronounced “-wara”, that is “Fuji-wara”, but we Japanese pronounce“杉原” “Sugihara”only in one way. The pronunciation of proper nouns is relatively limited.

P.-S. Mr. Chiune Sugihara has left us by himself these words explaining the motivation. That is seen in “Sugihara Memoir”quoted at the end （p.301）of “A Decision. Visas for Life”（ISBN4-81170308-1）. I’ve tried to translate it provisionally as following :

“Anyway, am I obliged to follow blindly the pro-nazi Army ? They are inconsiderate, irresponsibly and imprudent . I should refuse to issue visas on the pretext of incomplete paperwork or by reason of public security ? Does it contribute to Japanese national interests ? After deliberation, it was concluded the spirit of humanity, philanthropy must be respected. And with my wife’s consent, I ventured what I did in the pursuit of my duties. ”

As see you above, my English knowledge is extremely limited. Do you use his proper words instead after you we’ll have refined ? Tizizano (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) * Additional information : 1) Hiroshi Bando“Japan’ policy woward Jews during the 15-years’ War 1931-1945” At the end of this dissertation, attached a short résumé in English https://m-repo.lib.meiji.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10291/1546/1/sundaishigaku_116_27.pdf 2) Pamela Rotner Sakamoto, Japanese Diplomats and Jewish Refugees, Westport, CT, Praeger Pnblishers, 1998. A doctoral thesis naturally better than works of Hillel Levine, but there are small errata in the detail. 3) J.W.M. Chapman, “Japan in Poland's Secret Neighbourhood War”in Japan Forum No.2, 1995. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429407 4) Ewa Pałasz-Rutkowska & Andrzej T. Romer, “Polish-Japanese co-operation during World War II ” in Japan Forum No.7, 1995. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777429408~frm=titlelink?words=romer,andrzej Not free but useful 5) Tessa Stirling, Daria Nałęcz & Tadeusz Dubicki, Intelligence Co-operation between Poland and Great Britain during World War II, vol.1, London, Vallentine Mitchell, 2005. Co-operation between Polish- Japanese Intelligence during WWIITizizano (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Topless Robots site a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source for the SDCC event and it's exclusives? It's a named review, has an editor Rob Bricken, the former Associate Editor of ToyFare magazine, and the site is held by © Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/07/tr_special_hasbros_sdcc_exclusives_rundown.php Mathewignash (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunch time: it feels a bit like a blog masquerading as more, but OTOH a bit of Googling suggests that Bricken is a legit journalist in this specialised field, and Village Voice Media Holdings is certainly a respectable publisher, so I'd say yes, it's okay for the kind of assertions you'd expect to be covered by its field of expertise. (Obviously, comments on articles aren't RS.) Barnabypage (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't expecting the comments to count, but news of a convention's exclusives seems to be reliable. According to one interview the Bricken I saw he is paid to edit that sight by Village Voice, so it has paid editorial oversight. Mathewignash (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Majestic 12

Majestic 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a problem I have mentioned in this section:

• Talk:Majestic_12#Massive_use_of_fringe_unreliable_sources

More eyes are needed there. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be snarky but: "The significance of this paragraph is that it ties MJ12 to the Aquarius document, a purported fabricated document, that alleges that Jesus Christ was an alien.[citation needed]"

You are fighting a valiant fight, but if this article was "reliably sourced" in the traditional sense it would be a one or two sentence stub.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not editing there. I just happened by and saw the mess. Maybe it should be AfDed. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

An AFD wouldn't work because there would be a substantial keep vote and anyway, the concept is probably genuinely notable. If you didn't know, there is a WP:FRINGE noticeboard devoted to figuring out the right way to deal with this kind of article, and they may have some better ideas how to pare it down. The real issue will be the troop of editors eager to revert any change you make, so, once you're involved it tends to require a lot of vigilance and persistence, with careful attention to the three revert rule and all that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does need a massive rewrite and a thorough gutting of the fringe sources. There are indeed reliable sources that discuss this topic as notable conspiracy folklore and popular culture artifact, such as this book by Michael Barkun and published by the University of California Press.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters Blogs

Per previous consensus it was determined that reports from Media Matters would be considered reliable. I would like to ask an extension to this discussion, it is generally considered that blogs attached to a reliable source are reliable themselves, does this apply to Media Matters hosted blogs or not?

Also, please do not turn this discussion into reliability of Media Matters, that is not the question. The question is since Media Matters is reliable, are blogs from Media Matters reliable? _WM^O 01:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice there are only six links from BLP articles to the blog section of the media matters website and currently less than thirty links in all our articles to the blogs on the website and I was wondering if there is any editorial checking of the blogs? Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, "opinions are citable only as opinions" is a sound rule. Blogs not written by paid employees under some editorial supervision are absolutely not "reliable" in the same sense that ones written by paid employees with editorial supervision are. No matter what the website. Collect (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogs on Media Matters' website are written by paid employees, I'm not sure what kind of editorial control goes into the blogs however... _WM^O 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From the blog sidebar: "County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff." So then I'm thinking that it is considered a reliable source? Comments? _WM^O 02:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If paid and under editorial control, then the opinions are citable as opinions. Simple. The problems arise when editors decide an opinion is some sort of fact. Collect (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously anything from Media Matters is cited as "has been noted as" or "Watchdogs have stated" or something like that, or even "Media Matters said that" whatever the case may be. Thanks, I think this is resolved? _WM^O 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag, because it's not resolved. County Fair is a blog aggregator, and doesn't appear to accept any sort of responsibility for its posts. (Caveat Lector, essentially) If there was some sort of acceptance of responsibility (or fact checking of the independent blogs involved) I'd agree, but absent that, it's not any more acceptable than any other blog. Horologium (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Collect's previous comments, it is apparent they're by paid employees, surely Media Matters would exercise some sort of editorial control over what they're employees put on its main blog? As it says, the posts are from "from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff." Since Media Matters itself is considered reliable, wouldn't it be counted in the same way that say a Washington Post blog that links to other blogs would be counted? As opinion? _WM^O 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the part I'm addressing is the "links to progressive media criticism from around the Web", which means that they are linking to other blogs. Unless they are willing to take responsibility for the opinions of those other blogs, there is no editorial control. WaPo doesn't link to anything other than mainstream newsblogs (IOW, you won't find links to DKos or RedState). Horologium (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the WaPo does link to progressive blogs like Blue Virginia and Not Larry Sabato but that's irrelevant. I think its fair to say that Media Matters wouldn't post anything they disagree with without stating so, don't you? _WM^O 03:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As with other sources, such as newspapers, it likely depends on context. If a blog post is making an extraordinary claim, with little evidence, then it may be good to have a better source. If a blog post is simply repeating a claim in a blog post on another website, then I wouldn't think that the post would be any more reliable than the original source. If a blog post on Media Matters is original, in-depth analysis by a senior editor at Media Matters, that would seem good to go. I'm wary that this discussion would be interpreted as giving an imprimatur to any Media Matters blog post. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, I have removed the resolved tag, because the person adding it has added a conclusion that has not been made by anybody other than the one who has added the tag. Nobody other than you is willing to agree to a blanket claim of County Fair being a reliable source; please stop trying to close the discussion as resolved with that conclusion. One thing upon which everyone does agree is that original, in-depth reporting by a MMfA senior editor is acceptable, but nobody but you is interpreting this to mean that everything in the blog is appropriate and reliable. Horologium (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• A blog from a partisan organization, particularly one with anonymous bylines, should not be taken as a RS. - Haymaker (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not a big fan of MMfA (an understatement), a substantial portion of the blog posts are signed by their authors, so direct attribution is possible. The problem arises when a post simply links to an anonymous (or pseudonymous) blogger; MMfA would not accept responsibility for making the comment themselves, should the blog turn out to be wrong, which means that MMfA cannot be used as a source for the item. Things written by their staffers can be used as opinions, as long as they are clearly stated as such, and I would argue against their inclusion in a BLP, because they manifestly fail the limitations on blogs in BLPs. Horologium (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of what MMfA talks about has been covered by another less biased source. MMfA should never be used for factual information based on a derivative of the original source because of the inherant bias in their reporting. This is not only good editing, but reduces tention on the usually contentious articles that would invite MMfA sourcing. Their opinion is reliable, but only if their opinion is somehow notable. MMfA comments on pretty much every little thing a conservative says, but it doesn't neccessarily make what they have to say notable. Original sourcing should always be used when possible. This applies to the otherside as well. Hyper-partisan sources like MMfA only serve to fuel edit wars. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a discussion on whether MMfA is reliable, that is already determined per previous consensus. The discussion here is whether their blog, County Fair, is reliable in the way blogs of other sources we have determined reliable are used. So its not blanket reliable, but it can be used, and if its by an editor or paid staff of MMfA, written in the blog in the way they would write a report? That seems to be the conclusion. _WM^O 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Arzel brings up a different point, one which would be better addressed at the NPOV noticeboard. Reliable sources are not necessarily NPOV sources, and using Media Matters (or FAIR, or MRC/Newsbusters, or AIM) can fairly quickly unbalance an article or raise Undue Weight concerns. These groups have "opposition research" staff members obsessively watching the news programs of networks with whom they perceive an ideological opposition, looking for opportunities to blow even the most minor of gaffes into a three news-cycle media circus, but that is a discussion for another noticeboard. And WMO, remember that consensus can change; the discussion you linked at the top does not conclusively demonstrate that a consensus was reached in any case. Horologium (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the "previous consensus" and I'm not sure what there was consensus of, nor that it should be used as a hammer to prevent further consideration. Articles posted in the blog section of their site are written by the same people who write columns or content in other sections and is no more nor less reliable. As in all things, you should use common sense when dealing with MMfA. For example, don't cite their opinions as though they were facts. If they make a factual claim (eg, FoxNews said xyz on a particular broadcast), if it's an exact quote, they are probably reliably transmitting that quote. If it's a summary of what they claim FoxNews said, then I would strongly suggest attempting to verify it - MMfA tends to take things out of context just a bit. There is not (and should not be) an ironclad rule for whether or not they are reliable because, as with any biased political source, you are going to find things they say that are just plain wrong or hopelessly biased. Is there a particular blog post in question here? It may be more productive to consider a particular post, than to make broad statements about their reliability. --B (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing NPOV here, we're discussing reliable sources. Media Matters' reports on facts then, the conclusion I'm drawing is, whether on their blog or in reports are then reliable. Let's stop trying to make about partisan B, there's enough of that on other parts of the site. _WM^O 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a blog post in particular you are looking to use? I think the answer to the question is "maybe", but there shouldn't be a 100% rule one way or the other. WP:RS says, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." That seems pretty clear to me. --B (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say NO Country Fair is not a reliable source. MMfA is not a traditional news source for which the Blog rule is defined. In fact, MMfA is not much more than a Blog to begin with, much like NB's relationship to MRC. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, wikimanone says earlier -"Blogs on Media Matters' website are written by paid employees," - is there a link for this? Is there any link that asserts editorial oversight about what is posted in the blogs? Clearly there is no obvious wiki reliable status to these blog articles and as someone suggested earlier - it might be better to bring individual requests here and ithe writer of the blog and the controversial or non controversial aspect of the content would be a clear issue for individual discussion and consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From the sidebar of the blog in question:

"County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff."

That's where I got the staff from, being that they are a reputable organization, there has to be oversight over what their staff post, no? _WM^O 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The first part, though, is the problem. There is no indication that the stuff they link to from elsewhere has been vetted, and as you noted earlier, they link to blogs such as "Not Larry Sabato" and "Blue Virginia" which are both pseudonymous (or in the case of BV, some of the contributors are), and none have any particular credibility. Unless MMfA is willing to stand by the statements from these anonymous bloggers (unlikely, considering how carefully they parse everything), it's nothing more than saying, "hey, look what so-and-so say", which is not an endorsement. What precisely are you wanting to link, and in which article? It appears that nobody is willing to accept that anything from MMfA's blog is fair game, so you either need to provide a specific case or let this drop. Horologium (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I noted, I noted that The Washington Post not MMfA has linked to Blue Virginia and Not Larry Sabato, in the same way the MMfA may have (I actually haven't seen an example of something they published that wasn't true). _WM^O 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this question has been answered, but could you link to the specific blog post that you are looking to use? I don't think Wikipedia, or this noticeboard, needs to be in the business of playing pin the tail on the reliable source. --B (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please check the source

Trying to verify the contents of this source:

• In the steps of Peter and Pushkin Alexander Melnikov, Russia Beyond the Headlines, 28 August 2009 (English), review with useful tourist information.

included into "External links" section of the article Saint Petersburg, I encountered a technical problem: slow download followed by a Windows’ notification «Low Virtual Memory». In the browser cache I found the relatively small HTML source of "280809_peter.html" (with lots of links to different scripts), and a heap of secondary pages and scripts some of which are more than 130 Kb.

Please verify whether this source is dangerous. Thanks in advance. — Cherurbino (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If its that badly behaved, I would get rid of it on general principles. Its only an external link after all, not crucial to some assertion in the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that it's only badly behaved for Internet Explorer; I had no problem loading the page in Firefox, but the page source is littered with "Try this for Internet Explorer" script loads, and I can easily believe that those scripts load a bunch of other scripts. I don't have an opinion about whether we should be linking to this page, but it doesn't seem to be malware, and it's only badly designed with respect to one browser. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No malware or threats detected from the following;

AVG

• http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/sitereports/domain/rbth.ru

McAfee

• http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/rbth.ru

Norton safe web

• http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2Frbth.ru%2Farticles%2F2009%2F08%2F28%2F280809_peter.html

Google safe browsing

• http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=rbth.ru

--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vampire Freaks

There's a question about whether or not the site Vampire Freaks is a reliable source. I've used it as a source for interviews with metal/industrial/goth musicians. I thought sourcing interviews was not as stringent as general news. Opinions on this would be appreciated. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand when you say: "I thought sourcing interviews was not as stringent as general news." I don't know why the bar would be any lower for interviews than anything else included in articles. Further, if the subjects being quoted or discussed then WP:BLP probably applies which creates an even higher standard for source reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think by "not as stringent", Torchiest means that for a statement of the form Musician X stated in a 20xx interview with $_SITE ..., we only need to verify that $_SITE is showing an accurate portrayal of an interview that actually occurred rather than the rather higher standard of verifying that the site itself has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We still, of course, must determine the relevance of a particular interview before citing it in any article. As long as relevance is established and in-text attribution is given (always to the interviewee, often to the interviewer), their interviews should be usable. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It would also depend on the nature of the assertion. People are a reliable source for their own likes and dislikes, opinions on political events etc. I would not source certain biographical information to an interview without checking other sources first, as people do lie about their vital stats in interviews.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If we analogize statements made in interviews to self published material, we may use it if: "it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this personal website enough to back a claim of perfect pitch?

[6] is being used to back an assertion, added by the subject of the article Ro Hancock-Child here to back a claim that she has perfect pitch. I've modified the assertion twice now, but I'm not sure that even that web page justifies my modification to say " She has been said to have perfect pitch" (which probably won't stick as there seem to be some SPAs editing as well as the subject). Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source is a review in Classical Music Magazine from Oct 24, 2009, which the author is reprinting with permission on his website. Subject to verifying that the original article is accurately being reproduced, this is fine as a source. Fladrif (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a source for 'she has perfect pitch' which is what the subject of the article is inisting on, or 'she has been described as having (or said to have) perfect pitch'? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is only the opinion of the reviewer, so I would say that it is reliable only for "is said to have" or similar wording, not for "she has" Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The subject has now deleted the whole claim. She doesn't like 'is said to have' or similar wording. :-) Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco

Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Really I support the if in doubt leave it out policy but a couple of other opinions would be appreciated : - Is this youtube upload official and is the copyright status clear enough to use it to cite, this content ...

• - Fresco stated that at one point to see if his theories worked he joined the Ku Klux Klan "in order to change them" and dissolved them within a month and a half, he said he also joined the White Citizens Council and dissolved them.

• - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJbo5RI0To|title=The Venus Project London Lecture - October 2009 - Part 2 of 2 (see 36 mins)|The venus project - via Youtube|accessdate=Febuary 11, 2011

Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the only discussion I know of related to YouTube, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_64#YouTube_citations, which doesn't cover your situation. My hunch is that YouTube shouldn't be used at all but I would be interested in others' opinions. _WM^O 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The main issue with youtube as I understand it is copyright ... and perhaps also deterioration, as the uploads are sometimes, here today and gone tomorrow, the only question to ask is, is this video uploaded by someone that has the right to do so? If he, she or they have the right to publish it via youtube them we can cite it. The channel http://www.youtube.com/user/tysoneberly appears associated to the venusproject and the upload is a recording of a lecture that leaves me wondering if there even could be any copyright on it anyways. 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Agree, youtube videos shouldn't be used unless they're posted on the official channel of some established reliable organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the person recorded is clearly Jacque Fresno and it is used to source an assertion "Jacque Fresno said...." I think its all right, assuming no copyright issue.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like YouTube would fall in the category of a self-published source and that WP:SPS would apply. If so, then one must be cautious regarding the advice in the guideline that a self-published source should only be used if "the material is not unduly self-serving." Also, an excellent point was made in the previous thread linked above that YouTube videos "are primary sources, and if their content is significant enough to mention in an encyclopedic article, there ought to be appropriate secondary sources discussing that content." The claim made in the article that Fresco dissolved the Ku Klux Klan is an extraordinary, self-serving claim, and we may need a better source to support it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good clarification to my rather hasty answer, thanks. I agree WP:SPS applies. There is a fine line somewhere between the assertion "Jacque Fresno says he joined the KKK" sourced to his own statement in the video and "Jacque Fresno caused a KKK chapter to see the error of its ways", which is certainly self-serving and extraordinary. Somewhere in between would be "Fresno joined the KKK in order to change it" which may also fall on the wrong side of the line as a self serving claim unless verifiable from reliable third party sources.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Can anyone clearly see that this unloader has a right to upload this video? Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• - This is clearly the official youtube channel for Fresco and his the venus project. http://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia - this is what you are looking for that clearly asserts right to the uploads you find there. Now have a look at this - what is the official status of this uploader http://www.youtube.com/user/tysoneberly - and if you think it is a WP:RS - who is the publisher to be added to the citation? Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TV Guide.com

I was wondering if TV Guide's official website is a reliable source. I've been using it to source the episode titles and broadcast dates for the Mad episode list. Sarujo (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's not user-submitted content (and it doesn't appear so), I don't see why not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, reasonably reliable for things like episode titles and broadcast dates, as long as it's not user-submitted content. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a traditional commercial magazine, so it's fine... but please don't be surprised if someone fusses at you for "ref spam". One of their marketing people was trying to promote the website and/or improve Wikipedia last year (depending on your level of good faith/gullibility), so editors who remember that may assume that anyone using the website is a WP:SPAMMER. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Online World of Wrestling

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ is used as a source in many articles about wrestling, including many WP:BLP articles. Is it a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No. no, no. It is a user generated site. Look at the Researcher FAQ which says, "The Online World of Wrestling Website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans." Similarly, the Columnist FAQ makes it clear that any user can declare himself a columnist. The only standards are: "Basically the only things that will get your columns deleted from the Forums is excessive profanity (never use the F-word, Sh-word, or B-word) or blatant defamation of someone’s character — oh yeah, and plagiarism. DO NOT PLAGERISE!" Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Material not supported by given citations

Lanix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a problem with the Lanix page. User:Foxxygrandpa has added a section on 3D TVs that is not supported by the provided citations.

All of the cited sources are in Spanish, and while all relate to 3D TVs, none support the claims they are cited to support.

I have provided translations of the cited sources and blockquoted the material they purport to support below.

In 2009 Lanix revealed that it was working with the National Autonomous University of Mexico, DDD, and the Mexican center for research of applied technologies on the development of a 3D holographics based television which can be viewed in 3D without the use of 3D glasses.

Translation of cited source: here

As of 2009 the joint venture has succeded in producing two prototypes. Electronics industry analysts have reported that this could put Lanix and the Mexican consumer electronics industry as a whole on equal footing in terms of design capabilities with the electronics industries of Korea or Japan.

Translation of cited source: here

The secretary of academics at the university, who is heading the project, has stated that he wishes to use this technology to give Mexico a foothold in a specific large market which it can dominate due to its lead role in the development of these types of displays.

Translation of cited source: here

The project is being funded by both Lanix in the private sector and the Mexican government. Lanix hopes to began selling the televisions before 2020. If this goes to plan then Lanix will be the first company to sell commercial holographic displays.

Translation of cited source: here

If you look at the cited sources, you'll see none mention the Lanix Corporation. I have tried to engage the user about these edits, but Foxxygrandpa is non-responsive and reverts any attempt to remove the material. Fleetham (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're correct to be concerned about this and that it's up to the editor adding the material to demonstrate that it's related to Lanix. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

www.bwtf.com as a reliable source of professional opinions on Transformers

BWTF.com is the personal web site of Benson Yee, a writer, DVD commentator, and a man cited by several newspaper articles as an "authority" on the subject of Transformers. For instance here http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166084754.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A2-6a2b77bb-d43e-4e6f-93e1-581afffcfb0d.html http://www.thetransformers.net/category/transformers-news/madman-entertainment/page/2 http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/785549 He was also a consultant on Transformers Beast Wars for IDW when they wrote a comic on the series. http://www.idwpublishing.com/catalog/book/160 I wanted to know if he was considered reliable enough to site for information on his speciality. Mathewignash (talk)

For a personal website to be usable, the author has to have previously published pieces in the field in reliable, third-party publications. If he hasn't, his personal web site can't be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the interviews OF him in reliable third party publications count? Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They would for his opinions, not necessarily for his assertions about third parties. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith Ralston

Judith Ralston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judith did not go to Toronto Uni. She had no career in N. America and Europe, and won no competitions. This is mere fiction

Surely this should be a discussion at Talk:Judith Ralston?Billlion (talk)

There are no sources for this article other than her online bio at the BBC. For now, I've removed information in the article that wasn't sourced, including the details mentioned above. She seems barely notable -- there's been almost zero coverage of her in the media. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article doesn't establish notability and seems a good candidate for WP:PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight

Here we go again.......

Is the website/magazine searchlight a reliable source for inclusion of information on the WP:Article English Defence League? I would say no due to these facts

• Searchlight magazine is an openly anti-fascist and therefore cannot provide an NPOV due to its declared political stance(the EDL are Far-Right)
• Searchlight magazine was originally part of the steering committee for the British Anti Fascist Pressure Group Unite Against Fascism which is at constant ends with the English Defence League and holds counter rally's to nearly all English Defence League street protests (although Searchlight has since ended their links with the UAF on differences in which direction the Pressure Group should go, they still have Anti Fascist beliefs and therefore cannot provide sourced information that is not inflammatory, biased to anti-facist POV or possibly considered contentious)
• Searchlight also gets most of its material from infiltrators, defectors and casual informers and this is not reliable.

User snowded has already made clear that he feels it is a reliable source.

Johnsy88 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight undoubtedly has a political stance opposed to that of the EDL. That does not per se make it unreliable. What matters is whether it has a reputation for fact-checking, and I believe it does. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you provide me with the information that corroborates your claim that searchlight has a reputation for fact checking so i can see this for myself? Johnsy88 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you see someone who has written for Searchlight co-authoring with the present Speaker of the House of Commons. Searchlight articles are sometimes quoted in peer-reviewed academic papers. That kind of thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And here on the magazine website you see endorsements from Glenys Kinnock and Brendan Barber. Those are things that lend credence. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. this keeps on coming up and needed clarification Johnsy88 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article on how this source would be used, but I would remind editors of the difference of a source being reliable in general by WP:RS rules and whether use of a source follows WP:NPOV policy. Sources with an agenda should be cited in the context of supporting the fact that their side has an opinion, not in a situation that is trying to establish objective fact when there are other reliable sources with a contrary opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrorists' target selection

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974

Page 19. On Google Books.

This book is being suggested for use in the article Communist terrorism to provide a definition of what "Communist terrorism" is. The edit being suggested is

Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution.

Is the source reliable for the purpose of providing a definition? Tentontunic (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There are various definitions for Communist Terrorism and the terrorism described has been described using other terms. Why do you think that this specific definition should be used? TFD (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)