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

Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan

Hi, I wish to know that whether Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan meet the criteria of being recognized as WP:RS? Please give a conclusive answer! Articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny! — 117.212.46.55 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is relative to what the sources are going to be used for. So please define the proposed use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I would like to use Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), as a reliable source on a number of articles related to history, and Rahul Sankrityayan as a reliable source only for history of India — after confirming from here, to avoid WP:Edit War. The use would be limited to articles related to history (practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved) — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A quote from Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India." I would be using the author's conclusion on articles related to history, as I am sure that he met WP:BIO & WP:Prof, but discussing it to avoid the possibility of WP:Edit War! — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After a very quick first look the first person seems to be a regular academic working in the field you want to talk about. I am wondering if there is any controversy about his theories which explains your concern? The second person at least according to his WP article is a travel writer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So, it's a 'YES for Tadeusz Sulimirski.

But, I request for a conclusive reply for Rahul Sankrityayan! I am not able to conclude your answer that whether he fits the criteria for WP:RS on articles related to history of India! 117.200.50.151 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, the article @ Wikipedia clearly states that Rahul Sankrityayan has served as Professor of Indology in 1937-38 & 1947-48 @ University of Leningrad, but still I want to get the approval from here; so please give me a conclusive answer! — 117.200.59.19 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This forum is not like a court and can not give conclusive final answers, especially if only one person replies to you. It is a place to discuss what is best for WP. Anyway, you have not yet explained any real examples of edits that would use this source. Until now my questions are aimed at trying to get more information from you in order to help more forum participants comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you query whether there is any controversy regarding Sulimirski's theories. Well, in the context of the Indo-Aryan migration theory, there most certainly is controversy and Sulimirski is firmly set in one camp. Worse, it is in the context of this theory that the IP appears to wish to use Sulimirski.

My take is that he can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers. It might have been helpful if the IP had made a note of this thread on related article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, in case you haven't read the above mentioned comments carefully, please note that I have quoted — "(practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved)"! — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess, that's exactly what your conclusion is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's research can well be used as a reference, but people should welcome WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity. — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I had read them carefully, thanks. He is reliable for his opinion, and no more. My point was in relation to a comment by Andrew L, querying whether Sulimirski's opinion is controversial. It helps to be as explicit as possible regarding the background when forming queries here. As it seems that you are aware of the balance issue, I look forward to seeing your proposals for display of the alternative theories at Talk:Jat people etc. All entirely in the spirit of the policy to which you refer, of course. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, my intention to make that edit request to an article's talk page was definitely to provide the admins or reviewers a factual information, for the coverage of history of the Massagetaean invasion in India — I have actively participated in the discussion & now I would like to leave things upto the sincerity of the admins or reviewers working on that article, after a fair conclusion by Qwyrxian.

Sitush, I have been very explicit — even mentioned the book's name & even mentioned the quote from the book, that I have suggested @ edit request! But fella, can you be more specifically explicit about concerns over the reliability of Tadeusz Sulimirski?

Sitush, till there is a world wide consensus over the Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans,Scythians, etc. — it's fair to proceed by blend of WP:NPOV & WP:Balance?

The scope of the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski's books is not limited limited to a single ethnic group, but the coverage has been much wider — if the admins or reviewers of the articles pages are aware of WP:POV & WP:Balance & WP:OWN & the fact that @ Wikipedia people should attempt to avoid rendering judgement themselves, and for the most part defer to the judgement of reliable sources. Respecting this platform, I would like to make a general note to people that while making edits on hot topics like Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans or Scythians or Massagetae etc. — please always be prepared to welcome WP:Balance, and not enforce any source as a compelling source, even after getting approval from here. Thanks! — 117.207.56.161 (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so there is some controversy. This does not mean we can not or should not mention an author. Could I ask editors above or anyone familiar with the debate to please give comments about if/how the authors are cited by the historical profession.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Sitush's quoted above, "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers." — that's clearly a request for the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity, nothing more than that. And, that's fair enough!

As far as, Sitush's concern over the Indo-Aryan migration theory is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's views are shared world wide & are widely accepted. Tadeusz Sulimirski research far outweighs any other claims — he maintains that there is certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India. Still, I don't mind using WP:Balance, as this is still a debated issue — but the show must go on; with a blend of WP:NPOV + WP:Balance!

Guess, we need more participants here to nail the consensus over Tadeusz Sulimirski - welcome! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this debate now limited to the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski — as a compelling source or to welcome the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity? My take is that no source can be treated as a compelling source as far as Wikipedia is concerned — so can we conclude with a YES over Tadeusz Sulimirski research & look forward to Happy Editing  ! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this. From my investigatons, these two authors research is a little dated and has been surpased by more up to date research. Therefore the case maybe that they may fall into the case of WP:Reliable. Saying that, I am convinced that the Jatt and many other Punjabi people such as Rajput's, Kamboj's, Tarkhans etc are of Scythian origin. Thanks SH 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that 117.207.62.240 asked a number of people he considers authoritative to make some sort of determination. Do you mind if I call you James instead of a number?(I'm watching "Lost" right now). James, you have received replies in this discussion that you persistently ignore. You appear to be seeking what WP does not give, encyclopedia-wide approval of an author. Presumably, if I read between the lines correctly, you would then cite this approval against any editors questioning the reliability of the author in any article. WP does not do that, generally speaking. WP is like the Ottoman Empire. All authority is handed over to the administrators. There are so many of these that the company cannot possibly police them all. If one becomes notoriously unpopular or violates the policies in a more publicised way, the Sultan chops off his or her head; that is, his priviledges are revoked and he is blocked, sometimes forever. Meanwhile he has nearly unlimited power to decide what can go in the article. That is what is wrong with WP. It is not the people's encyclopedia and is not democratic unless by chance an editor or article escapes attention. That's right. Whether any of the policies you cite are implemented wholly, partially, or not at all is a matter of arbitrary decision by supposedly independent administrators (they are not). This totalitarianism is handled at the article level, not at the policy level. I can give you a further few hints. Articles of the east are dominated by the views of the German administrators. Articles that involve Britain are firmly in the control of the British administrators. Articles on the Balkans ... shall I go on? You aren't politically naive, I hope, James. As you were told above, what anyone will be allowed to say depends on the particular context. To you I would say, you expect too much from WP. What you are discovering here is your limitations on it. Don't believe everything you read, James. I'm going now. Why don't you get a login so I do not have to call you James? So, no need to yank my chain again. I'm very busy right now. Ciao.Branigan 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I received the following request from an anonymous person on my Talk Page: "Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)." My answer to this request is as follows: I had never heard of either of these two men until I received this request. For this reason I am not in a position to comment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sikh, for the conclusive comments — WP:RS.

I too have observed that, Botteville. [Inserted later to cease any doubt: Botteville, please note that, I have been very explicit — properly mentioned Tadeusz Sulimirski's book name & even mentioned the quote from the book & firmly stated that I would be using Tadeusz Sulimirski's conslusion in that very quote. Botteville, as far as Rahul Sankrityayan is concerned, I have firmly quoted that the use would only specifically limited to articles written on history of India. — 117.212.44.121 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)]

Ok! John Hill, articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny anyways, in case you get some free time, please go through'em!

Tadeusz Sulimirski's firmly set in the camp that maintains — there are certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India, that's a widely accepted view & far outweighs proposed Indigenous claims! I guess, I can safely say that the consensus has headed in favor of — Tadeusz Sulimirski as a source on Wikipedia! Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SH concludes as YES to — Rahul Sankrityayan, as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history (ONLY — as asked). Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone thinks otherwise on reliability of Rahul Sankrityayan as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history — please comment! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus (so far): it's a 'YES for both — Tadeusz Sulimirski (Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), on articles specifically related to history) & Rahul Sankrityayan (article specifically related to history of India, only). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is a lot of shouting and touting by a couple of IPs. Aside from anything else, you have misread what Sikh History said: SH is well aware of how Wikipedia works and their response both acknowledges the datedness of the author and also the element that is SH's personal opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The response has clearly been more in favor of the use as a reference, then why it's not a YES Sitush? Have you changed your mind over Tadeusz Sulimirski (as you have commented only over him as follows — "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers.").

People can see that SH's personal opinion is WP:Reliable, if in case you haven't fully read his statement & saw only what you wanted to saw & concluding only what you are saying without any concrete stuff (that's WP:NPOV, one you're fully aware of theoratically), & he said a little dated (not even little dated or over dated or outdated, lol!). SH even further goes on to write some text in favor of the quote from the book (what more people expect a participant to do!).

I respect your rights here, but why don't you firmly declare any or both of them as unreliable with some rock solid stuff (that only you've discovered out of some where & rather than any of the guyz above), so that people can have a healthy debate with you, but if you're not even going to do that, then what's the point? Let it be a YES, or be bold to ask people to stop using Tadeusz Sulimirski as a ref on Wikipedia's articles related to history (subject's mentioned) & not to use Rahul Sankrityayan as ref on Indian history subject, fair enough fella, b'coz you're the only arguing, even after your request has been considered & it's been declared that even after getting a consensus-wise YES, the sources would not be used as a compelling source, to respect the authors of the pages as follows — WP:NPOV & WP:Balance, again firmly saying this, so please cooperate as dare to take a stand on the either side! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, if one has a quick look over all of your comments, they appear somewhat "self-contradictory". You put comments & disappear from the discussion section for a while. It's not in good spirit to avoid following up discussions. Seems, it was not a good idea to keep visiting the cyber-cafe, to see if you've followed up, for the 5 last days!

Anyone authoritative who would like to nail things here, please conclude over the realiabilty of — Tadeusz Sulimirski's book, The Sarmatians (1970) and Rahul Sankrityayan (specifically only for history of India). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Article in Medical Acupuncture (journal) and how it may be used in Acupuncture

I made some bold edits to Acupuncture that were reverted because the statements made "need a source that strictly complies with WP:MEDRS" (see Talk:Acupuncture#"Myofascial meridians"). I contend that:

• Medical Acupuncture is a reliable peer-reviewed medical journal. It's editorial policy is here.
• The article "Myofascial Meridians as Anatomical Evidence of Acupuncture Channels" by Peter T. Dorsher, (2009). is an analysis, comparison, and synthesis of other sources and therefore should be considered to be a secondary source. It contains no direct scientific observation.
• The textbook Anatomy Trains by Thomas W. Myers (2008), used as source in above article, is published by Elsevier Health Sciences, a leading pubisher in medical an anatomical textbooks, should be considered a reliable source.
• Dorsher (2009) meets the requirements as per WP:Medrs to allow its conclusions (such as "The strong correspondence of the distributions of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians provides an independent, anatomic line of evidence that acupuncture Principal Meridians likely exist in the myofascial layer of the human body") can be used as evidence of a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians.

I would also contend that similar statements derived from these sources could be used in Meridian (Chinese medicine) and in other articles related to this topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't turn up in Pubmed, which makes me wonder about the journal.

The primary problem here isn't whether this is a "reliable source", but whether this is giving WP:DUE weight to this one author's view. So either you can take this to WP:NPOVN, or you might find it useful to think of it this way: if you got together every single published author who had written even the smallest statement on this subject, from the most pro-anatomy author of the world through the most virulently anti-anatomy authors, and you lined them up, in order, from most to least, where would Dorsher fall in the line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument here is about whether Dorsher's article constitutes a primary or a secondary source - and clearly, it's primary. It's not a comparison and synthesis of other sources, but a study ("The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the distributions of the anatomically based myofascial meridians are similar to those of the acupuncture Principal Meridians.") His method consisted in comparing acupuncture meridians with Myers' "myofascial meridians" by using some special kind of software ("With Adobe Photoshop Elements software (Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, CA), the distributions of corresponding acupuncture meridians were applied to the same human figure outlines used in Myers’ text to allow direct side-by-side comparisons of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians"). The result of his study is that "In 8 (89%) of 9 comparisons, there was substantial overlap in the distributions of the ... myofascial meridians with those of the acupuncture Principal Meridian distributions..."

Since this is a primary source, it's not suitable for being used as evidence for the far-reaching statement that science found a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians. We have secondary sources in the article already, but they all state the opposite. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

---

• Bump - I am looking for verification that the sources named above can be considered to be reliable. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I consider "Medical Acupuncture" to be a reliable source. It is published for and by physicians who practice acupuncture, and is peer reviewed. We should discuss how it can or cannot be used on the article talk page, but such articles can be used as sources as long as the editor does not attempt to make a definitive medical or scientific claim.Herbxue (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like a primary source to me (it's an original experiment), and primary sources should not be used to de-bunk secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. At the most, you could say that one guy with Photoshop software (Photoshop? Really? And the cheap, US$60 consumer-grade version at that?) said that these things overlap. And even then, I'm not convinced that mentioning one guy's opinion is WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the article, but the question for this board is "is the source reliable?", not "how good is this source?". I have long complained about an article by Matuk, used heavily as a source in the acupuncture and TCM articles, written by an illustrator that has opinions about TCM's relationship with anatomy. That one is considered "secondary" because she looks at western anatomical illustrations and she looks at Chinese meridian illustrations, but ultimately she states her own opinions, which have become statements in the article. If that is an acceptable secondary source, surely someone doing the same thing (comparing pictures and making observations about them) is also an acceptable source. Can it be used to justify a claim that meridians have an anatomical basis? No, of course not. But can it be mentioned or incorporated into the article in some way? Yes.Herbxue (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com

Why is www.thepeerage.com considered a reliable source? It is researched by someone who does so as a hobby - Darryl Lundy. It has no peer review of its content. It is essentially this person's home-based website. However, it is used extensively by editors making contributions on European royalty. However, on the several occasions when I have checked its attributions for historical occurrence, it is in direct contrast to viable, peer-reviewed histories. That would most likely be because the website, www.thepeerage.com, is run by one person who is not an expert on the topic nor does he even profess to have any education in the subject that he researches. Why is it included as a secondary source for so many articles? Shouldn't it be removed as a source for these articles? Does anyone agree with this? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lundy does cite his sources which are reliable such as Cokayne's "The Complete Peerage", etc. By rendering virtually every single online source unreliable, there will be no further contributions on European royalty articles. Very few people will go out and spend 50 dollars on a book just to add a citation and even fewer will drive to a public library looking up information which is already freely available on the 'Net. I would suggest that editors citing Lundy's website add the source which he himself used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a good idea: editors shouldn't cite references they haven't seen (except for where an editor in good standing can personally vouch for the reference, and even then it's not ideal). Based on what's at http://www.thepeerage.com/info.htm, this isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's as it's author cheerfully admits to cobbling together information from various books and databases as a hobby and making educated guesses in instances where his sources were contradictory. That said, if reliable sources reference this database it's probably usable. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"thepeerage.com" appears to be used in quite a few reliable sources per GoogleScholar - thus unless a claim is contentius, I consider it an RS - one of the very few cases where an SPS reaches that level. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a close look at those hits. It seems to me that most them are genealogy websites, random webpages, and things published by a mysterious 'eM Publications'. I searched GoogleBooks for that publisher and found they are selling Wikipedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Republishers#eM_Publications. I don't see how the 'thepeerage' is a 'reliable source', it's just a personal website that happens to cite it's sources. That doesn't mean we should remove it wholesale from articles - it's better than nothing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Elsevier one is not a Wikipedia article - it appears the source is widely used as RS on Wikipedia articles, especially for royal genealogies. As long as the claim is not contentious, I would accept it as a source. Collect (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least one of the papers (from Google scholar) which cites thepeerage.com also cites Wikipedia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.026 So either the paper is suspect or what they are citing is so tangential to their main focus, they probably don't care. Churn and change (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses the journal that that article was published in, is explicitly not peer reviewed and isn't competent in the field of biographical history or genealogy. I wouldn't trust that article for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is deviating from the topic, but their webpage at Elsevier says they have internal and external review. Their editorial board listed here has some well-known names. Not saying you are wrong (the journal does say they take what other publications won't or don't), but there is the question of what criteria to use to reject the journal. Do you want to bring this up as a separate section? Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Given nobody's suggesting using that source, I think we can rest on our laurels of extensive past discussions unless someone has another use case. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"thepeerage.com" is, however, used in a large number of Wikipedia articles. [1] seems to show that it is widely accepted for non-cententious genealogical claims, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But people have been tagging it. See Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family and Christopher Chancellor. In other cases it has been removed, or is in "External links." This is in just the first page of results. I sampled randomly and still found it in external links or tagged. See Sir Edward Crosbie. I think it is widely used and widely disputed. Churn and change (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any complaints that Lundy is often seriously wrong, but the correct answer is to both wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thepeerage) and also indicate the RS(s) cited there in support of the cited assertion, as shown here. If someone seriously doubts that Lundy got it right, they can always check Burke's (or whichever authority Lundy cited). This should be sufficient for articles other than BLPs. For current live people, better sources should be sought. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If the editors at a specific article reach that consensus, then that's that. But if there is a dispute and it is brought here, the answer has to be to use the authoritative secondary source Lundy cites. A no-peer-review, no-editorial-check, nonexpert, self-published site isn't a reliable source. Whether a source is an RS doesn't depend, in theory, on whether it is available and accessible, but I can see the practical objections to these expensive books. This particular book you mention is available widely in libraries, so not using it doesn't seem ok from any perspective. Churn and change (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP is perpetually a work-in-progress. Rather than see editors leaving assertions uncited, it is constructive to capture where they came from and work towards eventually checking the original publication as the article matures. This is a practical intermediate step, and certainly better than trusting an unsupported assertion that Lundy's not reliable. I wouldn't accept him at FAR, but to rule him out for stub- or start-class articles is just selfdefeating. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

MicrobeWiki

The name is a red flag, but I note that the site is curated. I don't know that we have any policies governing curated wiki sites.

If it is not an acceptable reference, I see a number of articles, such as Ehrlichia canis, Micrococcus, Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus and others, which need editing.

The issue arose because an article in the DYK queue Nostoc commune, uses it as a reference, and it is being challenged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The site is not curated; some specific pages are. "Microbial biorealm" and "Viral biorealm" are encyclopedias and hence tertiary sources. "Microbial mythology" is a secondary source, experts evaluating and interpreting primary sources, with editorial oversight. But I think reliability isn't a yes/no thing. There are degrees to it. For a DYK review, I guess the curated pages should be good enough. For an FA article, probably not. Churn and change (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They have curated pages that qualify as sources with editorial oversight. But I have another concern. A quick comparison of mentioned Ehrlichia canis here and on MicrobeWiki shows that someone tried to closely paraphrase MicrobeWiki, frequently without knowing the subject and transformed correct phrases (from Microbewiki) to nonsense. For example, the phrase "The cell walls of E. canis is unrecognizable because of typical receptors like Toll-like receptors 2 and 4. (MicrobeWiki)" in Ehrlichia canis is wrong and does not make any sense. One would make a much better job simply by copy-paste phrases from MicrobeWiki, but I am not sure about their copyright status (see here, the materials "from other sources" on their site are images).My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Churn and change - Thanks for the feedback, and the correction. Yes, I should have said some pages are curated, not the entire site.

@ My very best wishes - yes, the original issue was an editor making a mash of the source, with concerns about plagiarism and misstatements. I don't know the subject matter well enough to contribute, but was interested in the status as an RS.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found what it was about. Bad edits in Ehrlichia canis were made by an IP who did just a few edits. Not everything he did was really wrong; I selected the worst passage. Looking at Nostoc commune, I do not see anything obviously wrong (I am not a microbiologist). So, let's not blame editor who did good work there. Speaking about MicrobeWiki, I am not sure if copy-paste from their site would be a copyright violation, given their copyright conditions (see above). Once again, one can use their curated pages as source, and the quality of their other pages is comparable with similar wikipedia pages or better. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

AllCinema.net

There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference.[2] However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page,[3] they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. —Farix (t | c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times has a disclaimer page, too. The presence of a disclaimer page does not prove that they don't engage in fact-checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the same search on the IMDb, there are many many wiki citations that use the IMDb. This page alone leads to a lot of them. The text of the WP:RS specifically mentions IMDb, and I would be happy to present arguments that that sentence should be reviewed and modified to allow the IMDb to be used to substantiate that a film exists, its date, cast, crew, and plot summary information. I do realize that this may have been suggested many times before, but here it is again. (08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

AllCinema.net looks crazy dangerous to me by comparison. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by P.J.Cohen

I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996

I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit

• the author is not historian
• the book title is an accusation
• there are serious doubts who was the book true author
• Neutrality is a sacred Wikipedia credo

Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)

In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.

"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".

There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?

From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138

A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.

From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222

Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...

From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml

Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby.

From: http://balkaninstitut.academia.edu/MiroslavSvircevic/Papers/1620686/Philip_J._Cohen_Serbias_secret_war_Propaganda_and_the_deceit_of_history_Texas_A_and_M_University_Press_1996

Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration.

--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you are using Carl Savich's right-wing blog serbianna.com as a basis for criticising Cohen... lol. And anonymous "customers" on Amazon? Please... Can we keep this to criticism by academics? In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is used widely on WP articles about the Balkans). And he supports Cohen and his book, debunks the 'ghost writer' conspiracy theory and actually states he stayed with Cohen for a couple of days helping him with his manuscript. He notes he is not a professional historian but says that despite this the book is 'very good'. I have linked the blog post here [4]. And the only credible disinterested quote you have noted above is that of MacDonald, and it's a passing mention that the book is controversial. Controversial to whom? The Serbian Institute is unlikely to be able to avoid bias itself, being made up of Serbs. And I'm not Croatian.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is published by a University Press, which more or less makes it citable on Wikipedia. We don't get a neutral point of view by just citing neutral books on political topics; there are few, if any, such. We get NPOV by citing reliable, non-neutral sources, covering all views on the topic separately.

Churn and change (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Churn and change: this book was published by a well-regarded scholarly press, and so meets Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. If other reliable sources (including professional reviews published by newspapers, scholarly journals, etc) have criticised the book and/or provide different perspectives of events, this should be taken into account when making use of it. However, hostile Amazon.com customer reviews and comments on various websites obviously do not rule this out as a usable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No 'we' didn't forget to search RSN archives, and we could all do without the dismissive and exasperated tone. The single review you produced (not the consensus of several editors that this noticeboard says can generally be relied upon), which you provided when I brought this book to RSN 18 days ago has been questioned by several editors, including myself. This questioning has been on the basis of the support given to Cohen by a former member of the Cambridge history faculty (Dr Marko Hoare) who has stated the book is 'very good', and who has debunked the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs listed above. Now two other regular contributors to RSN have suggested it is OK and taken a different view from yours. We have editors other than yourself expressing a view, and I'm not seeing a consensus here that it isn't reliable. I believe it at least requires more discussion than your dismissive comments above, and I encourage all editors that regularly contribute here to make their views known (and why). Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to elevate Hoare in a blog post above a review in a peer reviewed journal? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not expected to do original research when checking credibility of sources either. The explanation of guidelines says WP:Attribution: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Texas A&M is a fairly well-known university; what its press publishes has gone through scholarly vetting and can be cited in WP. As a first cut, we apply the general guidelines and they say a book published by a university press like Texas A&M is admissible as an RS. A higher bar can be applied only if there are so many better sources that including this, and its rebuttals, make the article way too long. Per the guidelines, those sources all have to be scholarly articles or books. Lack of space in the article would be a valid argument for excluding an RS and including only higher-quality RSes; perceived inaccuracy would not be. If you think the stuff is all wrong, you should get references which say so and include that as well. That is how we get to NPOV, not by making right and wrong judgments for ourselves, and using that as a first filter. If including all that makes the article unwieldy, fine, you have a valid argument to make on the article's talk page as an issue specific to that topic. WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions "well-regarded academic presses" as reliable. Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar. I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness; here we need to assess issues using general guidelines, not by using subject knowledge to decide correctness. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo, no I'm not. I'm pointing out that Hoare, who is a topic-specific published academic, takes a different view of the book. Given he is reliably published on the subject, his blog comments are also reliable. That's what the policy says. The motivation for editors trying to get rid of this book from WP is highly suspect if you follow the talk pages on Ante Pavelic and Pavle Djurisic. Unable to find WP:RS that challenge Cohen, editors have resorted to this. It's incredibly transparent. I agree that Texas A&M is reliable unless proved otherwise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• • There are serious objections to the book content and the most notable is the one that the author has no academic credibility in Balkans studies then that it's a commissioned propaganda book. The author (Cohen) was decorated by Croatian late president Tudjman for this 'achievement'. The book 'reviewers' are exclusively Croats, the book borrows too much from the similar books written by Croats. Peacemaker67 simply parrots the phrases like 'the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs'. We are here to weigh all objections to the book quality. Some of them too serious to be overseen especially those listed by Serbian scholar Dr. Miroslav Svircevic. As to the Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar.: Who published book makes no contribution to this discussion nor tells us about the book author and his academic achievements. The bar was apparently very low, otherwise the book would be rejected. The publisher is, just as any company, interested primarily in profit. Both me and Peacemaker67 are Croats. My primary intentions are purely academic with no idea of re-writing history of Ustashe. Pavelic and his Ustashe brought only shame, misery, and suffering to Croats. I'm the one who is not fighting Serbs on Wikipedia, and, in Croatia, not voting Pavelic's HOP. A very bad thing is that the most notable authors (WWII, Ustashe and Independent State of Croatia) like Martin Broszat, Mehachem Shelach, Slavko Goldstein, and Bogdan Krizman are replaced by this propagandist and the likes.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have already pointed out that I am not a Croat, if you don't stop stating this as a fact in the face of my statements to the contrary, I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm Australian and have no genealogical or ideological links to the Balkans, I have a professional interest as a result of spending 6 months there during the 90's. Juraj, by his own admission, is here to stop what he perceives is 'the rewriting of history' Your list of most notable authors is quite strange, I mainly use Ramet, Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts, Hoare, Lemkin, etc in Balkans articles I edit. None of them are rewriting history. Broszat isn't even published in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Carrying over the debate here is rather pointless. I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Budak brought an Amazon review, criticism from Serbianna (a Serb nationalist blog), and a review from the Balkan Institute of SANU. Not at all convincing. The peer review brought by Fifelfoo states explicitly that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
          • ...and then goes on to say "....but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs" before concluding that it's a shoddy book. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
            • But that is cherry picked. If a UP publishes a book, you can be pretty certain there are reliable academics praising it. I looked and found a positive review by Charles Ingrao, history prof. at Purdue University. There is this review slamming Cohen: [5]. The book is in the Pentagon's digital library on 'Confict in the Balkans.' It is in the bibliography of Richard Holbrooke's To End a War; unlikely he included it just to criticize it. Holbrooke wasn't an academic but was clearly an influential figure. In his book The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, p.30, James J. Sadkovich, once an associate professor at the American University in Bulgaria([6]), cites figures (not opinions) from the book. In a footnote in Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s some authors (couldn't make out which ones) state the Cohen book has important points but is unbalanced by a missionary zeal. A report by a research team at Purdue, headed by Sabrina Ramet, cites Cohen as an account of "Nedic's government written from a critical perspective." (I think Ingrao influenced the report; nevertheless it is an independent source since Ingrao wasn't part of the team and the citation is a direct one). If anybody needs the behind-paywall articles, please ask either at my talk page or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. This is why we have guidelines. Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality. But it cannot be ruled out based on our ideas of whether it is right. Churn and change (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN?

I guess so, but it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are for most things, but for some specific events this book is the key source. I certainly don't use his opinions much at all, just factual stuff he presents. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken Churn and change's advice and asked for access to the review by Ingrao in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1997. Here are some relevant bits:

His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion.

and

Cohen's final task is to explain how Serbia could have been so successful in

selling its twentieth-century heroic myths to the international community.... Except for this last theme (which includes an expose on the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society that MiloSevic founded in 1987) much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point, such as in exaggerating the popularity of Serbian pre-war fascist parties (which garnered a paltry 1% of the vote against Stojadinovic's government list and Macek's

united opposition) or in minimizing the popular Serb opposition to the March 1941 Tripartite Pact. Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild.

This provides a counterpoint to the review referenced by Fifelfoo, and was part of the case made by Churn and change which concluded that WP policy means that Cohen can be used for facts and opinions (with in-text attribution of the opinions). In several other fora, including at Talk:Chetniks here [7] User:Antidiskriminator has now declared that this discussion in fact means that Cohen is not considered reliable. That was not my impression. Can we get some clarification? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• A propaganda pamphlet It is clear, from the book title, what were the author's (who is the author?) intentions. A number of fundamental questions must be answered at the beginning. The book was written by a man without any background in the WWI and Balkans studies. Moreover, he is handicapped by lacking knowledge of the Serbo-Croatian language. The English language used in the book shows the style and the vocabulary of an non-native English writer. I convinced myself in it after comparing the first and the last editions of the same book where are pages with rewordings apparently aimed to fix earlier bad language work. So, which way this book was written and who really wrote it?
  
  Now, let us ignore who wrote this book. The book was, initially, published by a respected publisher. We scholars are poor people, heavily relying on publishers help which regularly ends with the copyright transfer from the author to the publisher. We are lucky if we got some money coming from the book sale. In this case, the book copyright holds the author (or "author") and the book is on sale at $4 for the new print. Who really pays for its four printing, manufactured in the USA, copyright 1996 by Philip J. Cohen?
  
  Let us marginalize question who pays for manufacturing it in the USA. How about the content? Cohen (or someone else) is heavily at disagreement with the WWII and the Holocaust studies. The Serbs are portrayed as a people who embraced their conqueror, the German Nazis, as a God-sent ally, whose common goal was to exterminate the Jews. Many of the Nazis' orders and proclamations, translated into Serbo-Croatian, in the occupied Jugoslavia Cohen interpreted as the Serbs' proclamations and orders. His accusations thrown against the Serbs cannot find a ground in the mainstream Holocaust studies nor even in memoirs of those who survived the Holocaust in Jugoslavia. Just read Eichmann Trial testimonies (Saltz, Arnon), or Gutman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, entry Serbia, Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews, etc. Alleged suffering of the Jews in the Kingdom of Jugoslavia and under Serbian rule rejects Alexander Arnon saying that only latent anti-Semitism was present in Croatia, out of all regions of Jugoslavia. H. Saltz was a military officer and physician in Belgrade. --Sunil of India (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • G'day Sunil. I'm afraid most of what you have said strays into WP:OR. Your characterisation of the book in respect of being at odds with WWII and Holocaust studies is not consistent with either of the scholarly reviews provided here. Your allusions to possible ghost writing have been contradicted by a former Cambridge history don who assisted Cohen with the manuscript. Your comments about Cohen's lack of Serbo-Croat language skills has also been addressed by Hoare. Memoirs and testimony are generally WP:PRIMARY. Can you elaborate on what WP policy basis you believe this book does not meet the requirements of WP:RS? Perhaps if you were to take Churn and change's comments as a starting point. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

EPA lawyer quotation from Daily Beast

A phrase that was deleted from the BP intro said "BP has been criticized for its political influence". In my attempt to justify its reinsertion, I found the following quotation helpful. It's from EPA lawyer Jeanne Pascal, who headed a 12 year investigation to see whether BP should be debarred from operating in the US based on its safety/accidents record. A quotation printed in Daily Beast/Newsweek would help support the phrase, but the reliability of this source has come under question at the talk page. (Thanks in advance.)

But Pascal quickly ran into the oil-company equivalent of “too big to fail”—and knew that her threat was essentially empty. Although this is not widely known, BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon If she pushed debarment too hard, Pascal was sure the Pentagon would simply invoke a national-security exception that would allow BP to continue to sell it oil. “When a major economic and political giant" tells you it has direct access to the White House, it’s very intimidating,” says Pascal.

SOURCE petrarchan47tc

I assume you are referring to this article? That is an opinion piece. There are a few issues here: First, your statement lacks a subject and would probably get tagged with the {{By whom}} template. If you then add "Jeanne Pascal criticized . . ." there would be the question of why what Jeanne Pascal, a retired senior attorney at EPA, has to say matters for the article. Aren't there weightier opinions, if include opinion you must? Finally, 'The Daily Beast' is not a particularly credible news magazine (not at the level of New York Times, LA Times and established newspapers). The question of an entire publication as an RS is rarely a yes/no one. I would say straight, non-controversial news items can be sourced from the 'The Daily Beast' but definitely not an opinion piece on environmental issues. There are plenty of far-more credible, and even academic and scholarly, sources available on the issue; so there is the question of why include an opinion piece from a less-credible source? Churn and change (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the piece says "from Newsweek" at the top. So the article was published at Newsweek first. The statement I am trying to support is "BP has been criticized for its political influence". Jeanne Pascal is notable by herself based on her 12 year investigation into BP, she was the head of it. I thought perhaps that Newsweek and Pascal's notability would make for RS. This is not the only RS I am using for support, but I thought it important because Pascal is quoted as saying that BP's influence goes directly the White House. This was my basis for claiming her notability. petrarchan47tc 18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the author Michael Isikoff wrote this piece for Newsweek (it's cross-published at Daily Beast, which is now owned by Newsweek). At the end of the article you can see his credentials. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it is Newsweek you should cite as your source. Here is the citation (you can add your URL as a WP:Convenience link):

Isikoff, M., & Hirsh, M. (2010). "Slick operator." Newsweek, 155(20):36–38. 5/17/2010.

You still have the other issues of person's notability and this being an opinion piece. You have to discuss those with the editors at the article's talk page. Something gets to be notable based on the credibility of the person saying it, not based on how far-reaching or scandalous the accusation is. But that discussion needs context and is best carried out elsewhere. But to answer your original question, Newsweek is not a publication automatically marked a non-RS. Churn and change (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. petrarchan47tc 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, the article titled "Slick Operator" was written by respected and credentialed reporters. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hersh are the writing team. The article is a superb source; reliable in every way. The article's subtitle is "How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect." Isikoff and Hersh criticize BP for political influence. The phrase removed from the article should be restored to it, using Isikoff and Hersh as the source.

As well, the article titled "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present" is a reliable source. The article represents a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is MPA Media a reliable publisher?

I am wanting to get verification that periodicals published by MPA media could be considered to be reliable sources.

MPA Media currently publishes the following online publications:

1. Dynamic Chiropractic
2. Canada
3. Acupuncture Today
4. Massage Today
5. Chiropractic Nutritional Wellness
6. To Your Health

Here is MPA's editorial policy

• Thank you very much! -Stillwaterising (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

---

They don't appear to be peer-reviewed, but do look to be similar to other business/trade specialty news publications, in this case the business fields being alternative medicine. Such publications tend to be substantially aggregators of press releases, rather than serious academic publications. They might be useful in a very limited way, but it would depend on the statements to be supported. They certainly should not be considered as wp:MEDRS to support medical assertions, but they'd be fine for "John Smith teaches dynamic chiropractic at XYZ University". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a duplicate of a post above, and the answer is still the same: the article in questions is not a WP:MEDRS... a13ean (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night

Please see the RfC regarding racism and homophobia. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix New Times blog

• http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/12/tempe_church_labeled_hate_grou.php source
• http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/author.php?author_id=1348 author page
• [Faithful Word Baptist Church] article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church#cite_note-PNT-5 source being used on the article
• [Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church#removal of unsourced BLP problem] talk page discussion, no consensus about wp:reliability

It is my position that the phoenixnewtimes source is a blog with intemperate language and is nowhere close to wp:reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But if you want a reliable source stating the SPLC has labeled the Faithful Word Baptist Church a hate group here is one: [8]. Churn and change (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a regional newsweekly. You should treat it like any other weekly print publication that advertises the latest concerts, movies, and clubs with 85,000 print copies distributed every week, because that's what it is. Its news blogs (not any "community member" blogs) are probably fact-checked just as much as the local daily newspaper's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Phoenix New Times is a weekly. Its blog section is, well, a blog. The blog section is not distributed with the print copy, nor is it subject to the same editorial oversight as the weekly. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We have the SPLC listing the Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group and the Phoenix New Times reporting this. As we have the original source to confirm the validity of the information I'm not sure why this is an issue. Or is there some other issue? Insomesia (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a real issue; they should just cite the SPLC site. However, the Phoenix New Times is not reporting it; a blog on it is and that shouldn't be included. Churn and change (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG is the relevant guideline. This piece is by a named journalist and can be regarded as roughly equivalent to a piece in the print copy. We do have to be very careful when a BLP issue is involved, and I would hope we could find better sources than this. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor who found the Phoenix New Times "blog" article (a week ago, I expressed on the article's talk page that I have no objection to tossing that citation out if other editors think it doesn't mean RS requirements, but I think the nominator just wants to make certain one way or the other if other editors oppose its removal). Seeing it being discussed here makes me curious about the original source it was intended to replace... I went searching for other source citations when the original citation was removed (it was an article from "The Dallas Voice", an LGBT news source). You can see that conversation here: Talk Page Thread

Here is the original source article in question: http://www.dallasvoice.com/hate-group-count-tops-1000-1066213.html

Curiosity has now gotten the better of me, and I'd be interested to know what the RSN board thinks of the original citation. Would it have been considered an RS, or not an RS, for the assertion that the FWBC was listed as a hate group by the SPLC? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that a LGBT news source was removed chiefly because it was an LGBT affiliated one. There is zero evidence that this source is not perfectly acceptable for reporting SPLC listing the Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group. They state in a correction in the article X, Y and Z are groups whose anti-gay activities SPLC looked into but whose homophobia did not rise to the level of hate group. it then lists the groups that are including Faithful Word Baptist Church. Please note I don't expect this discussion to resolve anything as this is about the 20th circular round I'm aware of countering the hate group label for these groups. Insomesia (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler

An editor has contested that The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler is not reliable for sourcing theatrical box-office rental. The data is located at pages 356–363 and is available on Google book preview, and the author has souced the figures from the Motion Pictures Alamanac and Variety Magazine. He has given no reason why he considers the source "not reliable" but I see nothing wrong with it. Please note that Google Books gives an incorrect author summary, but it can be seen here he is an accomplished writer on film with a good publication record on the subject. The figures are used in box-office charts such as 1958 in film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This title was published by the Wallflower Press which today is owned by the University of Columbia Press. That alone makes it an RS by our guideline. The data being sourced is, however, not adjusted for inflation (see page 363). The author presents excellent reasons for the problems with comparisons across years, nevertheless that is what most people expect to see when they look at the numbers. The list as it stands is as good as having some of the numbers in dollars, some in euros, some in pounds, and some in zloties. Converting is not an easy task, even assuming Canada can be approximated out. Which year do you use for conversion? The year the film was released, the years it ran, the years it grossed the most? Another issue is people are used to seeing box-office receipt numbers, not gross rentals; that conversion can't be done without knowing the expenditure half of the accounting sheet. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The rental figures are not being used to compare the earnings across multiple years, just to document what they earned at that time, so inflation adjustment is not necessary (for instance, the box-office chart for 2001 in film presents the box-office grosses at their 2001 value). There is currently an RFC over the use of the rentals at Talk:1960_in_film#Request_for_comment_about_replacing_top_ten_films_charts_with_revisionist_rankings. if you would care to comment on the broader issue of rentals vs b.o., but what I specifically need to know in regards to this source, is if the book is reliable in the context it is used at 1958 in film and at 1960 in film in purveying the rental earnings of the top films in any particular year? Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I answered that one. What, specifically, is the objection to its being an RS? If you look at WP:Attribution#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources you will see: " In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; . . ." Your source is #1 in this list. If you go to WP:SCHOLARSHIP you will see: "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." The University of Columbia Press is, rather obviously, a well-regarded academic press. The material you are using isn't data that can become outdated, nor is there a question of a neutral point of view. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiLeaks Cablegate documents

I'm having problems with someone who seems to be arguing that the U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks should not be used as citations for biographies of living persons. What is the policy of Wikipedia on using the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks?

I've blocked this editor for using Wikileaks cables to add negative material to articles about living people. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The analysis of primary sources in relation to their political and historical importance and meaning is a job for specialist scholars. Particularly given the provenance of the documentation, expert analysis is required to determine if the documents are in fact the documents they purport to be. While scholars are free to make these judgements based on their expert understandings (and some of the better news magazines or papers likewise), wikipedians while encyclopaedia editors are incapable of doing this, as it would constitute original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A splendid example of why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Collect (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?

≤In reference to this discussion at WP:DRN, I believe there are two issues a neutral 3rd party comment could help with.

Firstly, The following source is used to justify a claim made in Argentina's modern sovereignty dispute that the population was expelled:

Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.

The issue I have with the particular claim made, is that the claim is cited to a document referred to as the Akehurst Memorandum, which referrences the historian Goebel. If you refer to the Google books link (I have the original text this is just a convenient way to share it), rather than confirming the claim made by López, it confirms the claim currently cited in the article ie the claim made by López fails verification. See Self-determination#Falkland Islands for the current text.

This isn't disputed, however, I have two editors arguing that checking the claim made by an author against his cited sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN and we should simply use the source attributing the claim to López. The argument is this is needed as a "rebuttal" to claims made in neutral academic sources, Goebel included, to present the Argentine POV. Am I wrong in suggesting we shouldn't use this source to verify that claim, since the source asserts a claim not made by the original author but one that is attributed to that author. Hope that makes sense.

Secondly, the same editors assert that it is a reliable source for the following claim:

“ On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. ”

The argument here is that the title of the work shows the reasearch is based on British sources egro the statement is supported by reference to the same dicussion in López (the one that fails verification). The attributed source, Goebel, refers only to the garrison. Am I wrong in suggesting that given the source is making a claim not supported by its citation it is unreliable for that particular claim? Thank you in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If I've got this right, López does analyze British sources, and does conclude that the population was expelled. It's just that you have also analyzed the same British sources, and concluded that López's conclusion is obviously unwarranted. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an academic publisher. Likely to be an appropriate source. Have you read the whole book? It would seem that it could be a good source, but which statements it could support would be a matter for serious consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The other editors would be justified about their OR and SYNTH objections; we should not critically evaluate sources ourselves via cross-checking against their primary sources. As User:Itsmejudith points out the publisher is reliable, publishing scholarly and academic works. The source is RS. If the author's contentions are not mainstream, they will need attribution, and possibly rebuttal. Churn and change (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a neutral 3rd party opinion so I will try and restrict myself to responding to questions posed.

In answer to WhatamIdoing. Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.

Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Quote

“ On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... ”

Emphasis added

ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.

Quote

“ Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833 ”

The statement attributed to Goebel is not made by Goebel. Goebel is well known as a source in the Falkland Islands dispute, so falsely attributing a claim to him is very strange. Anyone familiar with the subject would know that Goebel doesn't make this claim. For reference there was a garrison and a settlement but only the garrison left. So no, I didn't analyse the same British sources and come to a different conclusion, being familiar with the cited source the claim struck me as odd and when I checked I found it did not reflect Goebel.

Goebel is a WP:SECONDARY source, I can if requested give you the two WP:PRIMARY sources, eye witness reports which corroborate both Goebel and the source below. The two reports both Argentine and British corroborate one another as well.

Another neutral source

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

“ Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. ”

“ Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina ”

Empahsis added

Neutral academic works usually debunk this claim made by Argentina. Hence in answer to Churn, the view is not mainstream but is being used here to criticise the mainstream view. I would be grateful if you could expand as to why you consider this WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm not doing any research and drawing conclusions, there I would agree with you it is inded WP:OR. However, I really don't see fact checking as WP:OR but I'm quite willing to be re-educated. In my own writing I always try to cross-check facts against multiple sources to ensure I represent the range of opinions in the literature.

In answer to Itsmejudith, yes I have read it a long time ago. Like most POV sources, and it is a POV source, its use requires careful thought and in particular attribution of claims. López is not a neutral academic but a former Argentine ambassador, who was involved in the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. When it comes to WP:WEIGHT I think it falls down in that the claim isn't verified by the cite and it contradicts mainsteam opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR. On WP edits are not done or reviewed by experts and so we rely on secondary sources with our doing just basic 2+3=5 style fact checking. We depend on publishing houses to do thorough checks (through editorial oversight or peer review). Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your second issue: On WP we present all facets, including minority views, but not the fringe views of a tiny minority. How many minority views can be included depends on, in practice, the length of the article. We take highest-quality sources first, write what they talk of, and then go down the ladder to other sources. This particular source is an RS; it is likely not a high-quality one, and maybe it doesn't represent mainstream opinion. In that case, if you really have sufficient higher-quality sources (which would be books and articles in and by even-better academic journals and publishers), you fill the article with those. I took a quick look at the article, this particular section has just two short paras. So, to the question of being a fringe claim. Maybe Argentina's stance is so off-the-chart we can equate it to a fringe-minority view and not mention it. May be so. I searched and hit upon pretty fast the statement you reject: that Britain expelled Argentinians in 1833. The source is Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University and the page is 306. I am not going to argue Risman is right; the issue is likely highly nuanced with many credible sources having their own POVs. But that source does make any claim the view is fringe (a claim you have not made; I am just covering all possibilities) an exceptional claim needing exceptional evidence. The sources in the article don't seem enough; Mary Cawell together with publisher A. Nelson don't seem much of a source; Harper is a good source but her book is on "Scottish emigration" and touches on Falklands very briefly and in a different context. So, yes, I do think you have to include this view, if not from the RS you mentioned then from the RS I did, and include rebuttals from other sources. If you have trouble accessing the source, send me a message, or ask on the WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request board. Churn and change (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research. Per Itsmejudith, the publisher is a scholarly publisher which says it submits manuscripts to external review prior to acceptance. That's a good sign. I'd suggest the only way to not accept this text as being part of the scholarly literature is if reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals (with an appropriate journal coverage area) tear it to pieces. So off to the book reviews: JLAS noted the book existed, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00011998, but it is their policy to do this with all books received. No review I could find. So the next step is what do other scholars say regarding the work in the literature, do they give it any attention? If many scholars tear it apart when writing on the topic, then that's a sign it probably isn't acceptable (unless other scholars use it with praise in scholarly publications). Treat as a scholarly work unless criticised with vitriol in other scholar's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification of source citations is common sense, and is a violation of neither OR nor SYN. How the hell would we ever decide which sources are reliable and which ones are not if personal judgement never came into play? Policy forbids us from including OR in an article, but it does not prevent us from using OR to decide what sources are best to use. And Firefloo, no one is talking about using personal judgements about facts that are clearly in dispute. Rather, WCM is suggesting discarding a source because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point. Just because a publisher is generally reliable doesn't mean that everything they publish is RS. And that said, it appears that Lopez's work is academically insignificant, being cited by all of one person, ever. And who is Lopez, anyway? As far as I can tell, he is Argentinian, and has only written this one book. Aside from that, I can't find any scholarly works, or even a website. Is he a professional historian, or just a random guy who wrote a couple of books? In the forward to the book, he is referred to as "Ambassador Oliveri Lopez", although this book is the only place on the entire internet where Lopez is referred to as such. So who is he? And finally, do any scholars whose reliability is not in dispute echo the claim that Argentinians were expelled from the island? If this really is the case of a single unknown author making an extraordinary claim, then that would qualify as insignificant in my book. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

One can use OR and SYN as criteria when one wants to add sources. But an edit that removes a source somebody else added, based on a claim of having found an inconsistency against its primary sources, is OR and SYN. What is obvious and blatant to an expert isn't so to lay people. And often these words are just bandied around to stop debate. Churn and change (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If a minor scholarly view-point is only represented in one single text, you can dismiss it under WEIGHT and NPOV—regardless of the reliability issues. If a minor scholarly view-point is still of significance, then you can include it, at the very end, and attribute it appropriately, "In the scholarly publication X, the former minister for wallaby reduction issues depicted Y as Z." Neither of these impacts on the sources' reliability for a scholarly claim. There are plenty of scholarly perspectives that we routinely ignore for good and proper encyclopaedic reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are responding to my earlier post. Yes, I agree, though I would use the term 'fringe' rather than 'minor' on what gets excluded. But see my post on why this isn't obviously a fringe viewpoint. I think the appropriate thing is to attribute and add the opposing viewpoint. If you go to the article you will see the subject is Argentina's claim on Falkland, specifically their claim that Argentinians were expelled from Falklands in 1833. Maybe the claim is indeed fringe, but at least one Yale professor thinks not and has published stating so in the Yale Law Journal. The "obvious, blatant, completely false" string of adjectives I discount. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If a strand of analysis is minor to one or two academics (or a larger number, say, in Napoleonic war studies), such that it has no impact in the wider literature it is legitimate to not include such minor studies. If another source makes the point better, then purely editorial decisions regarding source quality or source clarity should lead to the dismissal of a source (even if that source is scholarly in nature in terms of reliability). There are plenty of reasons to ignore sources other than on reliability grounds, but, the source indicated in this thread is actually fairly reliable due to possessing an academic publisher of an appropriate kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to separate the point a source makes and the source itself. The source may be ill-cited, but the point itself may be repeated in other sources. That makes the point a minority view worthy of inclusion but not the source (which I think is the case here; I am basing that on the fact that I got to another source claiming the same thing in just a few minutes of search; maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so). As to "impact on the wider literature" that seems the definition of 'fringe.' Churn and change (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! A source may be unreliable (as the review demonstrates below, this one is unreliable due to hostile reviews in peer reviewed journals of an appropriate topic). A claim may be put both in reliable and unreliable sources. A claim may be put in multiple reliable sources, but editors may choose to use one instead of another due to WEIGHT or the expressive and argumentative qualities of Source A over Source B even if both are equally reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How, pray tell, do you know this truth: "because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reiterating what was suggested, rather than suggesting it myself (you'll find in my post its an attributed suggestion). The page on which the claim is made is not available when I look through Google books, so I can't hunt down the citation entirely on my own unless I feel like finding a library that has the book (my own does not, unfortunately). Back to the fringe claims, on top of the fact that all of one person cites the Lopez book, I've also been unable to find any scholarly reviews of his book. It seems to be a work that's entirely ignored by the rest of the historical community. In any event, if Goebel really did make this claim in a secondary work, then we should be citing Goebel, and not a book that claims to be echoing him. As to the issue of fringeness, why not just include the Yale Law Journal, attributed, and leave out Lopez? And finally, I answered one of my own questions: Lopez is a "Permanent Representative of Argentina to the Committee of Representatives of the Latin American Integration Association", whatever that means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a review here behind a very-expensive paywall. There are some scattered citations in Spanish and French (Qubec). I agree—the Yale article is what should be used. I suspect there are more since I came across it pretty fast. As to the author being Argentinian, the other source cited in that article is from a Britisher of Falklands origin, so I guess they want true balance. Somehow I don't quite feel like going in and editing the stuff. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have access to this work. Peter Beck, an appropriately qualified academic, tears the work in question to shreds, "Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…" "readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma." On the basis of this overtly hostile review, I would say that there are excellent reliability grounds for considering this work to not be reliable for history, due to the vicious criticism of its methodological, theoretical, interpretive and explanatory failures. Also, this review suggests using Escude's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Replying to Someguy1221—None of what you have said affects the fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a scholarly publisher that sends manuscripts for external review. None of what you have said affects the fact that this particular text has not been dismissed by scholars, yet was published in a scholarly mode. The reliability of the text is adequate, and at the low end of scholarly texts. Your suggestion that the text's claims lie outside of the mainstream views (which you cite from appropriate scholarly sources) affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. Your suggestion that the text's claims have not been taken up in a field where these claims are regularly evaluated affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. In the humanities, citation frequencies are very, very, very low. Works are frequently not cited because of the modality of publication. Unlike, for example, the instrumentalist social sciences who attend to qualitative business issues, the humanities are not citation metrics fixated. The standards (such as the the Australian ERA exercise) indicate that humanities fields base their qualitative judgement on esteem factors. The fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a small, low esteem publisher may indicate that the source be WEIGHTed out of inclusion, but yet again does not impact on its reliability. Secondary sources, such as a scholarly published work, are capable of processing and evaluating both primary sources and other secondary sources, there is no need to chase "Goebel," on a reliability basis—and regarding WEIGHT and FRINGE I think that you have already made excellent arguments evaluating whether the text should be used on WEIGHT or FRINGE grounds. This is no reason not to cite Lopez (1995) on reliability grounds, but, again, are good reasons to dismiss or remove Lopez (1995) and its claims on WEIGHT grounds. If you believe that there's a significant scholarly narrative covering this terrain, and if you believe another source with superior quality exists that exemplifies this better, then write it out of that source, and merely note this source also exists in the footnote regarding the write up. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I seem to have kicked off quite a debate.

I noticed Churn is referring to a statement that the Argentinians were expelled in 1833. You have to be very careful in evaluating statements like that. There were two separate populations in the Falklands at the time. There was an established settlement that had been there since 1828 formed by Luis Vernet. There was also a garrison and penal colony that had been there less than 3 months. The garrison had mutinied, murdering their commander and that mutiny had been quelled by the ARA Sarandi with assistance from the British schooner Rapid. The orders given to the captain of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio were to expel the Argentine authorities but not to molest the existing settlement. The garrison was expelled but the settlement was encouraged to remain under a British flag. As regards the settlement itself this had been established by Vernet after he sought permission from both Argentine and British authorities and he played the dangerous game of asking both to provide resources to protect his settlement. The Argentine authorities at the time did not have the wherewithall to support him but the British could and did. You will often see sources commenting that the Argentines were expelled referring to the authorities in the garrison but this is often confused with the settlement. The source you mention is not incorrect but can be used in a misleading manner if not interpreted carefully - this is one of the pitfalls of working in a controversial area.

Just to make it plain, the Argentine Government claims the settlement was expelled to be replaced by British settlers, it is this claim that is criticised in the neutral historical sources.

There is also a problem to me that I'm not sure I've entirely put at rest. I didn't chase Goebel as I seem to have given the impression, its just that I'm very familiar with Goebel. I saw in López a statement attributed to Goebel that I know he didn't make. I'm not sure I follow the argument here, are you suggesting that if I'm aware that a source is falsely attributing a claim to a cite I should not act upon that knowledge. I find it hard to accept that I'm just supposed to ignore my a priori knowledge and experience and accept an edit I know to be untrue. I realise it is WP:V not WP:TRUTH on wikipedia but surely the statement fails verifiability per WP:V if Goebel makes no such statement? I have a hard time seeing the flaw in my logic here. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Yale prof clearly says (p. 306): "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders. " That is rather clear. You may say that is wrong. Perhaps. I would say it isn't particularly neutral, but not a fringe POV (because of the credibility of the author and because I hit on it in just a few minutes of searching, meaning there are probably more articles stating the same thing out there). The statement can be added to the article with attribution. If you think it is wrong, you should do some research and dig up secondary sources of equal quality which say so and include them. You can possibly weight the anti- sentiment more if there are more sources on that side. You can't bar these based on your research and synthesis and expertise-based analysis of the source. Churn and change (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you refer to p.300 of the self-same reference, "Indeed, within three months, two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison", which chimes with what I point out. Its not that unusual for references to apparently be self-contradictory when the language us imprecise. When referring to inhabitants does he mean garrison or settlement? The author has phrased his comments in a manner open to interpretation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have clear apriori knowledge that history will only begin when the proletariat abolishes the capitalist class as a class and then proceeds to abolish itself, while eliminating the value form. I don't edit wikipedia based on my apriori knowledge because WP:V rejects the concept that editors can know by themselves. Similarly you have no capacity to read truth in Goebel. Truth is irrelevant, because your truth, and my truth, and the truth of Fred up the road conflict with Jane's truth. We reject editor's prior comprehensions of the truth and demand sourcing. The flaw in your logic is your epistemology, as if you have the capacity as an encyclopaedia editor to make informed judgements about the truth value texts in comparison. You don't have that capacity as an encyclopaedia editor—if you edit on that basis you will eventually be removed from this community. If you wish to edit an encyclopaedia on the basis of the truth in your own mind, go find another project. There are good reasons to reject reliable sources, many discussed above, none of which relate to editor's own comprehensions of "the truth." There are good reasons to reject Lopez (1995) as reliable—but only because an appropriate scholar Peter Beck demolished any scholarly pretense that Lopez received from being published by a scholarly press in the article at doi:10.1080/00358539608454322 . Notice how we had to rely on a reliable source to tell us to reject Lopez? Notice how the critical elements of the rejection of Lopez were:

• Beck's own reliability
• Beck's work being a review of Lopez, not a similar work on the same topic
• Beck's demolition of Lopez's methodology, not Beck's criticism of the content of Lopez.

We can feel free to reject Lopez's content because appropriate sources have told us that Lopez is faulty scholarship. And to reiterate, there were many reasons before the discovery of Peter Beck's review (doi:10.1080/00358539608454322) for not using Lopez—none of which were to do with reliability but were to do with WEIGHT, editorial judgement, etc. Now that we have Beck's review we shouldn't use Lopez because we can demonstrate Lopez is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again in wikipedia we have WP:V not WP:TRUTH. If I were to write an article, attributing a claim to Goebel but another editor checking my work found I had falsely attributed a statement that Goebel did not make, then that would be citation fraud or at best a genuine error to be corrected. The article would fail verification. This is nothing to do with my comprehension of what is or is not truth, Lopez's statement fails verification - ie its either citation fraud or a genuine error all the same. Why do I have to accept a sourced claim from a book that fails verification, when its not acceptable in articles. And again no I'm writing on the basis of the truth in my mind as you put it, I'm writing to reflect what sources say. Simply put WP:COMMON would indicate that if you find a claim in a book that is in error, you shouldn't propagate that error. I knew the statement was false but I checked the named source to confirm it and it was that I acted on. You seem to be arguing that if I find a genuine error in a source then I cannot object to its use - is that really what you're arguing.

And in another way, the original author was in error he quoted the text as if this was Lopez's own research but as noted in the quote, Lopez claims this was in fact based on Goebel's research. The attribution of the statement was misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. But actually, the approach that I started with and Fifelfoo carried on with, is the best one for WP, especially when you want input from uninvolved editors. What are the external indicators of quality: publisher, author, reviews? If all those seem OK and the source is relevant, then it's worth discussing how to use it. At that point if you believe the source to be in error, then by all means point that out. It's moot in this case though, because Fifelfoo found a damning review (not balanced by any favourable ones) and I agree with him that that rules out any further consideration of its potential in WP history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is I did point out it was suspect, I did point out that Goebel should be referenced. (In fact, it turns out Lopez refers to another author Vieyra who in turn refers to another author Akehurst who refers to Goebel, so it may well be a classic case of Chinese whispers in sloppy research). When I raised concerns I was accused of WP:OR and WP:SYN for basic fact checking and those same editors refused to discuss my concerns hiding behind those accusations. Really I still don't see how checking facts is either. I find the comments that I am not allowed to check claims made in a source for accuracy to be distinctly at odds with WP:V. What is it that I'm missing here? Lopez refers to Goebel but Goebel says something different. How is that not failing WP:V?

No source is inherrently reliable. If a source that would typically be considered reliable is shown to NOT be reliable in a particular instance, then they are no longer a "reliable source". OR is in regards to content added to an article, not to determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. I would be best if the repudiation of accuracy in a particular source were also published in a reliable source, but that is not essential. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Were you referring to "any random source" as not inherently or de facto reliable? Agreed. But even established news sources make mistakes. This does not make them unreliable after that. We've recently seen authors and their articles go from reliable to unreliable (Jonah Lehrer), but not the host publications as a whole... --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to newspapers, very rare instances of inaccuracy do not tarnish the overall reliability, simply the particular articles that are inaccurate. With regard to authors, rare and sporadic errors do not tarnish the overall reliability, just the particular errors. With regard to a specific book, a single erronious claim probably does not inherrently render the whole volume unusable just the specific claim that is shown to be inaccurate and any content built around or based on that inaccurate claim (unless for example it was the basis of the premise for the whole theory). Once regular or systemic errors rather than rare and sporatic, begin to appear, then the over reliableness of the newspaper/author/book then come into question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the editors involved in the DR and ended up here after editor Churn and change left a comment on that section. I agree with Fifelfoo that the Lopez book can be safely ignored as a resource and with Churn and change that the Yale source (Risman, 1983) is a much more reliable one. I 'd also like to point out that there are several other sources stating the same that Lopez's book does, like Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989) - Cambridge University Press and The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute; Laver, Roberto C. (2001) - Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (both can be seen in the DR/N page along with the corresponding quotes) The issue here is not the source used to back the statement, rather than Wee will simply remove any mention of such statement because he believes it to be untrue. I and other

editor have repeatedly pointed out that this behavior is WP:OR and WP:SYN, as have various editors here too. Luckily this is enough to put this discussion at rest and get back at improving the article that started the debate along several others. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

See [9] Laver doesn't support the claim that the population was expelled, his point is that the garrison was forcibly expelled.

See [10] Bulmer-Thomas doesn't support the claim either.

I'm happy to take feedback but having read Risman, I consider his comments sufficiently ambiguous to not support the claim that Gaba p is wanting to make. I don't have a problem with the source reliability but it doesn't support the claim Gaba p is claiming. It can be interpreted that way, equally it can be interpreted to mean the oppposite.

I also point out that despite the accusation being levelled at me, I haven't removed the Argentine claim from the article. I'm presenting it from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear god he just won't stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN. There are now at least three editors who think the statement should be included and properly sourced: Langus, Churn and change and me and two editors just here that told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN (not counting Langus and me who have told him that countless times now, which would make that four editors) He keeps rejecting sources based on his own WP:OR+WP:SYN and behaving as if he WP:OWNED several articles. He will never agree to add the statement "XXXX historian/author claims the settlers were expelled in 1833" without referring to the contradicting claim as a "documented fact" (thus disregarding the first one as just a claim), because he is convinced that the first one is not true. He will systematically delete any mention even resembling that first statement, unless the contradicting statement that they were not expelled is presented as the "truth" backed by "contemporary sources".

I ask the editors here: isn't the statement at least worth being mentioned (given that at least three sources back it up, not counting Lopez of course which has been discarded) or is Wee correct in wanting to completely obscure such a statement based on his own research of primary sources?

Also, regarding Carlos Escudé, I refer to this recent article of his where he states: "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right." I would greatly appreciate the editors here speaking their mind on this topic. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled. Thats what the article says. This isn't what you want to say and the sources you wish to use don't support you. Trying to claim that editors are supporting you - look at DRN, NPOVN and at RSN they don't. They support the edit that is there NOW. The constant personal attacks really don't do you any favours. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the sentence I added: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British." I sourced this statement with Risman 1983 (presented by Churn and change) and Bulmer-Thomas 1989 who says:

"The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833."; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3.

I believe the statement to be properly sourced and relevant enough to be mentioned. Wee reverted it on sight, the edit was gone in less than 5 minutes. Gaba p (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're being deliberately mendacious with that edit. You're trying to use it to rubbish the historical record to boost a sovereignty claim by using ambiguous language that can be known interpreted in more than one way. You would have known it was objectionable in the context of the article in that the Argentine claim is already mentioned. Yesterday WP:DRN concluded your edit was not sustainable, mine was and this is simply WP:TE by moving your argumentative and confrontational approach to a new venue. The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't. Get over it, drop the stick.

Your entire approach to editing is flawed, you seek cites only to support forcing the Argentine POV into articles. No thats not how its done, you reflect the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature and you report on the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective. 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How am I using ambiguous language when I'm stating exactly which authors sustain the claim? You were told by two different editors here to stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN and yet you keep at it. This is not a fringe theory nor is it a minority claim, it's the claim of a country properly sourced by several authors and historians and thus needs to be mentioned. You can't just unilaterally decide it's an "untrue claim" and delete any mention of it from WP.

"The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't. Get over it, drop the stick." <-- perfect example of how Wee has already made up his mind about what happened in 1833 and is using his own believes to bias several articles. Once again: please stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to respond any further to your vexatious argument in multiple places. Your edit isn't appropriate to an article on self-determination for which the Falkland Islands is a footnote. The edit warring and tag teaming has to stop. You're welcome to have the last word as usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now beyond the scope of this board. I strongly advise that each of you take two or three days off and think about how you will try and get consensus for the benefit of the encylopedia. If that is beyond you, then it will have to be DRN. Come back with any specific sourcing enquiries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Judith, I agree it had nothing to do with RSN. I've just taken the self-same issue to DRN and it came down in my favour. You and others confirmed my suspicion that Lopez was unreliable. However, he's picked up a new stick and is now starting all over again. He's following me from article to article and its getting wearing. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Slight tangent

Off on a slight tangent, you seem to criticise my use of Mary Cawkell on the basis this is a British source? I would suggest that basing criticism on nationality is a dangerous route to go down. Nevertheless I could switch to Gustafson just as easily, who is a neutral source, which has received considerable praise in peer reviews for the unbiased approach he takes to the subject see [11]. Should I be switching to this as a source? Thanks in advance Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Chart ranks

• Article: 1960 in film
• The source: The Numbers – 1960 index

An editor is using the list of box-office grosses to establish a chart order. While I don't dispute that the source is reliable for the financial data itself (it is used to source box-office on many film articles) I challenge its use as a source for the ranks. The source only lists the box-office for a few films from 1960, and omits many successful ones; the source does not chart these grosses either, so I do not think the source is reliable for sourcing the positions in the chart since it does not back up the claim. Further views appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What would you prefer? To list them in a random order? The "ranks" given here could be produced easily and without violating any policy simply by converting that table to a sortable table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The ranks cannot be produced easily: you cannot list the top ten films of the year from partial data. For instance, if we were unable to source the box-office figures for Star Wars, it would be incorrect for us to rank Saturday Night fever as the number 1 film of 1977. The chart produces two claims: box-office figures and ranks, but the source only backs up the box-office figures. If the source doesn't rank the films then Wikipedia should not be ranking the films based on the source. The source lists the films and their grosses chronologically by release so there are clearly sensible alternatives to inventing a fictious ranking. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't list grosses chronologically. There is no release date for 7 out of 19 films, and so the source arbitrarily lists them with a release date of January 1. Once could add a footnote stating the rankings are for films in the list only. Incidentally, is there a reason to believe some film was missed? Churn and change (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The historic film charts on the film articles generally rank films by theatrical rental as opposed to box-office gross; the theatrical rental was the standard metric up until the 1980s, and was roughly half the gross. In many cases the actual gross was not known, but in some cases trackers like The Numbers will list the gorss when it is known. The problem in this case is that an editor is replacing the rental chart (where the top 10 is known and sourced) with a box-office chart that is compiled from available data. If you take 1950 as an example—for convenience since I can link to it on Google preview—the top 5 five films of the year charted by theatrical rental (according to Peter Kramer who is a university lecturer in film studies) were Cinderella, King Solomon's Mines, Annie Get Your Gun, Cheaper By the Dozen, and Born Yesterday. However, only the top three films have their grosses listed at the The Numbers 1950 entry. It does not list grosses for Cheaper by the Dozen and Born Yesterday, so it would be a fabrication to compile a list of top ten films and assign ranks, when clearly two of the year's top 5 films are not included; there are many other discrepencies between Kramer and The Numbers where The Numbers does not list the grosses of highly successful films that appear in Kramers' charts, so I think a chart that assigns ranks in this manner is misrepresenting the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kramer's book, as mentioned elsewhere, is published by WallFlower, now part of University of Columbia Press, and hence a high-quality reference. The "Nash Information services" reference is also an RS (it has been cited in books), but I agree with you the Kramer book is a stronger reference. The two sources, however, seem to be talking of two different things, rentals and grosses, so they don't quite contradict. So, on the first question of which to include, well, that is up to the editors of the article and should be discussed there. These days most people read about, and hence understand better, gross figures, so there is an argument for including that. Your point is for the older movies rentals are more reliable, which is also a valid argument. We can't debate that issue here though. On the second issue of including the ranked list, yes, you do have a reasonable argument certain entries are likely missing from the Numbers.com list, and hence no ranking should be done. You should present the argument on the article's talk page and try to convince the other editors. If that fails, I guess you have to go to dispute resolution. Churn and change (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate this isn't the place to make decisions about the article's content, just to determine what the sources can and cannot be used for. I would prefer to use gross figures too since they are a more familiar metric, but I believe ultimately you are limited to the form the data is available in. I have actually filed an RFC to try and address the broader scope of the dispute, but an appraisal of how the source can be used will be useful in a discussion, so thanks for your time. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:BLPSPS for Rip Esselstyn article

There is an ongoing discussion concerning the use of sources for this BLP on the talk page for the article Rip Esselstyn and it was suggested to post here. I am referring to this rule: WP:BLPSPS

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)" "(from the see below section) -- "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only 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. These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published."

Article: Rip Esselstyn

Source: a. The Engine 2 Diet by Rip Esselstyn. Published by Hachette Book Group USA

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/authors_Rip-Esselstyn-(1505944)_Bibliography.aspx

b. Esselstyn's official website which contains his biography.

http://engine2diet.com/about/rip-esselstyn/

c. Content:

1. In the background section, the use of the line: "In 2009, he joined Whole Foods Market as a Healthy Eating Partner and is currently on the Board of Directors for The Wellness Foundation, EarthSave’s Meals For Health Program, and the AllergyKids Foundation." Appears in the website biography.

2. The Awards Section. Appears in both the book and the website biography.

I am willing to tweak and rework these points but would like this clarification first.

Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He is not (no longer?) on the boards of either the Wellness Foundation or the AllergyKids Foundation. That makes the whole bio suspect as an RS. For things such as awards, can't you search and cite the awarding organization instead? Not a requirement, but leads to better-quality articles. Churn and change (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough re: website (I'll remove that line) but what about the book? The only citation from the book would be the awards. As for citing from the organizations, the events happened in the 80s, 90s, and 2001 and thus online sources are harder to find though I've seen a few scattered. The RS cited in the article itself refer in general to the fact that he was a pro-triathlete and some say "champion" so I could rewrite to simply include those. Also this topic is referred to in general in the film Forks Over Knives and so I could refer to that.

I posted here more as a clarification for myself as to the use of Official Websites and the book. WP:BLPSPS implies that I can use the book and thus I want this clarified since I've seen a number of BLP articles that make these kind of citations. Thanks for your feedback.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hachette is a well-known publisher and so, yes, his book (even though not an autobio) can be sourced for facts. The documentary can be sourced if it refers directly to the subject; otherwise you probably will land in WP:SYNTH. Churn and change (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's "legal" to use his official website for information about himself. If you have reason to believe that his official website might be out of date, then you may also use WP:Editorial discretion to omit the outdated information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the clarification. For now I'll just keep the article as is and restore the book reference only. Thanks WhatamIdoing for the tip about WP:Editorial discretion as I was not familiar with it. At this point, I think the book itself will suffice. If either of you have any other BLP related suggestions let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So, sourcing his own book to say he won a major triathlon 7 times is ok? This is using a primary, unreliable reference to source about third parties. This should be sourced by a secondary sources. Bgwhite (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, ummm, it isn't that cut-and-dry. Try writing and publishing something like this through Hachette books and you will quickly realize why WP does indeed allow self-sourced (autobiographical) statements in books published via well-known publishers. Granted, relying on autobiographical statements isn't the best way to do this, but is often quicker and better than nothing at all. Churn and change (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IMEMC

I would like to know if the International Middle East Media Center is a reliable source for this edit to Israeli settler violence. 24.177.122.56 (talk)

The IMEMC website contains a disclaimer that says "As an all-volunteer organization, the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) does not have the means to guarantee the accuracy of news or opinions posted to the newswire." [12] - as such, it is obviously not a reliable source for ANY facts, certainly not for contentious information such as the edit you mention. If that incident really happened, it would be covered by mainstream news sources. Dixy flyer (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is lifenews.com considered a reliable source?

Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

lifenews.com is probably reliable for the views of "pro-life" advocates. But this does not look like a notable criticism of PepsiCo. If mainstream media sources beyond the "pro-life movement" have reported on this criticism, then it can be included using those sources, and this source could optionally go in there too. Otherwise, leave the whole point out, for notability and balance reasons more than for verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that lifenews.com is probably not RS for this issue. History2007 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

David B MacDonald re: Serbophobia

1. Source.

• MacDonald, David Bruce (2002). Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6466-X.

[13]

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment

3. Content.

Anti-Serb sentiment or Serbophobia is a "historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs", otherwise described as a "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs". The use of the term has been controversial, as some sources state it is a myth used by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić during the Yugoslav Wars in order to show an unbroken history of hatred and violence against Serbs by the Croats. Some controversy with the term "Serbophobia" purportedly corresponds to its interplay with perceived historical revisionism practiced by the Milosevic government in the 1990s, and the contention that Serbian writers constructed the "myth of Serbophobia," as "...an anti-Semitism for Serbs, making them victims throughout history."

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ingrao produced a 2009 Review Article (a kind of historian's field review, or analysis of the current state of literature in a field) for the American Historical Review which is kind of the Nature of the American historical profession. The review article is located at doi:10.1086/ahr.114.4.947 and is behind a pay wall, so you should go ask the source supply people for a copy. I have a copy of the AHR in one of the libraries I can access, so I might take a peek to see if it condemns this work. If it doesn't, then it is a standard scholarly work and subject to the normal weighting concerns that any work is in an area of scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this stuff, who are the source supply people? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request can often supply materials for genuine encyclopaedic purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked. I'll bring back if I am able to get access to a copy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can these publishers be considered reliable?

Hello, I am writing regarding the Criticisms section of the article "Andrew Cohen (Spiritual Teacher)." The allegations mentioned in the section are based on three books, the use of which as reference may be problematic with regards to WP's BLP policy, for the following reasons: 1. Two of the books, by Tarlo and by Yenner, are published by Epigraph, a self-publishing company with few, if any, restrictions as to who can publish a book. 2. The third book, by van der Braak, is published by Monkfish Publishing, that owns Epigraph. Both companies are owned by a disgruntled former student of Cohen's and can therefore not be considered as a valid source of objective criticism against Cohen. Please advise. Full disclosure: I am a student of Cohen's and a major contributor to this article, yet strongly committed to COI, NPOV and BLP policies. I welcome criticism of Cohen's teaching, especially philosophical differences, provided they are are done constructively, honestly, and in the spirit of mutual exploration and are solidly referenced.Igal01 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, the existence of Tarlo's book and her web site can not be excluded. Detailed statements in the book about others may be questioned, hwever. Given that the article is "not based primarily on such sources" they can go in and Tarlo's statements about herself will be ok. Similar things about the others. As I said on the talk page there, there was also a magazine article, etc. that can be linked. History2007 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Centre for Peace in the Balkans

1. Source. [14]

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment, but other articles as well.

3. Content. Varies, usually op-eds by a range of contributors, but also posts links to what are mostly reliable news sources. Obviously, if a news article is linked there, we can go to the actual news source, but I'm focused on the reliability of the op-eds, particularly the anonymous 'analysis' ones like this [15], but also the articles by Michael Parenti here [16] and Diane Johnstone here [17].

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion articles are only ever a reliable source about their author's opinion, and should not be used to reference statements of fact (per WP:RSOPINION). In regards to the use of this site for any purpose, does it have permission to have reproduced those opinion articles published elsewhere? Per WP:EL, sites which violate copyright should be avoided as links or references. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About the unsigned "analysis" pieces: The web site belongs to a small Toronto NGO (The Centre for Peace in the Balkans) but its about page fails to list any identifiable individuals (like who's director or editor). So I think the unsigned pieces should be treated as anonymous WP:SPS. That is to say, useless as WP:RS for anything except the web site/NGO itself (which doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, so that part is moot). Tijfo098 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

why are 3rd party sources the current default source for wikipedia's uses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources

looking specifically for a historical wikilink that shows why this is.

when it comes to helpfulness for most people, secondary source is likely the way to go with 3rd party sources being the worst one. the longer the accuracy chain gets, and the more steps in the process, and the lower down you go, chance of mistakes and inaccuracies increase, among many many more significant and possibly less obvious reasons why 3rd party sources are the worst one to rely on.

maybe when it comes to wikipedia, 3rd party is the least worst for its purposes. it could likely be that 3rd party sources are the most available and for wikipedia's purposes (a website i rarely go for quality info), this makes sense. wikipedia had long been blocked via https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef as proof that there are 100x an order of a magnitude more helpful sites to get content from in every single topic.

im not looking for a comment, even a summed up one; im looking for a link to the verifiable source/content/talk of why this is, just out of curiosity and bewilderment.

Waveclaira (talk)

You may have misunderstood what we mean by "third party sources". They are basically the same as "secondary sources". For example, in American politics, the websites of the Republican Party and Democratic Party are primary sources, and they are also the two sides in the conflict. A book by a professor of political science is a secondary source, and also a third-party source. That's the kind of source we should generally be using for politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. "Third party" simply means that the source is (a) not just Wikipedia itself, and (b) not just the person editing Wikipedia, who is the only source for something. That is a pretty basic requirement most times. (There are of course exceptional situations, where a work around is required concerning a living person. But the basic principle is normally adhered to in one way or another.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Conan chronologies

I tried reverted back to the article to the original version from some auto-confirmed user who edit the sources are to make them reliable and notable, however, User:Shooterwalker (talk) believes they are unreliable, are the edis factual or is this user wanting start a talk about why they aren't sourceful, if they are resourceful, please notify the user--GoShow (...............) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Need an opinion on reliable sources at Conan chronologies

I posted something to the original research noticeboard, and got a few comments stating that the whole article might be of questionable notability. I got some passing support for cleaning up the original research, so I took that as enough reason to WP:BOLDly remove a lot of original research.

(The diff is here. I removed such gems as the editors' assertion that "a completely consistent timeline that would accommodate every existing Conan story is impossible for several reasons...", "The strongest point in favor of this chronology...", "it represents the ultimate expression of their tradition to date", and other opinions that evaluate the merits or weaknesses of the sources being mentioned.)

At least we're making progress. An editor restored some material, this time cited to sources. But none of the sources appear to be reliable. This includes:

• Amra the Lion published by "a group of indie film makers in San Francisco"
• Robert E. Howard, an angelfire fanpage about the author of the Conan series
• The Barbarian Keep, another fanpage. (Note: it's not clear to me, but some of this stuff has been re-published by the estate of the author, which might lend it some credibility, but still makes it insufficiently independent.)

I'd appreciate some other opinions checking in on this. At this point, there's a mild edit war going on in removing/restoring these sources. No one is clearly in the wrong here or acting in bad faith. I just think we need a third opinion from someone who is accustomed to evaluating the reliability of sources, and can explain it properly to those editors. Or to me, if I'm missing something. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

an editor had restored the content with an edit summary Kindly note that the websites linked to are actually online versions of sources that in most instances previously appeared in print. The editor would need to actually cite those previously published sources and not personal blogs, unless the blogs are verified accounts of people who have been previously published in the area of Conan scholarship. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

and books self published through Lulu, dont count [18]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I've found this one a little frustrating, in part because some parts are obviously OR/RS to me, but also some of the confusion about what the original sources are. The current revision uses a few primary sources (which I guess are reliable to some degree, but only to describe what's in them, not to interpret them or provide an independent assessment of notability). The only two secondary/third-party sources are still

• Two self-published websites (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). Am I missing something about those two websites? Because they both look patently unreliable to me, nor do they have anything to establish that they're transcribing from a more reliable source.
• "REHUPA". Its self description as an "Amateur Press Association" doesn't give me much comfort.

There's also a lot of editing going on at the page, so I'm doing my best to understand what's been fixed, and what hasn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the examples at all but just as a general comment about fan websites, a critical point to look for is how it is structured. Is it just made of un-moderated user content, or is there some sort of editing and sifting? If it passes that test then a stricter test is whether the website is ever cited anywhere else in a serious way, although I guess for a subject matter like this, things can get a bit circular. Anyway, not all fan websites are necessarily un-useable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the links. (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). There's nothing that indicates any level of fact-checking or moderation, although I'm sure fans have come to talk about these websites a lot. And yeah, at best, I think we're looking at a circular/insular community that cites each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

K. K. Bhardwaj - writings on Hemu

I am about to attempt a clean up at Hemu, a biographical article concerning the 16th-century Indian emperor. Kanwal Kishore Bhardwaj is presently cited in the article and has written Hemu: Napoleon of Medieval India. Mittal Publications. 2000. ISBN 9788170996637. It is possible that he is the same K K Bhardwaj who has also written on a range of socio-political subjects, as indicated by this set of search results, in which case he would seem not to be a historian as such. This assessment is in fact stated in the foreword to his Hemu tome - see this page - but the writer of that foreword nonetheless commends his research.

I can't see that Bhardwaj's Hemu has been cited by others - see the GScholar results here and here. There are a lot of pseudo-academic "historians" published in India whose works we know not to be reliable but who are lauded by their friends etc. And the hero subjects they write on are usually inspired by aspects of nationalism and/or religious fervour. I guess the same applies the world over, but India is usually my thing. Can we treat Bhardwaj as reliable as a historian for matters relating to the life of Hemu? - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh National Pedagogical University

Is Kazakh National Pedagogical University's website a reliable source about old turkic inscriptions ?--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Philology" is listed as one of the university's research strengths, and Literary criticism and linguistics scientific research institute is one of their research organizations. But I can't find any publications listed at their site. Kdammers (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I mean this sub domain of main site and here are the references used in articles . I think these references are enough to call the website RELIABLE. I want to be sure.--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on French language source

I'd be grateful for input at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Mali_online_newspaper_.28in_French.29_-_is_it_an_RS.3F. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies should go here now. I read French and my assessment is that this is a mainstream online newspaper. Not just an aggregator but good for reporting about Mali. You asked whether it was good for establishing notability, what article does this apply to? Notability of what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me then - it's for establishing the notability of Yaya Coulibaly. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good for that, and you have other sources to back it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard essay

Is the essay at [19] RS for stating that Murray Rothbard directly connects Bismarckism to "right wing socialism" in an essay, or is an editor correct in stating

"However, when he uses the actual term "right-wing socialism" is he is referring to moderate "real" socialism, such as the revisionist wing of the SPD in Germany, Fabians in the UK etc. He nowhere says Bismarckism, for example, is "right-wing socialism."

The quote from Rothbard directly is:

Historians have long recognized the affinity, and the welding together, of Right-wing socialism with Conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in Fascism and National Socialism: the latter fulfilling the Conservative program of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, theocracy, and a right-wing collectivism that retained and even cemented the rule of the old privileged classes.

The Rothbard essay is also printed in several books - so the site used (Mises) is not the issue, only whether the Roghbard opinion belongs in an article on "Right wing socialism" or not at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why this is here (I speak as the other user discussing this issue). No one at that page is saying the source should not be used or has disputed that the source is good for a claim that Rothbard connects Bismarckism, and other things of the genuine right, as traditionally understood, to "right-wing socialism". The issue is about whether Rothbard is saying Bismarckism is "right-wing socialism"; and whether Rothbard is using the phrase "right-wing socialism" to refer to something different - ie the right-wing, relatively speaking, of the socialist movement proper (which he says, yes, can find common ground with conservatism) - from the term as defined and used elsewhere on the WP page itself, where it's presented as referring directly to the inherent quasi-socialism of the conservative right wing (as viewed through the eyes of the libertarian right). The problem is not an RS one, but a wider problem of a compound term with multiple uses and meanings, which depend on who's using it. N-HH talk/edits 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Pray be accurate - your position was that Rothbard made no connection, whilst I submit that using his precise words, he does make a direct and explicit connection, and that he is absolutely RS for ascribing his own words to him. And further that when one says something is a combination of the direct topic and another topic that the information may be used in the article about the first topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC

Sigh. As usual I'm here because a tendentious user won't accept an archetypically reliable source. Is the BBC reliable for the statements removed here? The user in question claims we need a primary source because news media are all biased, which is so exactly the opposite of how WP works that it's laughable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right in thinking that BBC is a reliable source. We neither prefer primary sources, nor do we require the secondary sources we use to say what primary sources they have used. I've reverted the edit in question and welcomed the new user. --Six words (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote should be specifically ascribed to the person being quoted. If it is part of an article, then it is likely far too long to avoid plagiarism problems as well. It is a tad long to not be a copyright violation, unfortuneately, without a very clear attribution. Collect (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on whether the material needs to be paraphrased - I can't quite tell which quotes Collect is referring to - but as to the reliability question, yes, news pieces from the BBC generally meet our reliability threshold. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The material seems to be quoting 'BBC News', rather than a named author. I'd say that it certainly needs paraphrasing, and ascribing to the opinion of the BBC, but as a source it seems perfectly reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a reliable source. I agree that paraphrasing would be preferable to quotefarming. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think quotes are best over superficial change of copyright-protected text - (communal consensus) Wikipedia:Copy-paste#Can I copy and paste if I change the text a little bit?.Moxy (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case the words need to be specifically attributed in the text to the person who wrote them. Simple. We either attribute quotes, or violate copyright. And excessive length of a quote is also against practise. Collect (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't 'attribute the text to the person who wrote it'. The source doesn't say who wrote it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The "quote" does not appear in the cite. Not even remotely in the cite. This represents a problem. This suggests that the cite does not support the quote as given. I checked a few google hits -- and guess what they cite? Wikipedia. [20], [21] etc. etc. In short -- we appear to be quoting Wikipedia in the Wikipedia article. I suggest that since there is no reliable source for the quote as such, that it likely should be excised, no? The BBC article could possibly be used for "But some commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated." which is in the BBC article. Collect (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what the problem is. The material now in quotes was originally added by an IP here [22] - presumably intended as a summary of the BBC article. Someone has noticed that it is largely a copy and paste, and rather than paraphrase it, has enclosed the lot in quotes. What is needed is for the material to be properly paraphrased, and then attributed to the BBC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrased. The BBC is an excellent source for this sort of thing, and it doesn't take much work to use it properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Three specific and a general question regarding primary sources

General

Can primary sources generally be used for descriptive purposes?

A

• 1a. Source: Reich, Wilhelm (1980) [1927] Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis German title: Die Funktion Des Orgasmus. FSG ed.: ISBN 0374516413.
• 2a. Orgastic potency
• 3a. For example: can a section be added to the article discussing research methodologies based on Reich's own work (primary source)? A quote from the book of information that could be incorporated:

"The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from: 39-42) This can be embedded in a context based on reliable, secondary literature.

B

• 1b Source The Discovery of the Orgone: Vol. 1, The Function of the Orgasm (1942) [1940, Die Entdeckung des Orgons Erster Teil..] ISBN 1986 0374502048 FSG ed.
• 2b. Orgastic potency
• 3b. The section "forms of orgastic impotence" from the archive, can this be included, when intended as a further description of the theory (omitting medical advice, etc.)?

C

• 1c these journal articles
• 2c Orgastic potency
• 3c One editor noted these concern "primary" sources, implying they cannot be used to discuss the status of the concept orgastic potency. Is that the case? (this question does not concern whether they are new enough in relation to WP:MEDRS).--Gulpen (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For A and B, Sections and content should not be based off only primary sources:

WP:FRINGE: Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.

WP:FRINGE: The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.

WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

On C The Journal articles from of the American Psychoanalytic Association are't reliable for the current status, how could they be? 2 are 40 years old and the other is 70 years old. Plus, American psychoanalytic assocation. Also, Psychoanalysis is a fringe subject, so the journal is not reliable for saying what is mainstream.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hellnotes as a reliable source? A Patch article?

I've had Hellnotes held up as a reliable source and I'm not entirely certain that the site would be considered a reliable source. [23] The journal seems to have won a Bram Stoker Award in 2004 and been nominated, which makes me lean towards yes but I'm still slightly dodgy enough on it to where I thought it'd be best to ask. The reason is that it's been mentioned in relation to an AfD for Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story and while it would still be far too little to keep the article in question in my opinion, it would be good to know for future reference. I also want to ask whether a Patch article would be usable as a reliable source. I've never liked using the site as a reference, as it's one of those sites that a lot of people can submit to. The article in question also pertains to the same AfD and doesn't appear to be written by a staff writer. [24]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CPT

Is the description accompanying this photograph a sufficiently reliable source for making an in-article assertion that the photograph depicts what its publishers claim it depicts? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth Request For Comment

This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages:

• Colin Larkin (writer)

I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that:

Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site.

This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section.

• All Time Top 1000 Albums

I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that:

By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth.

In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that:

In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic.

This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that said link is currently blacklisted for spam abuse and that requester writes for the site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Irving

is Washington Irving , a scholar to classic islamic history ? he wrote this book : "Washington Irving (1897), Mahomet and his Successors & Spanish Legends, Volume III, New York & London G.P, Putnam's Sons" and in this book he claim that aisha and ali were enemy together.--Espiral (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a good source. Nineteenth-century history books are generally iffy anyway where better research is available, and Irving wasn't even a scholar of this subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thatgrapejuice

• Source: Website http://thatgrapejuice.net/ (music review website)

Just 103 Wikipedia pages link to thatgrapejuice.net Also see http://website.informer.com/thatgrapejuice.net

• Article Misha B (UK/singer)

• Use in article: various

In February 2012, it was announced that Bryan had signed a record deal with the Relentless Records. [[25]]

She began writing poetry, moved on to rapping and then progressed to singing. [ ]

That Grape Juice said that she boasted 'originality in abundance'.[ ]

Home Run was released for digital download on July 15 in the UK, landing in at 11 at the end of its debut week[ ]

she performed an acoustic version of the song live...... on the 17 July 2012, for Ustream [ ]

I believe its reliable in context, but is it still just a blog...what is the relaxed independent opinion ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau

This is in reference to several discussions that I have seen and not any one particular article. Are BBB ratings considered reliable enough to reference in an article? The page for Better Business Bureau has a neutrality flag. Andrewman327 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal

Hi,

Does the fact that this book was published by Brill Publishers and got a good review in this journal make it a reilable source to be used in articles related to New Atheism and its criticism? How about articles about New Atheist. For example the book discusses largely about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and their works. Can I use the stuff mentioned in the book in those articles? Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)