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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

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

steve earle songs in films

Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.

Are "poetic journals" a reliable source for encyclopedia articles?

The article Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.

My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.

Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past[1][2], and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material.[3]

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors of the Journal of Renga and Renku is an accountant.[4]. It's new and probably quite nice, but I don't see how it could be a reliable source. And she was an editor of SimplyHaiku.com also, which casts doubts on that one. I'm not sure what the third one is. The default for sources is not reliable, so I'd argue that it is unlikely that these are reliable and that to use them someone would have to make a good case that they are. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sources to not have to be scholarly. Published poets, particularly professional poets, writing on the history of poetry are a potentially usable source; certainly they are reliable for opinions in the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But what about when an accountant writes about Japanese literary history? Simply being a poet (or claiming that title for oneself) doesn't lend legitimacy to one's views an area that learned scholars have been researching for decades. Also, the views of non-notable poets (as defined by the GNG) really don't need to be given significant space in Wikipedia articles, I should think. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the point I was trying to make, obviously not well enough. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We then have to inquire why such a journal would publish an article by an accountant. Perhaps he is a recognized expert by the criteria of the editors of the journal. And obviously the reputation of any specific poet when writing about poetry is relevant also. Is the journal known for publishing what anyone sends it, or is it carefully edited for quality? [([Wallace Stevens]], for example, was a lawyer for an insurance firm, and preferred that position to a chair at Harvard.) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for that would seem to be that it's not an academic journal that puts emphasis on accuracy or reliability: it's an outlet for poets (professional and amateur) to publish their own original poetry. Additionally, it came up in the article in question, but are we allowed to say "In recent years ... renku have been written in French, Croatian, Swahili, etc. etc.", and include links to one renku each from said poetic journal as "sources"? This seems to me like it violates WP:NOR in its original assessment of primary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The journals are not apparently known for publishing articles by respected literary historians (they do on occasion print interviews and non-academic articles by scholars, though). However, they have also published similar material by hack authors like Jeffrey Woodward who only pretend to know what they are talking about but make embarrassing gaffes regularly. My main concern is that a few users have taken what were previously well-written but under-referenced articles about classical Japanese literature, and replaced much of the content with information about modern, apparently non-notable poetry in English. (I'm not sure if I should shut up about this, though, since the user primarily responsible for this has interacted with me negatively on Wikipedia before, and researching the background of these journals I think I accidentally found out the real-world identity of the user.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya and the Syrian civil war

I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war (English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).

Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.

--Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are comparing Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom? In Saudi Arabia you have a nepotist government where king's relatives do every government duty... --Wüstenfuchs 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that line of argument is unhelpful. Is there a particular piece of content which you think Al Arabiya should not be used to support? bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since Fox News was brought into this, I can't see why we would ever use it for British current events. Britain actually has its own well-respected news sources with a better reputation than Fox News. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And if one considers Fox News a reliable sources, then several of the reliable British sources are also owned by Mr. Murdoch. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

... and back to the original question ... Al Arabiya is considered to be an established outlet per Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, so, in general, considered reliable for our standards. That does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. In something as emotional as the Syrian civil war, in which most of the countries of the world have expressed support for one side or the other, it is hard to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Al Arabiya stated that ...". Please be specific as to what item of content in the article you are asking about, it is possible specific items may have more specific answers. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Indie shuffle

Is [5] a reliable source for this BLP[6]. Thanks. Note that it is the only source in the article - maybe this guy isn't notable enough for us anyway. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here might be WP:NEWSBLOG in that the bottom of the page states "Indie Shuffle is a member of SPIN Music Group, a division of BUZZMEDIA." The statement within the Wikipedia article gives the impression that the album has received many notable, favorable views and I'm not convinced that one non-notable blogger's opinion is sufficient to support that... or the overall notability of the subject. Location (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources for Max Lugavere the person, however. Fast Company Vogue Italia. --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's personal website for bicycle related topics

I am wondering how extensively relying on Sheldon Brown's original research and self published source for various bicycle related articles, such as Bicycle_wheel. Would his website's contents be reliable source or should we only use it very sparingly? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's web site is well recognized as an excellent resource. Longer or more specific things should probably be attributed to him, but unless there's some sort of controversy on a specific point it's probably fine to use as is. a13ean (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not use it to source facts on anything but the figure himslef. Not for making statements or claims on unrelated issues and subjects. While he may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In what situation would it be appropriate to use him? Simple facts? What about his opinions which is just that? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On his own biography, but not when referencing facts on aluminum framing and parts etc. You would need something more reliably published. His own webpage may not be used to reference facts that are available from the other published sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the relevant passage from wp:rs is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic". Even Lennard Zinn, Technical Editor for VeloNews, cites Sheldon Brown repeatedly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." and : "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", Simply put, if the Homepage information can be shown or demonstrated to have already been published it may be acceptable if consensus agress, however if it is already published in a third party, reliable source than one should really use that and not the personal webpage of the expert. This is generaly meant for self published papers and journals not a "build your own" homepage. Care should always be used with references to make them as strong as possible and the Sheldon Brown homepage is not that. As I said, best used for citing content about himself.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Amad, you're not parsing that guideline correctly. It doesn't mean that only the self-published stuff that has been published elsewhere is reliable. It means that since Brown has been repeatedly published on the subject of bicycles, enough to be considered an acknowledged expert, then even his self-published stuff on that subject can be considered reliable. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 26 December 20:12 (UTC)

But where was any of his work published in reliable secondary sources on the subject? Commentary of a sentence or so in obituaries and columns do not count. I believe they mean authors who's work have been published in secondary sources, i.e. something he created that is relevant to the topic cited in a textbook or engineering journal. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article says: "Brown was a contributing writer for Bike World magazine (USA) in the late 1970s and for Bicycling magazine (USA) in the early 1980s, then for the trade magazine American Bicyclist and Motorcyclist from approximately 1988 through 1992. For several years until shortly before his death, he wrote the "Mechanical Advantage" column for Adventure Cyclist, the magazine of the Adventure Cycling Association.". --GRuban (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's website is very far from authoritative on the subject of web design, even though Sheldon did (at least at one time) offer his services in that field too. The difference is that reputable editors considered his bike-related writing reliable, but no-one ever (AFAIK) said that about his web design. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course Sheldon's site is RS for maintenance topics. He's the very epitome of a respected expert source within that field. Is there any instance (with cites, please) where we would begin to suspect the contrary?

For wheels specifically, I'd see Jobst Brandt as more detailed than Sheldon, but I don't know of any conflict between either of them, or other credible sources (and there's a whole load of hokum still talked about wheels). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see, can someone point out if the lack of dispute constitutes a personal webpage credible reference for WP purposes? What should we do with Brown's opinion pieces? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The sainted Sheldon is considered a peerless source by cyclists the world over. He was honoured by the Cyclists' Touring Club for his exceptional work (I have a scan of the certificate, which I was responsible for sending to him). Nobody knew more about the subtle art of wrenching. If you remove the cites I am afraid I will have to kill you. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're a few steps step closer to him than the public and your affiliation maybe WP:COI. "sainted"? come on. I also don't appreciate your threatening comment suggesting the action you will take if editors were to make edits you don't approve.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that that's sarcasm... a13ean (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if that isn't struck out it is a death threat. period. Reporting.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying into the thought that because Sheldon is published elsewhere that his personal selfbuilt homepage is acceptable as RS for facts on bike parts. We still require references to be reliably published....and this aint it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because you don't know the topic very well, I'm guessing. Google "AASHTA" (example: [7]). As Always, Sheldon has The Answer. I honestly cannot think of a more widely cited source online for bike maintenance, and I speak as a long-term denizen of the Usenet cycling groups. His chain cleaning technique is known as the Sheldon Shake. And no, I am not close to the subject any more than any other cyclist who has used his website is close to the subject. I trusted Sheldon's advice and appreciated the amount of work he'd put into building his site, that's all. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, Amad, but it's not a "thought", it's how Wikipedia:Reliable sources works. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you've interacted him and you're not looking at him from an impartial POV. Recognition in message boards does not count. It is all anecdotal. I think insertion of your personal trust him is inappropriate. So, what reliably published secondary source refers to it as "Sheldon Shake" ? You're closer to the subject than someone who has never had any interaction with him Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I, like many, many other cyclists rely on Sheldon's site for information. I emailed him easily three times over a five year period and I never met him. I am no more connected with him than I am connected with the Oxford English Dictionary by virtue of having used the book as a reference. A small number of people seem to be determined to find reasons not to use Sheldon's site as a source, which is just sad. How many bicycle mechanics have you heard of who got an obituary in The Times? Also Obit in Wired - "Sheldon Brown, Web’s Cycling Guru, Dies" - "Brown’s decidedly non-fancy website was a vital resource for cyclists, rich with hints on how to break in a Brooks leather saddle, technical explanations of the workings of 60 year-old internal hubs, and instructions on how to build a tandem from two old steel bike frames. Brown even lauded Shimano’s much maligned Biopace chain rings (a non-round chain ring once made by Shimano)" - there you have a reliable independent secondary source stating that Sheldon's site is considered authoritative. Chris Juden, the technical guru of the CTC, also references his site from time to time, and I have never seen any reliable source dispute the validity and value of Sheldon's information.

I have been asked if his site is endorsed by people like Halfords. That's like asking if Walgreens endorse the FDA as a source. Halfords are commonly known as "halfwits" or "halfrauds" among the cycling community, we are distinctly ambivalent about them. I don't know any cyclist who's ambivalent about Sheldon. Someone even made up frame stickers with "Sheldon Brown is my copilot". And no, the certificate awarded to Sheldon by the CTC does not count as a self-published source any more than any other award bestowed on anybody. Now, you're free to continue arguing the toss about this but the plain fact is that Sheldon is considered a reliable source. Picking a cycling forum at random, a search for Sheldon Brown turns up many hits. This is not even remotely contentious. It's not like Ayn Rand or Gore Vidal or someone, whose opinions are considered controversial, even Jobst Brandt has people who pick fights with him, Sheldon's site was and remains the fountain source of wisdom for many things. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care how many times you have contacted the gentleman. His self published homepage is not a RS for citing facts, but only for citing his opinion. Kill me. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I realise you're losing the will to live, but please can you explain more clearly why you do not think it appropriate to follow WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Do you not believe that Sheldon Brown was an established expert on bicycles? Or do you think WP:SPS is wrong and that self-published expert sources cannot be used for matters falling within the expertise of the expert? NebY (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As a neutral observer here... we seem to have two related, but separate issues: First we must reach a consensus on whether Sheldon Brown is considered an expert on bicycles... I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on this, but... if he is not, then his website would not be reliable; if he is, then his self published source can be considered reliable.

Second, (assuming he is considered an expert) we need to determine whether other experts disagree with what Sheldon Brown says about bicycles ... if so, then the information taken from Mr. Brown's website should be phrased as being his opinion (ie attributed to him), and contrasted with the opinions of the other experts. If not, then we can accept what he says at face value and paraphrase it as being unattributed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar, that's a clear summary and a roadmap for resolving this, in one brief post.

When it comes to assessing Brown's status as an expert, we are fortunate that he is dead. Eulogies abounded. This one for Adventure Cycling was written a few days later, so it talks of those obituaries and other reactions. It also tells us how he moved from having a high reputation in the comparatively small world of print journals about cycling published in the US to worldwide recognition, such that a web search for 'Sheldon Brown guru' brings up a heart-warming and inspiring chorus of praise. Sift it and you will find not just the blogosphere, but general newspapers and magazines in the US and the UK, cycling advocacy groups, companies that make money out of teaching cycle maintenance but recommend his free expertise anyway, and a busy world of online forums still referencing him. We're lucky none of those have latched onto this discussion yet.

Yes, we still have to be discriminating. Parts of his writing are minor facts and expert knowledge, parts are opinions and advocacy based on expertise. So long as we can agree that there is much of the former and have enough of an acquaintance with the subject to recognise the latter, we should be able to return to the articles and proceed in relative harmony. NebY (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar, that is precisely the point. Is Sheldon Brown considered an authority? Yes. We have reliable independent sources that identify him as such. Do other experts disagree with what he says? No, they don't. In fact other experts typically cite his website. Both these points are already addressed above, so it's not so much a roadmap for resolution as a clear message to Amadscientist to drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Since his work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", his self-published work is a reliable source for that field. But as ever, it's not the case that sources are either Reliable or Not; whether or not something is a reliable source depends on exactly what statement is to be sourced. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute.

Source: Australian head of state dispute - a well-sourced Wikipedia article.

Article: Head of state

Content:

There is an ongoing debate in Australia and in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch or the local viceregal representative—actually is the head of state.

Discussion: As the wikilink to the Australian head of state dispute article is provided, is there a requirement to also provide the many reliable sources in that article when referencing it in another article? An editor is removing this material, saying,:

1. There is no such dispute
2. not supported by attributed source
3. not RS

I see this as vandalism, given that the dispute exists and the statement is reliably sourced, albeit at one remove. --Pete (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you add a direct citation to support the material, which appears to be what Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) is asking for here. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, could you provide the wikipolicy for this exact situation? It's a simple matter of existence of something. I look at Tide and I see several mentions of Gravity, none of them sourced. We don't need to - Gravity is well sourced. If Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) says "there is no such dispute", when the wikilink demonstrates otherwise, I get the impression he hasn't clicked on the link, which is why I call "vandal". --Pete (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles. If there is a dispute over who was head of state of Australia or Canada, then it should be simple to use a source from that article to source the claim made in other articles. The specific policy is WP:RS. TFD (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Which section, precisely? --Pete (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with TFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, please don't falsely state an agreement was reached here, as you did in your restoration edit & edit summary at Head of state. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised the subject here. Two editors suggested I add a source to the para. You concurred with TFD's advice. I complied with the advice tendered as per my request. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, a Wikipedia article can not be used as a source. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be using the Wikipedia article as a "source" so the use of wikilinking to extant articles is proper, and is not a violation of WP:RS. [8] National Geographic is RS for QE II as "chief odf state". As is the CIA world factbook [9] . in fact, every source I found says QE II usChief of State of Australia. [10] Encyclopedia of World Consitutions states succinctly The queen or the king, acting through the representative the governor-general, is the Australian head of state. BTW, I noited the "Duke of Normandy" excursion on the article talk page -- the custom for many hundreds of years is that the toast is to the most closely related title to the place where the toast is made. On the Isle of Man, the customary toast, indeed, is to "The Lord of Mann, Queen Elizabeth II". If no name is given, then the toast is just to "The Lord of Mann." Ditto in Lancaster (explained to me in depth there, as a matter of fact) and in the Channel Islands (told to me by a Jersey resident). This does not make the local title "higher", nor does it remove the title "Queen" where the name is given, it simply states that the monarch has a peculaiar and direct connection to that place. Pre-WW II, if one were in India, one might toast the "Emperor of India, King George VI", because that was the closest direct title he had in India. In London, one would not toast "The Emperor" because that was not his closest title to the place where the toast was given. Simple explanation to the weird discourse there. Collect (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Which version should stand? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a debate over whether the Queen or GG is Australia's head of state; the Queen technically holds the job, but the GG has always enacted essentially all of its functions and the Queen has (apparently) made it very clear that she'd only over-ride their actions in an extreme situation (for instance, in 1975 she chose to not act when the GG sacked the government on dubious grounds). As such, there's a long running debate among Australian political scientists and the like over who should actually be considered the head of state, regardless of what's specified in the Constitution. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Officially - HRH QE II is "head of state" for Australia - and by her own decision she assigns the functions of "head of state" to the GG - but that does not mean that she is not "head of state" as a "defined office". "Plenipotentiary" is a neat word. Collect (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But which is correct at Head of state? Skyring's version or the version pushed by myself & others? We need more participation there. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the dispute is admirably sourced. Perhaps discussion as to the dispute, rather than the sources, could be taken to the article talk page? --Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to establish that it is reasonable to identify the Head of State of Australia as Queen Elizabeth II, but that there is reasonable grounds to also mention the ongoing argument on the topic and to include a link to the Australian head of state dispute article. That would be giving both sides of the argument reasonable coverage wouldn't it? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the sources Collect cites, Elizabeth II is the head of state as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Reliable sources seem to exist that say there is a dispute about this (the sources are here: Australian head of state dispute), it should then be assessed what's the relative weight of these "dispute" sources to determine the weight given to the dispute. If the dispute sources are marginal in the grand scheme of things, the queen should be mentioned as head of state with at most a tiny mention in the article body that links to the dispute page. --Dailycare (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ancestry24.com

Hi! I'm wondering whether this page[11] (or, more specifically, this one[12]) meets reliable sources criteria. It is used in a BLP (Charlene, Princess of Monaco#Ancestry) and I don't think it qualifies as reliable (not to mention the fact that the content it supports is trivial). Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We actually have a stub article on it: Ancestry24. I can't find many other sources relying on it. It seems to be mostly the project of one person, Heather MacAlister,[13]. Now it has gotten a collaboration and favorable reports from The Witness (South African newspaper), [14], and MacAlister seems to have been a consultant for a genealogy TV program,[15] but unless we find more than that, I don't think it quite makes the bar for a BLP. Especially, as you write, since the content being supported is trivial - a family tree, when only the last person in the tree is notable. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Film Essay On The “Bullet Time” Scene In “The Matrix”

Would anyone consider this reliable?

http://scis.nova.edu/~rbuckley/Film%20Essay.pdf

It's been published under http://scis.nova.edu/ which is a well-known university, but I'm not sure if an essay in the university archive works. It's old, and I can find no way to access this from the root link of the university now. So I'm not sure if it's cited or peer-reviewed or anything of that. Can it be considered scholarly monograph? I wanna know if it's reliable. I only want to use one sentence in "The Matrix (film}" article:

"Linear interpolation was used to fill in any gaps of the still images to produce a fluent dynamic motion."

Any suggestion on how to archive the pdf , BTW?

Another source is http://www.sbc.ac.in/voice/bullet.htm

I'm using it for the same article. What I want to use is:

"To cope up with the problem of camera rigs, these stills are scanned and enhanced by computers to get a real time view of the scene. The computer generated "lead in" and "lead out" slides are filled in between frames in sequence to get an illusion of orbiting the scene. This method of enhancing the bullet time is called interpolation." Anthonydraco (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me both sources are reliable, the first is a book written by an academic and second source has the editorial board.As I understand the policy, you can cite both to the content.Justice007 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll use them then. :D Anthonydraco (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

the first source is totally unreliable

it's a term paper in a university class and nothing more. That it is deposited in the university archive means nothing whatever; that is not a standard of either adequate peer review, or any other discrimination or statement of quality. How this can be called a book I do not know--if it were a book by a member of the faculty we'd accept it, but we do not accept student term papers. The second item is a magazine article in an Indian film magazine--I do not know the magazines quality, but it appears to be responsibly edited, so it would do. DGG ( talk ) 03

59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Theses

Hi there, I want to write an article on a Mexican religious group called El Buen Pastor(The Good Shepherd). However, most sources only mention this group in the context of it's "parent" church La Luz del Mundo, from which El Buen Pastor broke off in 1942. I have found two sources which provide value information on the group, but they are both theses. The first is a dissertation by historian Jason Dormady, "Not just a better Mexico" : intentional religious community and the Mexican state, 1940-1964.[16] Dormady later wrote a book titled Primitive Revolution : restorationist religion and the idea of the Mexican Revolution, 1940-1968[17] which closely resembles his thesis, but omits this information, perhaps because it was irrelevant (nonetheless valuable). The other is a tesis de licenciatura (bachelor's thesis) titled Catolicismo y evangelio al este del estado de Puebla[18] by Sergio Luis Contreras. This thesis provides excerpts from El Buen Pastor's official history, and one of the thesis adviser's Elio Masferrer Kan is (in my opinion) an authority in the field. The director Carlos Garma Navarro is also (in my opinion) an expert in the field. Dormady uses La Luz del Mundo and independent sources to describe the schism that took place in 1942, while Contreras uses El Buen Pastor and independent sources. Using both Dormady and Contreras would ensure a high level of neutrality on such a sensitive topic.

My question is therefore: can I use these two sources in the article I want to create? I believe El Buen Pastor church meets minimum notability requirements. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If the only sources you can find are a Bachelor's thesis and a dissertation, I would be a bit hesitant to go forward. In the La Luz del Mundo there's a section on the 1942 schism already. Do you think you would have a lot of material to add that couldn't fit within the parent article? TheBlueCanoe 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We have in the past usually accepted doctoral theses. I would be reluctant personally to accept those at a lower level, but we have sometimes done so,especially Master's theses for topics that tend not to be covered elsewhere, such as local history. A bachelor's thesis would depend on the reputation of the school and the advisor. From the information you provide, I'd consider both sources acceptable for the purposes you suggest, DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find better sources I decided to inquire about this. I was planning to write about El Buen Pastor's beliefs and practices, but perhaps it is too soon to write an article for this. I guess I'll try to add relevant information from other sources to the parent article. Thank you both for your assistance. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I just noticed Dormady does include some details in his book, I'll try to add material from there into the La Luz del Mundo article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WWWJDIC?

The article Kuroneko currently cites Jim Breen's dictionary[19] as a source for the meaning of a phrase in the Japanese title. Reliable sources don't translate the title (the English title is a shortening of the Japanese title Yabu no naka no kuroneko), but WP:NCFILM says we should provide a translation anyway. The title has two meanings in Japanese, a literal one, and a figurative one that is overwhelmingly more common, but that is not the issue here.

It was mentioned that WWWJDIC might be WP:USERG, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Jim Breen is a recognized expert in Japanese language studies, and his dictionary is one of the most widely-used J-E dictionaries. His website is also his official homepage as a Research Fellow of Monash University. The dictionary also claims to be copyright the "Electronic Dictionary Research and Development Group".

What does everyone else think about this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on this project: The WWWJDIC dictionary is based on the underlying jmdict dictionary. This consists of entries submitted by users as well as entries made by the above-mentioned JW Breen. Entries are currently reviewed by a "team" of editors including JW Breen. None of the current reviewers are native speakers of Japanese. The dictionary has been in creation since 1990. Current entries supposedly are reviewed and require references, but many of the older entries were added unreviewed/unreferenced. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Further clarification: I went to WWWJDIC as my source for this because WP:NONENG says that English-language sources are preferred to non-English language ones, and because JoshuSasori has indicated elsewhere that he doesn't speak Japanese. The same information can be found easily in Kōjien or Daijisen, but a good J-E dictionary seemed better. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 you are hilarious. I've never indicated that I do or do not speak Japanese, but inspection of the edit histories of Kaneto Shindo and Yasujiro Ozu should clue you up. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Japanese ability is entirely beside the point, but you indicated that you don't understand Hepburn romanization or Japanese long-vowels when you stated that you had "NO IDEA"[20] where the idea of spelling Japanese people's names with macrons came from. Anyway, whether it is you or some other reader, some Wikipedians don't understand Japanese, and so English-language sources are generally preferable to Japanese ones. Although maybe not when providing etymologies of words. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The operating project, EDRDG, is run by Monash University, a reputable Australian university, and primary author/maintainer Jim Breen is not only notable enough to have his own WP page, he's a Senior Research Fellow at Monash's Japanese Studies Centre and his scholarly work (incl. much about WWWJDIC) has been published extensively in reliable sources. The dictionary and its predecessors JDIC and EDICT have been actively worked on since 1991. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database, and WWWJDIC is described as "reliable and close to comprehensive" by sources like the Japan Times.

All that said, sources like Kōjien are still a step above WWWJDIC in authoritativeness, but for anything even vaguely modern or slangy WWWJDIC's quite often as good as it gets. Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. - not ridiculous, no. The Jmdict dictionary (used to be EDICT) is generated from content submitted by users, so in the normal English sense it is "user generated content". Whether to apply WP:USERG is the discussion we should have here. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database - probably Kanjidic, not EDICT. reliable and close to comprehensible - LOL, I think you meant "comprehensive". Anyway I am sure you mean well, but Wikipedia may be reliable and it is certainly close to comprehensive, but Wikipedia isn't a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's own standards. Do you want WWWJDIC to be able to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? That is the problem. If I submit an entry to WWWJDIC tomorrow then it will change what it says for a particular entry next week. Thus I believe the cautions of WP:USERG apply. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not comparable to Wikipedia. Yes, WWWJDIC takes contributions from the public, but they don't just show up automatically, there's a professional editorial process for approving any changes. See [21]: "Incoming entries are all checked", and that's not WP-style random peer review, but actual editorial review.

Also, your point about changeability is a red herring: any page on the Web can be changed at any time without notice, and that's what tools like WebCite are for. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The WWWJDIC can be considered a user-generated site. It states plainly: Users of WWWJDIC are welcome to submit amendments to the dictionary files, and also to submit new entries. I have submitted new words & definitions, and I have submitted additional definitions or pronunciations to existing words or kanji. That said, the provider is supposed to add a reference that can verify the new word/definition, and new definitions are annotated if they have not been confirmed by Jim Breen (or his staff, I suppose). So, user generated, but also based on established dictionaries, and also I believe quite respected among Japanophiles. Concur with User:Jpatokal. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the review/reference/multiple editor system is a recent improvement. The bulk of entries were submitted before any review/reference/etc. system was put into place. There are errors being discovered in old entries all the time. I think caution should be exercised. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is not the same as whether it's correct or not. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that EDRDG consider a Wikipedia page to be a valid reference for dictionary entries. JoshuSasori (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to [22]? The only recommended references are various dictionaries, all they do is state that you can also "include" a WP article. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It also might be pointed out that the WWWJDIC-definition that JoshuSasori was continues to challenge was is yabu no naka (don't know how to link WWWJDIC entry but [23] is a carbon-copy), which virtually matches that of Kōjien and Daijisen. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this about dictionaries for translations to English from Japanese (and vice–versa), or is this about Japanese dictionaries of Japanese definitions of Japanese words? Confusion? Kōjien would be the best for the later. Kenkyūsha's would be the best for the former—that is again, for translations to English from Japanese. IMHO

WWWJDIC has to be used in context, evaluated for the specific WP statement it is put forward as a reliable source for and that specific part of WWWJDIC evaluated for reliability. WWWJDIC has itself many sources, and cannot be evaluated as one lump, as reliable or unreliable. Confusion? For one example for Buddhist words, WWWJDIC, set to its Buddhist dictionary setting, sources its entries directly from another source, the reliable, scholarly Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (DDB), which needs to be widely, often and well used as a source, in addition, when words have both superficial plain language meanings, and notable Buddhist more subtle, philosophical, meanings. ——--macropneuma 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's about WWWJDIC. The precise issue in the article is not under question here (it was resolved when I found a report on a lecture by a notable researcher at Hosei University that made the exact point I was making). Of course Kōjien is more reliable than WWWJIC in general, but when they include the same information, WP:NONENG says we should use an English source. Most J-E dictionaries do not give straight definitions of Japanese words/phrases, but rather list some possible translations. Being able to cite an English-language online source that gives a straight definition would be nice. Therefore, we are trying to establish (and hopefully set a precedent as to) whether WWWJDIC can be used as a source for Wikipedia in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Only sometimes, due to its mix of its own sources, reliable and unreliable—depending on the context of the statement it is put forward as a source for and on the context of the source WWWJDIC has itself used. Not in general as a blanket reliable source. ——--macropneuma 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But if entries, no matter where they are sourced, are reviewed by a panel of experts before being put online, mightn't that put WWWJDIC over the line into "reliable"? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the entries are reviewed by the panel. In the past i've put in a few test additional translation entries which changed the emphasis of a translation (then i removed them) and seen translations by other people under entries for words which i've done scholarly study of in my specialised, study field: 自然農法, which are not the best translations by any means—also obvious by reference to Kenkyūsha's and so on without even my special scholarly studies—and must not be used as reliable sources. It's a pity, and i think great Jim Breen will better the system to become much more robust in reliability, soon, or perhaps already has—since it's been a year or two ago for me.

I've used it as an ancillary source (as a second ref) after the first most reliable source (ref), eg. Kenkyūsha's. It is better to go to beyond WWWJDIC to its sources and reference those instead, eg. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and numerous others.

For EDICT (Jpn–Eng General) and the default setting of: "Special Text–glossing", which automatically and conveniently incorporates a decision tree choice of various DICTs, depending on your input text—including the often helpful ENAMDICT (person's names)—they are not blanket reliable in my 10+ years of experience using it and IMHO. For these, it is better to dig deeper by repeating the search.

First the most general search you want.

Then, if that was a composite "Special Text–glossing" or "Expanded Text–glossing" setting, then break up your text into sections according to the different dictionaries it has used to output the result.

Sequentially set it to each one of those dictionaries' individual settings and input each of those sections of your text;

for each of those dictionaries' results dig deeper into the history of the translation source within WWWJDIC, often per single words/compound words, as there are not so many long phrases whole translations.

Hence, is that specific translation a reliable source or not? If it was altered by a member of the public without in turn providing sources as basis, and without in turn then getting reviewed by the panel of experts, then no. If it is in turn based on a reliable source then ok. If it is a name ENAMDICT output when it should have decided to use EDICT to translate its meaning to English, then no, and then you have to take that text back as input to specifically set EDICT translation and then repeat the history check again.

When needed i've regularly done this specific checking of this source (each word/compound word) for reliability.

It sounds too complicated when written in description here, but it is not too complicated when we get used to it.

For quick edification, such as in WP talk posts, and quick checking one's memory recall, it's fine amongst others, such as my Mac's (free) built–in, great big Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus linked directly to the great big Shōgakukan (Daijisen±) E<–>J, Japanese and Japanese synonyms dictionaries. For editing here in WP the Mac Shōgakukan<–>Oxford is much more convenient than WWWJDIC. If someone (hasn't a Mac and) is lazy for all this WWWJDIC reliability checking, the most convenient and best sources would be to have: Kenkyūsha's and Kōjien, big hardcopies (or computer software) on one's own desk (or desktop). I wish I had, for even more reliable sources and more convenience. I have access to them in the Uni. library. I hope that helps people in general here. ——--macropneuma 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I might add for my summation, capsule, that in my humble 10+ years of on & off experiences with WWWJDIC, the emphasis of it is on the digital dictionary technologies, not so much emphasis on the highest standards of lexicographical scholarship, as certain dictionaries we've already mentioned above, and including we all know the Oxford English. This is emphasis, and no criticism of Jim Breen or WWWJDIC at all. i perceive, of course, that emphasis to be his purpose and emphasis too; so WWWJDIC is very well fit for its purpose (to me), and i think very fit for Jim Breen's purposes; which are not the same emphases as WP's most reliable sources, purposes. Why, we needn't be (emphasising) using a less reliable source, WWWJDIC, when we can use the widely acknowledged, most reliable, best, sources, we've cited above; and put the WP sourcing emphasis on those. There's no reason not to use WWWJDIC here when fit for the purpose, just not everywhere, generally, reliable. Thanks elvenscout742 & co., for me, at least, a stimulating discussion. ——--macropneuma 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Second last sentence added for to be sure. :) ——--macropneuma 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, irrelevant, false positive and reply.

I'd like to thank Macropneuma for explaining what I was trying to say much more clearly than I did. Thank you. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Let us not believe it—Your wider than this section WP actions, including disgusting conduct in my presence, odious personal attacks of me in Japan Project a few days ago, extraordinary ingratitude ..., breaches of policy and edit warring against my edits in talk page(s) and so on, show that is a false positive written here for ulterior motives, while all these disgusting actions have been going on until this minute on other pages. Put yourself on the outside and sycophancy will not work, does nothing for me, either. Only constant good faith, competence, humility, respect, maturity and honesty suffice. ——--macropneuma 14:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You can start by starting contrition—admitting when you're wrong (and in those cases, clearly, everyone sees that, already—and who can be bothered. Not ur mama!).

I'm not trying to imply finishing this discussion section, in my summation, capsule, above, just my version of my summation, so far, not closing off the section, and my little, genuine, thanks, i also learned certain key things. Anyone having more to say, please, i mean to be encouraging you, in good faith (&c.) ... . ——--macropneuma 15:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this discussion is supposed to conclude whether WWWJDIC is a Reliable Source(tm) or not. Allow me to posit the following two conclusions:

1) WWWJDIC is, generally speaking, a sufficiently reliable source and can be used as a reference for Wikipedia.

2) In case of controversy or doubt, the definitions in other Japanese dictionaries (eg. Kojien, DDB) are considered more accurate and are preferred over WWWJDIC.

In other words, we "assume good faith" for WWWJDIC, and fall back to non-English sources when in doubt. I'd like to work in some mention of preferring WWWJDIC's sources (eg. DDB) over WWWJDIC itself, but not quite sure how... Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Anvil

Is this a good source for the new member's name? Cause many sites say they're now a four piece but don't mention the member's name, but here it does.

"Sunday October 21, 2012 we play our first ever live show as a 4 piece. It is with great honor we welcome our new comrade, Sos to the fold for this special ritual."

The only other places I can find his name is their twitter page and facebook, but those aren't allowed as sources. But I don't know if I'm allowed to put the name on the member list instead and NOT mention in the body. I have no idea. Because I must put his name there but there's barely sources, this is the only one which quotes the band.

BlastBeat4 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In most instances*, the band's official website would be a reliable source for the names of the members of the band (and if the band has an official twitter feed, twits on their feed about who is in the band would also generally be reliable for that particular claim). *if however, the site is making extraordinary claims (such as naming Bill Clinton as their drummer - we all know he would be the sax player), or if the band is in a contested break-up, then the official site would not be a reliable source for such a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS applies for Christian Science healing?

Does (or how does) WP:MEDRS apply to claims and reports of healing achieved through Christian Science practices?

I have raised a query [24] on the talk page concerning this.

The para in question is here (result of multiple edits over time):

Although the church and its founder make these statements, in the United States, it is the individual's choice what type of care he or she may undergo. Some members deviate from this advice, and the negative outcomes regarding children can be found in the media. Despite negative outcomes due to deviation, any total is still far below[original research?] that of some medical alternatives (prescribed drugs) which are considered some of the deadliest[52]. Defending the record of Christian Science, Robert Peel questions the claim by the medical establishment to be the exclusive authority on healing. He writes that "nosocomial illness – an umbrella term for a whole catalogue of infections acquired inside the hospital – has proved fatal to some patients who entered the hospital for treatment for a very minor ailment."[53] Peel cites a 1978 estimation that of "32 million persons admitted to American hospitals each year, about 1.5 million develop some kind of nosocomial infection, and 15,000 die of it."[54] (See also Iatrogenesis.)

The sources in question are:

• Weiss, Rick. "Prescribed Drugs' Toll Is Among Deadliest". Washington Post. Retrieved 27 December 2012.[25]
• Robert Peel, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987, p. 24

I appreciate there is a difference between relating historical reports of spiritual/miraculous healing, and making statements about medical efficacy — the query is more how that line is drawn, particularly in regard to sources used, for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Context Problems, Misuse of Reliable Sources, Disruptive Editing, Biased Sources in article on Christian Science

More eyes are needed to bring Common Sense [[26]] to the article on Christian Science. There is plenty in every section of the Talk Pages to indicate what is happening. In my view, 3O is not being heeded, and emerging consensus is being ignored. I am of the opinion that disruptive editing has been a recurring problem in this article. I read here that Wikipedia articles on religion draw partly from the sacred texts of that religion, as well as reliable secondary sources. I also read that the reliability of a source depends on context. I am finding that the most reliable sources have been misused in the article, and discussion in the talk pages about that seem to be disregarded. Particularly these sections of the Talk Pages to start. [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]]

If one looks into the footnotes of so-called "reliable sources", it is obvious that the those sources hold a biased opinion of Christian Science medically, theologically, scientifically. A balanced viewpoint should emerge, but a biased viewpoint should not be coming through in Wikipedia's voice, which it is in this article. Sources which accurately describe Christian Science have been objected to by several editors, and reliable sources have been used out of context. Friends whom I have sent to the Talk Pages (who are not Christian Scientists) have remarked that it isn't right what is happening with this article.

There are too many instances in the article of what I am describing to focus on specific instances. What I am hoping for is for someone to go in and take an overview of what has happened. If there is a better place for me to post this, I am open to advice from someone outside of the present discussion: LeviTee (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ray McDermott & Ida Oberman article "Racism and Waldorf Education"

This article is available from two sources: WaldorfCritics.org and WaldorfLibrary.org

I think it would be an excellent source for use in Waldorf education, specifically in the section Waldorf education#Racism controversy. However this article and particularly this aspect of the subject is highly contentious so I want an opinion on the suitability of this source before using it in the article. In particular I am concerned that the article is not (that I can find) published by an academic publisher but is hosted on highly partisan websites (although the sites in question are on opposite sides of the pro- v. anti-Steiner controversy). The article is, however, an addendum to a paper the authors published (with other collaborators) in a more relaible source (Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02354381 (I don't know how to make that into a link here)) and (as discussed in the article itself) this article was in an earlier draft intended to be incorporated into that main paper. The main paper itself is already cited as a source in the WP article.

To use this source I would introduce it in the context of the main study conducted by McDermott et al into the Milwaukee school and say something like:

McDermott and Oberman discuss Steiner's teachings that humans fall into different races with different places in the evolution of consciousness and different mental and spiritual abilities; cite a study showing that many followers of Steiner consider him infallible; report observing a display of racist attitudes from representatives of the international Waldorf community; express concern about the possible prevalence of racist attitudes amongst some Steiner-Waldorf teachers; and urge the Waldorf movement to tackle racist issues in Steiner's teachings.

However the authors also report that the Milwaukee school they observed (and produced their main report on) not only did not display racism but was actively confronting racism (which they also credit Waldorf educators in Black townships in South Africa with doing) and cite with approval efforts within the anthroposophy and Waldorf communities to confront and reject racism.

John Stumbles (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A DOI can be turned into a resolvable URI by prepending http://dx.doi.org/ to the DOI, so your link would be [31] - however, this does not seem to work - so something is wrong somewhere.

I have (for my sins) been editing the Waldorf education article for a few weeks. Bear in mind the article is on probation and subject to an Arbitration Committee ruling, so care is advised when venturing into controversial areas. In my view, the two sources you mention, being from anti-Waldorf and pro-Waldorf sites, simply will not do — especially for a topic as contentious as racism.

I believe there is some peer-reviewed work by Peter Staudenmaier on the topic, which might prove more fruitful. However, in my personal view the BBC News report currently included in the article is enough on this topic, which is not a very meaty one anyway, and has become a battlefield for pro- and anti- campaigners. I think having much more on racism in this article might run a risk of being WP:UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Speech by UN Ambassodor- primary or secondary source?

Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [32] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [33].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That webpage is the webpage hosted on the UN website for the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the UN, and the article can be found under the link for NAM Statements By Malaysia.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

For what it's worth, I don't find the arguments for excluding this NAM/UN source based on its nature and notability at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source very compelling. The same arguments could probably be applied to many of the ~2236 links to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs currently in article space. Having said that, scholarly secondary sources are preferred and there's the settler colonial studies journal which has a number of articles that may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The question of WP:UNDUE is beyond scope of this board.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's the Non-Aligned Movement's analytic and evaluative claims about "the situation in the middle east, including the question of Palestine" based on whatever sources they used to come up with their assessment. So it seems like a secondary source to me, but even if you treat it as a primary because it's an official document, a statement by the NAM hosted on the UN site, I don't think there is a problem including material from it as long as it's "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". The source makes several statements about what NAM apparently regard as settler colonialism in the oPt but I'm not sure that the content in the diff that was added is what I would have sampled for the article, not that that is relevant to the RS question. It seems to be being used in a similar way to many of the thousands of instances of Israel's MFA. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

EA WorldView

In Talk:James H. Fetzer, an editor wants to know if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html is a reliable source for James Fetzer's views regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors

Location claims that Press TV cannot be used to establish notability for Jim Fetzers outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint that the Sandy Hook massacre can be blamed on Israel. Press TV is the main and official news agency of Iran, and Veterans Today is an american-based website that also carries Press TV stories and its contributors, but thus also carries stories approved by the government of Iran. Both have been noted by ADL and Washington Post as carrying wildly anti-semitic anti-israel propoganda. It is hard to document Fetzer if WP disallows two of his most important outlets and source of supporters with similar viewpoints. Kourosh Ziabari was deleted because it was claimed that his many contributions to both outlets were not "notable", and a similar case is being made for Mark Dankof who similarly appear on Press TV and American anti-war websites. If these writers are acting as stealth propgandists for a hostile nation-state, it impossible to document them if they are to be deleted simply because they have been ignored by mainstream pro-Israel western media, yet heavily promoted by pro-Iranian pro-Palestine outlets. Redhanker (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I posted your concern in the thread immediately preceding this one. The issue is one of using reliable secondary sources for Fetzer's opinions versus primary source material. Location (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[Cross posted from Talk:James H. Fetzer for clarification.] The Veterans Today source explicitly states: "Posted by Jim Fetzer" at the top. Regarding the Press TV source, it is primary source material. On this, WP:BLPPRIMARY states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Per the discussion at WP:RSN, let's see if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html fits the requirement of a reliable secondary source. Location (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out to User:Redhanker who is trying to use Gilad Atzmon's opionion on a WP:BLP that he cannot promote a non-WP:RS source as WP:RS just because it supports his view on an issue. I've certainly seen all these sources deleted instantly when others tried to use them as critics of Israel. I have been waiting for him to respond on the Richard A. Falk article on his removal of an Atzmon quote about Falkf and wondering if I was going to have to bring this here, but I can see he already is here on the same issue. CarolMooreDC 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As well as Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Iran Press TV conspiracy theories. Location (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait til after the holidays to get NPOV 3rd party opinions on this. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a problem of sourcing, but of original research. I've commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I've removed the following from Conversion therapy for sourcing concerns:

NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity.

I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. Can some folks please offer input? Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The first part (NARTH repudiates aversive techniques) appears to be supported by the cites. The second part does not seem to be supported, since neither of the sources appear to mention anything about "appropriate gender identity", instead talking about "unwanted homosexual attractions" or "unwanted same-sex attractions". Formerip (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the correct venue to settle content disputes, FormerIP. The gist of the inquiry is whether the subject's own website is a reliable source for the subject's views and policies, and the answer is self-evident: of course it is. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong statements need strong sourcing. I think this is a great venue to see if what we are stating accurately reflects the sourcing available. Let's see what others have to offer. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to think whatever you would like. The verbiage at the top of this page states:

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.

and

This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

This noticeboard is to discuss the reliability of sources, not whether a given statement is supported by a source. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Let's see what other editors have to say, it may prove helpful. Insomesia (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything that comes here is a content dispute, obviously, and the question of whether a source is reliable for a given statement can't really be divorced from whether it contains words which support the statement. These sources don't contain wording which support part of the statement they are be used for so, to that extent, they are not reliable. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. There should be no problem divorcing the reliability of a source within a given context from the accuracy of specific content. The question is: can we look to NARTH's website (source) for information about NARTH's policies (context). The obvious answer is "yes, we can". ► Belchfire-TALK 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, well perhaps we can just agree to differ. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Letting NARTH speak for itself is a mistake. A better strategy is to find third party sources commenting on their position. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While having third party sources is always better, using this source is hardly a "mistake". @FormerIP, the issue you have with this source/statement is the "gender identity" phrase? I don't think the language is incorrect as to what NARTH purports to believe.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct in some sense, rosetta, although the wording presented above seems to confuse gender identity and sexual orientation, which are not the same thing. In any event, the wording isn't supported by the cites provided, where NARTH seem to indicate that they do not believe any sexual orientation to be inappropriate per se, unless an individual is unhappy. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a direct quote is best if there is any disagreement  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Do any non-NARTH or industry-controlled reliable sources support these assertions? Otherwise I think we should just leave it out. Insomesia (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Immaterial and irrelevant. For at least the third time, this discussion can only address the reliability of the NARTH sources within the given context. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually improving articles may need to take into account what reliable and impartial sources state. We aren't here to promote NARTH's views, controversial or otherwise. Insomesia (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page. [WP:IDHT]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We're already here so I don't see any problem asking uninvolved editors to opine. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Your seeing it is not really germain to the issue. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is entirely appropriate here. "Reliability" includes a discussion about accuracy, authoritativeness, relevancy and currency. This noticeboard is the correct forum. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lane / R. Andrew Kiel

Mark Lane is probably the first Warren Commission critic and one of many controversial figures in the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts. Lane's views are supported by many other critics and rejected by various debunkers who have called him "unscrupulous"[34]. A sentence in Mark Lane (author) states:

"After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment."

This is a close paraphrase of page 162 in "J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War" by R. Andrew Kiel who, from the little information I can find, "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio"[35] and has supported other conspiracy-oriented individuals[36].:

"After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission. He published a convincing indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the twenty-six volumes of the Commission's Report. Despite the fact that the majority of Mark Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well as from interviews from those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published."[37]

I have voiced a challenge to the word "ignore" in the above context in that it implies "intentional disregard", and have suggested that it be changed to either "not interviewed" or be attributed to the original author. Although there appears to be consensus for this change in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), one editor has insisted that it is a proper reflection of a statement of fact (per WP:YESPOV) and suggested that the issue be raised here. So...

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of fact that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?:

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of opinion attributed to Kiel that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?

Given the contentious nature of the claims made by Lane (and reiterated by Kiel), which choice of wording is appropriate?

Thanks! Location (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the details of your edits are separate from the issue of reliablility. This board should be concerned with the status of the book. As you say, the author is not an established expert and the publisher is at best not demonstrably in the "vanity" class [38]. It has already been pointed out by another editor that it is, as it were, on the borders [39]. Paul B (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Consumer Reports a reliable source?

In these two recent edits [40] [41] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage” [42]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source: Consumer Reports [43]

I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [44]. Puhlaa (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't say "the public," but you could give the percentage of "45,000 readers" who made the assertion. I will follow the rest of the discussion on the Talk Page of the article, which is at Talk:Chiropractic#Removal_of_sourced_info. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you're not allowed to editorialize. Reading the source and creating your own interpretation to reach a conclusion is original research. The source says ~45,651 or so readers responded, and of those 38% or so used chiropractic and 65% or so self reported as helpful. The public or even the sample population did NOT consider Chiropractic the most helpful. It's a aggregation of self-reported anecdotal evidnece. Even the article clearly reads " Respondents based their opinions on personal experience, so the results can't be compared with scientific clinical trials. And our results do not take into account the power of the placebo effect, the tendency of people to find even simulated or sham interventions helpful.". Read the Popular Press section in WP:MEDRS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no editorializing; the source found that ~65% of respondents that tried chiropractic said it helped; only ~50% of those who tried medication, yoga and pilates said it helped. Hence, the source concludes that "Chiropractic outperformed all other treatments and medication was equal to yoga and pilates." Moreover, the findings of the Consumer Reports survey are consistent with mainstream peer-reviewed research [45], which also suggests chiropractors achieve high patient satisfaction. Further still, no sources have been presented that contradict these findings.Puhlaa (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Puhlaa "forgot" to mention that he is a chiropractor engaged in a revert war to keep the article on chiropractic sympathetic to his business interests. This is not the only source he has misrepresented, and reverted edits which remove the misrepresentation. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a reliability issue at all. Consumer Reports is a reliable source by any reading of the policy. The only thing here will be presentation in the article. I don't see how this is much different other things we use all the time. How many articles reference presidential approval ratings? How do those differ from this? So, in my mind, this doesn't really belong at RSN, but more at WP:NPOVN.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. CR is a reliable source for consumer opinion, consumer opinion is not a valid measure of validity, so to assert consumer reports as a source for validity, fails. That is what Puhlaa is trying to do, just one of many instances where he seeks ot present an idealised form of chiropractic that does not reflect the real world. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, in this specific case, it's about consumer opinion. CR, as a whole, often conducts their own testing and are considered a RS source and neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, though I would tend to draw an even more restrictive line. CR's annual survey is an online, voluntary survey open to all of their subscribers. It looks like they got roughly forty thousand responses, from a total circulation of about seven million people. There's going to be a significant amount of self-selection going on there, which may skew the outcome significantly. CR does not indicate any attempt to account or correct for this effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wash. DC NGO reports and papers reliable 3P-sources?

Are the reports and other publications of established NGOs such as this Foundation for Middle East Peace RS? For example, he is a very short report consisting solely of statistical data settler demographics --Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The FMEP was already discussed in the board.Please search it in arthives.Editors didn't reached any consensus regarding the reliability of this advocacy organisation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt exactly accurate. The settlement stats are reliable and FMEP is often cited by other reliable sources. A collection of involved partisans sought to disqualify it, the same partisans that routinely cite such sources as terrorism-info.org.il or WINEP. It is a fine source to use, attribute it if some of those partisans give you any trouble. nableezy - 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that nableezy, I hadn't read the entire log of that discussion.

I will use that source and cite it, as you suggest. If someone has a specific objection based on facts, let them raise it.

Why is Shrike pointing to that discussion and saying it wasn't resolved?

I'll leave this quoted comment for others that haven't read it, at least it makes it clear that there was a consensus that it could be used, subject to challenge on a case-by-case basis, at the very least.

Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Sources aren't either reliable or not. It depends on what is being sourced. In this case, it looks like a reliable source for something like "in 1998, between 75 and 80 percent of settlers..." unless this is at variance with other sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ma'an News

Ma'an News Agency is a wire service founded in 2005 and is located in the West Bank and Gaza. I would like advice on the reliability of its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as I noticed it was being used in Operation Pillar of Defense.

Ma'an's chief editor was described as "batshit insane" and liable to "spout[ing] out the craziest theories every once in a while" in emails published by Wikileaks, which it says are from the Stratfor Global Intelligence Company. The emails also described Ma'an's chief editor as a staunch supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and reported that he promised a group of Palestinians that they would liberate Jerusalem with military honour. Ma'an's English editor has clarified the objective of the organisation, writing on its website: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement...In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."

Ma'an has published repugnant antisemitic opinion pieces. This one, recently published, states that it is a historical fact that Jews are cowards, universally hated, a nation of conspirators, are worse than feeding vampires, and that the curse of God compels them to continue with their deceit and violence. An excerpt has been translated here.

Nor does it seem overly concerned over the accuracy of its news articles.

Ma'an provided a sanitised translation of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination, and published unchallenged outlandish claims, such as "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.

It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.

Ma'an queried whether the Itamar massacre was in fact perpetrated by Israelis and later reported that the IDF had arrested all the Thai workers inside the Itamar settlement in relation to the murders. No other regular news network ran with this story and the Jerusalem Post noted that Maan did not provide a source for this information. Ma'an then published an opinion piece reflecting on Maan's reliable reporting that it was in fact a foreign worker that had perpetrated the Itamar massacre and that this had stymied Israel's "planned international campaign". (Excerpt translated here.)

This was all bogus. The IDF had raided the West Bank town of Awata hours after the attack suspecting that the assailants had come from there. Itamar's mayor responded that the settlement did not even have any foreign workers. Two Palestinians were arrested for the Itamar murders and confessed to the murders. Their feats were praised on Palestinian TV.

Ma'an published a crazy conspiracy theory that Palestinians were being attacked by non indigenous pigs deliberately released by settlers into the Salfit area. The Ma'an article cited the report of the "Applied Research Institute" to substantiate these claims - yet, the organisation's report were quoting Ma'an's stories, so in effect, Ma'am were quoting themselves to support their own bizarre claims.

Finally, the way Ma'an and other established news organisations report events is often at odds.

• AFP - "The Israeli air force pounded targets in the northern Gaza Strip early on Wednesday, without causing casualties, following rocket fire on southern Israel, sources on both sides said. Palestinian security sources confirmed the strike had hit a training camp in Beit Lahiya which was used by militants from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the ruling Hamas movement."

Maan - "Israel launched an airstrike overnight Tuesday on the northern Gaza Strip, Ma'an's correspondent said. The strike targeted Beit Lahiya and caused material damage to several homes, with no injuries reported. Israel's army said it targeted a "terror tunnel in the northern Gaza Strip."

• Maan reports that "a man died... from injuries sustained in an Israeli attack". AP describe him as a "Gaza militant" killed in airstrikes "launched in retaliation for rocket fire from Gaza."

An editor has pointed out that Ma'an's stories have been cited by the BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Does this however confer reliability on Ma'an when it has not been cited by regular news networks?

Arutz Sheva, a pro-settler media organisation, has also been cited by the Guardian and the NYT. The Palestinian Media Watch has been cited by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Russia Today, Jyllands-Posten and the Sydney Morning Herald among a host of international media outlets. It has been cited by Hillary Clinton and PMW's director has addressed parliaments about its findings.

Yet, editors have generally refrained from using PMW in wikpedia's Israel-Palestine topics when it has not been cited by other media because of its slanted objective. Is this not similarly the case with Ma'an? Ankh.Morpork 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am similarly concerned about ma'an being used as a source at Operation Pillar of Defense. Note that there is no evidence that ma'an ever withdrew its claims that were contradicted by RS's. The lack of such acknowledgment is evidence that ma'an is unreliable. Another point worth mentining is that ma'an publishes diatribes not merely against Israel, but specifically against Jews. Many of the leading RS's cited in Operation Pillar of Defense carefully distinguish between actions by governments and actions by specific populations. Thus, rocket attacks emanating from Gaza are described as emanating from Hamas or other militants, rather than attributing them to populations. ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source of information at Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This entire post is predicated on a user wishing to remove one of the very few Palestinian sources used in an article replete with Israeli sources, including voice of the settlers Arutz Sheva. An attempt to distort these articles even further by denying any voice to Palestinians. How that is allowed is rather beyond me. Additionally, there is a BLP violation in the above by calling, on the basis of a leaked email by an employee at Stratfor, a living person "batshit insane".

But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC,^[46][47] the Guardian,^[48][49][50] al-Jazeera,^[51][52] and the New York Times.^[53][54][55] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.

Finally, I must object to the continued misuse of this board by AnkhMorpork. As can be seen in his past attempts to disqualify entire sources that just so happen to not be Zionist in tone (eg here), he is refusing to actually link to what is being used as a source and is instead seeking to remove from Wikipedia an entire news organization that just happens to be written by Palestinians. Just happens of course. If an op-ed being racist or otherwise objectionable is cause for not allowing news stories from the same outlet, then should Yedioth Ahronoth be removed because they hosted an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey.? Should the Jerusalem Post be disqualified because they printed an op-ed that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? Of course not. But that is the argument made here, that because an organization published a single persons opinion as a single persons opinion that is somehow objectionable that their news reports are unreliable. That is an asinine argument, but if it is accepted here then we'll have to go about deleting any ynet or jpost link on these pages as well.nableezy - 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here user:Nableezy is following the familiar pattern of changing the subject when things are not going his way. This is a discussion of ma'an, not Yedioth Ahronoth. Feel free to file a complaint against the latter but stick to the point: how can ma'an be called reliable when it systematically distorts the truth and apparently never corrects its misinformation? Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you have no opposition then to use Arutz Sheva INN?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Compare how the NYTimes treats the two. Arutz Sheva: Arutz Sheva, a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Maan: Maan, an independent Palestinian news agency. You think they treat them the same? I suppose Arutz Sheva can be used if you qualify it as representing the view of the settlers, but beyond that the comparison fails. nableezy - 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment by User:Nableezy above argues that Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". This is a questionable position (though perhaps one that accurately reflects the procedures at ma'an), and it misses the point. The point is that news sources need to be reliable in order to be cited in wiki. I object to User:Nableezy's attempt to change the subject to a discussion of "neutrality". I don't know how many "palestinian sources" there are, but I do note that User:Nableezy wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there. Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable should be barred at wiki regardless of whether there are few of them or many of them. User:Nableezy further seeks to discredit a fellow editor by accusing him of attempting to suppress "non-Zionist" sources. I object to this violation of WP:NPA by User:Nableezy. Tkuvho (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What? wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there? Where the hell are you getting that from? Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable????? Maan represents Hamas now? Says who? Provably unreliable? Says who? Please dont make things up and expect people to believe you. And dont lie about what I wish to do. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a source that supports Nazi-like anti-Jewish comments can be considered reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem with ma'an. Its antisemitic diatribes are amply illustrated in the translation sourced in the original post. As I mentioned above, the specific criterion of apparently never withdrawing false claims (namely, claims contradicted by RS's) also points toward ma'an's unreliability. Tkuvho (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not continue misrepresenting the situation. This isnt ANI, there is, or should be, an expectation that evidence be provided for your position. I know that is an uncomfortable thing for you, but please try. Oh, and BB, you never answered my question. Is a source that supports commentary that says Palestinians are wild beasts who have an innate yearning to kill reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news? nableezy - 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some quotes from WP:RS:

• How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. - Maan is regularly cited in other reliable source
• "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact Maan was established in 2005 and is a news wire service that is regularly cited by other

If somebody has some evidence that our verifiability policy or reliable sources guideline call for the above to be washed away due to users not liking a frickin op-ed they published, by all means provide it. nableezy - 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your biased advocacy is getting a bit annoying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI report filed for that lie. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here User:Nableezy fails to take into account the fact that the problem with ma'an is not merely the antisemitic piece they saw fit to publish (that is indeed "not liked" by a majority of editors that have expressed themselves here, though User:Nableezy's position on this is so far unclear), but rather the systematic distortion of fact by ma'an, and the apparent absence of a correction when they are caught red-handed with their fantasies. Tkuvho (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who would refer to such a vile, racist piece of garbage simply as "an op-ed" obviously has their own agenda to push - and if the news agency has made no statement disavowing it, then it's clear they must agree with it. That forfeits any alleged "reliability" of that source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment And the only one I shall make here, this news source is racist, prejudiced and quite simply shite. I would feel uncomfortable using it to wipe my arse. Any newswire which will send the hideous shite they send is not a news service, it is a propaganda outlet, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsupported assertion. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In a comment above, User:Nableezy wrote the following concerning the rabidly antisemitic piece published by ma'an: An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. I imagine Amazon dictionaries adhere to a certain standard of civility. The fact that User:Nableezy apparently seeks to justify the ma'an piece on the grounds of it being "op-ed" is surprising, to say the least. Tkuvho (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOOOOO, I did not say the op-ed should be used. Stop distorting what I wrote. I specifically said that it should not be used. What I have said is that the existence of an op-ed, regardless of whether it is racist or not, does not impact the reliability of NEWS REPORTS. Jesus Christ. nableezy - 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This thread is exactly what I meant on the talk page about people trying to use this project to carry on their own quarrels. What article are we talking about? Please give full bibliographic details of the proposed source. What statement is it meant to support? ON NO ACCOUNT (I never shout) mention other completely different sources that are perceived to have the opposite bias. Reformulate the question correctly and you may get one or two uninvolved comments. If you are unwilling to do that then I will report one or more of the participants in this thread for trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, you did state the name of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the dispute began over this source being used to say that a Palestinian fisherman was killed by Israeli forces. That material is supported by several other sources, including AFP and Haaretz. But as far as the on no account ..., sorry, couldnt help it. Users are seeking to disqualify a source on the basis of an unrelated op-ed. If that is allowed then it should be applied consistently. nableezy - 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Use AFP and Ha'aretz for that statement alongside or instead of Ma'an. My impression was that Ma'an is somewhat over-used in the article. WP:RECENT applies; the most significant developments will be picked up by the international press, and these are the ones that are most likely to be incorporated into the historical account when that comes to be written. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They are used alongside (well AFP is for the moment). nableezy - 19:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the same type of case as the preceding entry on this page (see comment by Dan Murphy I quoted). If editors have a problem with an op-ed piece they should address that piece specifically and any other such pieces on a case-by-case basis, and not try to designate the publication as a whole as not an RS.Ubikwit (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world, I have seen factual errors numerous times in many of the world's leading newspapers, this does not mean we should not use these news sources ever again. If you think the source is wrong in a particular case use other sources to show that it is likely wrong and remove or attribute the statments to the disagreeing sources so the reader can make up their own minds. And I must add that the OP is ridiculous for claiming that we should not use Ma'an because it was NOT bias unlike the AP article and his use of misleading quotes in that case is appalling. Sepsis II (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You write, I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world. Examples please--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant find the source op-ed online, but it is covered here and here. nableezy - 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe the amount of misleading claims being used to "prove" unreliability. Obviously certain editors hope no one will do the research to find if their claims are true or not. I’m not all that familiar with Maan news so have no opinion on it’s reliability but I do dispute the rubbish claims being made in an attempt to discredit it.

1. That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts.
2. Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?
3. Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used.
4. Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan.
5. Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report.
6. AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission.
7. Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades."

@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You write, That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX ..... Examples please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• A publication that publishes antisemitic articles is not a reliable source. Full stop.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What antisemitic article did Maan publish? The op-ed? And is a publication that publishes anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab articles also not a reliable source? nableezy - 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It was an op-ed not an article. No more anti-Semetic than just about anything written about Arabs by Daniel Pipes, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Khalid Durán, Judith Miller, Martin Peretz or Lewis Bernard. Wayne (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The opening sentence of the agency's Wikipedia article tells me everything I need to know: "Ma'an News Agency (MNA) (Arabic: وكالة معا الإخبارية‎) is a large wire service created in 2005[1] in the Palestinian Territories." Clearly... obviously... Ma'an utterly fails WP:RS and should NOT be used as a source of factual information about anything, let alone for coverage of the Middle East conflict. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What was it that makes this so obvious? The wire service or the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's see some example of this from other "reliable sources". I can't imagine a reputable news source publishing a piece like that, even as an opinion piece. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. This and this discuss an op-ed published by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey. That work for you? nableezy - 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy WP:Newsorg would seem to cover this: reliable for news reporting, but not reliable for opinion pieces. (But you really need to have a sentence to be sourced (and a source) to discuss anything in more detail on this notice board.)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AnkhMorpork (and friends) engaged in this kind of assassination of sources in the past, so much in a short period a couple of us threatened to take him/her to WP:ARBPIA for sanction. Using a bunch of questionable translations or direct links to Arabic speaking sites is particularly obnoxious. (I only read the first few sources and got disgusted.) I think I'll have to look more carefully at what s/he has been up to the last couple months. These kind of generalized attacks for partisan purposes are divisive and destructive. CarolMooreDC 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deeming Ma'an News unreliable is utterly hypocritical. As Nableezy has demonstrated above, if we're going classify news sources as unreliable because of some op-ed they published, then let's go ahead and throw YNET, JPOST and Times of Israel into the chipper as well. I've used Ma'an numerous times. It's particularly useful for intra-Palestinian politics, some of the less talked about violent incidents in the Pal. territories and information or obituaries on notable Palestinian figures. Ma'an has also been shown to offer extra facts and details for major news events involving Palestine that are covered by the more international sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt its reliability regarding intra-Palestinian politics and Palestinian personalities. It is its claims about Israel and the Jews that I am concerned about. Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks seem persistent and the behavior unchanged even warnings. Somebody should file some sort of action aimed at putting an end to this continual waste of time and effort.Ubikwit (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

This whole discussion is probably going to an arbcom. --Hinata talk 22:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not have to, the conclusion is not foreknown, and that end ratifies this discussions failure. Even if this source is declared reliable, which definition it fits, that does not mean that every utterance they publish has carte blanche placement rights. Don't treat every editing dispute as an extension of the Israeli / Palestine debate, nor get caught in the exact folly that makes that debate so intractable. Best yet accept Jesus in your lives which will really get you moving along towards the truth. --My76Strat (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For PFLP says fighters will continue to strike Israel, it's probably a reliable source. For A Palestinian man was killed and three others wounded by stray gunfire as gunmen in Gaza fired in the air to celebrate the ceasefire deal, maybe not. To support About 40 Palestinians were injured, I wouldn't trust it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Our NPOV policy allows you to hold your own prejudice to reach your conclusion. We do not teach POV, or bias our work. And we don't, or at least should not, cater to a POV. I may respect your reasons for doubting credibility of a source, but not allow that respect to censor the source. Being clear, we could not present this kine of contentious information in Wikipedia's voice. With in line attribution we can state that "such and such source stated ... " if it is itself relevant. But heck, everyone here already knows all this, probably much more, so I am probably wasting my time. --My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, that is the problem in a nutshell! However, not being one to write nutshells, rather tomes, here is my take on it. I doubt if there were a settler newspaper that claimed to "deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of living" as a settler on land Palestinians claimed as their own, it would be considered reliable for information regarding Palestinians. Or would a newspaper that carried op-eds claiming that Palestinian Muslims (rather than 'Jews') are universally hated conspirators, worse than feeding vampires and cursed by God to be deceitful and violent would be considered reliable about Palestinian Muslims? Could a paper that would publish such tripe be accepted as reliable about the people they clearly despise and by whom they feel victimized? No trustworthy news organisation would ever publish something as racist as that revolting opinion piece in Ma'an. It is something that you would expect to find on Stormfront - never on a respectable media outlet. This, in combination with its documented inaccuracies demonstrate its total unreliability with regard to Israel/Palestine situation. Opportunidaddy (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why the hostile reaction. I honestly don't get why people get ticked on things relating to is Israel. This dispute goes far back before this agency was ever conceived, and it is closely linked to that 1964 war. Palestinian Israel related articles are under sanctions too if I remember. --Hinata talk 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit User:AnkhMorpork gave a different reason for calling Maan News unreliable:

And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false

He seems to think that israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability, and anything that differs from them are false. When your perspective on reliability is so one-sided, you are bound to create a lot of conflict on a project that has a diverse user group. PerDaniel (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

He never said "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability." Cease henceforth from creating strawman racist arguments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question reformulated to re-start constructive discussion

The question I think we are being asked to rule on is this:

In Operation Pillar of Defense, is this report reliable for the statement On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone.?

The above is the way that a question on RSN ought to be formulated.

My opinion, based on WP policies and guidelines is, yes, it is RS for that statement. The report is based on an interview that the family of a dead man gave to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. We have no reason to doubt that the family gave their side of the story in that way. The Ma'an report in this case is consistent with an AFP report, also cited. The Israeli Navy view is also included: that the fisherman approached the exclusion zone from land and not from the sea. There does not seem to be any disagreement that the fisherman was killed and another man wounded.

The general character of Ma'an is only relevant to the extent that it affects the reliability of this particular text to support this particular statement in this particular article. It seems pretty clear that Ma'an carries a bias, which is typical of newspapers and news magazines but not typical of news agencies. Ma'an does not have the level of reliability of AP, AFP or Reuters. I do not (yet) think that, taken as a whole, it is an extremist source. The excerpt in Arabic that has been posted here is viciously antisemitic. It does not seem to be typical of material on the website, at least not on the English version. (The most recent article in the Analysis section is This Christmas, remember Palestine's Christians by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as far from extremism as you can get.) The article in Arabic does not appear on the English site. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable As I said above, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). In this particular case, other reliable sources have reported this incident, such as The Jerusalem Post, so I'm not even seeing anything contentious with this content or the source. That people get killed in a war is hardly an extraordinary claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-formulation rejected

The above post disregards the fact that the page Operation Pillar of Defense contains numerous quotes from ma'an, not merely the one mentioned by User:Itsmejudith. Therefore the reformulation they proposed is inappropriate. Meanwhile, User:WLRoss (Wayne) addressed some of the substantive issues involved, and deserves a response, even though ultimately his comments fail to refute the facts about the unreliability of ma'an, as I will show. User:WLRoss claimed that:

1. "That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts."

Unfortunately, this comment fails to address the substance of the contention of the unreliability of ma'an. A virulently antisemitic piece published by ma'an undermines its reliability. If Fox is similarly unreliable, User:WLRoss is free to submit such a contention at this page.

2. "Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?"

Here User:WLRoss seems to suggest that one pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (PMW) slandered another pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (ma'an) by falsely attributing an antisemitic tract to the latter. Frankly, this interpretation fails to convince. If indeed the original text disappeared from circulation, it is more likely due to the fact that it reached unintended readership and created an embarrassment for ma'an. If this is true, then the fact that ma'an suppressed the piece rather than disavowing it is yet another indication of incompatibility with WP:RS.

I see that this comment by User:WLRoss concerns "Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination" rather than the antisemitic article, so my comment above does not apply.

3. "Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used."

Note that the most reliable source cited by User:WLRoss as giving specific per capita figures is the World Bank Report, which cites a ratio of about 3 to 1 (more precisely, 3.2 to 1). This is still very far from the ma'an estimate of 70:1. User:WLRoss tries to defend ma'an on the grounds that ma'an did not specify their source. However, not specifying sources is indication of unreliability, and is not an effective defense.

4. "Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan."

Here User:WLRoss's description of the ma'an piece as "speculation" is inaccurate. ma'an did not describe its text as speculative, but rather as definitive fact. Anyone who re-reads the entry on the Itamar massacre with an unprejudiced eye will probably describe the ma'an piece on it as a total fabrication, not a speculation. This is another indication of unreliability. I would also be interested in some specifics on User:WLRoss's claim that "other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan". If these "other networks" reported the misinformation based on the ma'an fabrication, then this would undermine the contention that being cited by "other networks" is indication of ma'an's "reliability" (a contention contrary to fact).

5. "Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report."

To recall the facts, the said report alleges that dangerous pigs were released into palestinian territory so as to hurt the palestinians. A reliable news outlet would probably have sensored such a "report". If ma'an publishes a properly attributed claim that martians landed in gaza, would User:WLRoss similarly argue that this is called reliable reporting? Hard to believe.

6. "AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission."

Here I think User:WLRoss missed the point. These are not separate targets, but rather the same target. The "homes" that ma'an mentioned were the training camps. AFP did not omit anything. ma'an distorted the truth, providing further evidence of its unreliability in covering Operation Pillar of Defense-related news, similar to PMW that is generally acknowledged as unreliable.

7. "Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades." "

If these facts are accurate then this is indeed a weak point that does not contribute to the case for unreliability of ma'an. However, the combination of the other points is more than sufficient to put ma'an in the same category as PMW.

8. "@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne"

Thanks for pointing this out. I used the term "avowed" incorrectly. What I meant to write was "open", as in "ma'an's open antisemitism". Namely, ma'an published an openly (and ludicrously) antisemitic piece. This is surely indication of unreliability of a news service in what concerns its coverage of Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable by itself for this: On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone. I don't doubt the report is true, but the reason I accept it is that it's cited to AFP, not that Ma'an reported it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that judgment. What in WP:RS supports your position? nableezy - 16:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are rejecting my re-formulation as a question about whether a source supports one statement? That is at odds with the established methods of this board. I strongly suggest that we do look at the Ma'an references one by one. If you do not like that approach then please post on this board's talk page explaining why you wish us to overturn our usual method of one query at a time. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted at ANI for attention, since my efforts to try and prevent the content dispute spilling over here are not working. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question concerned the doubts about the WP:RS status of ma'an, and the contention that it is no more reliable than the related service (PMW) which is generally regarded as unreliable. The original question is a legitimate subject in its own right, as illustrated by the numerous concerns cited above. Moreover, a number of editors expressed an opinion in favor of declaring ma'an to be unreliable. I suggest we focus on this general issue. Certainly individual items need to be discussed as well, and I appreciate the proposal by User:Itsmejudith. However, the proposal has the (perhaps unintended) effect of eliminating from consideration certain items that are relevant. If you focus the discussion on the fisherman, there is no room left for discussing ma'an rabid antisemitism. Concerning this topic, it was pointed out above that the antisemitic piece did not appear on the English site of ma'an. However, this is precisely the problem. A news service that tailors its material according to the intended audience is itself of questionable WP:RS status. Tkuvho (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The truth on pigs?

I tried to research the pig situation and came across an interesting CNN article here which seems to suggest that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged the pig problem. Namely, after making the pig claim, the article goes on to say that Barak called the attackers "hooligans." Does Barak know more than we do, or does CNN know less than we do? If anybody has any relevant information this would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this sub-thread relevant to this board? Please explain, or move it to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a question about reliability of a source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If CNN got its information on pigs from ma'an, and if this information is as fantastic as it seems to be, then this is evidence that the fact of ma'an being cited by CNN does not support ma'an reliability, on the contrary. Tkuvho (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. A source can be reliable for statement X but not statement Y. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that ma'an meets the requirements of WP:RS. However, the discussion above indicates that a number of editors disagree. It is not clear why it should be obvious that ma'an is more reliable than PMW, which is generally avoided in sourcing articles. User:WLRoss accepted the framework of this discussion, and made some substantive objections. I responded in detail above in what is hopefully a similarly substantive way. I would encourage you to participate in the substantive discussion rather than attempting to redefine the debate away from the issue being discussed, which is the reliability or otherwise of ma'an. ANI reports do not contribute to a substantive discussion. Tkuvho (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And from which policy do we derive this opinion? ► Belchfire-TALK 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Best source for reliability concerns

Regarding the following:

• The original article published by http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com: CIA Cover-up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.csmonitor.com: Ph.D says JFK asked CIA about UFOs
• Re-published by http://www.foxnews.com: CIA Cover-Up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.msnbc.msn.com Is that JFK memo to the CIA about UFOs real?

I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [56][57]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lifeslittlemysteries.com is the sister site of space.com which syndicates its stories to news outlets like CSM, Fox, and MSNBC. The real question that you have not answered in this notice is how the source will be used. In terms of best practice, I always use the original story, but many editors do not. Also, syndicated stories may not always be published in their original form. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The source discusses a theory put forward by a self-published author in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#NASA conspiracy, but it does appear to be properly attributed to distinguish opinion from fact. WP:WEIGHT may be an issue, but I have no specific challenge. I was wondering if it was better to use the original source, and it sounds like from your comment that the original source is reliable and OK to use. Location (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare the original article to the syndicated version on the major media sites. If you find a direct match (and you'll need to look carefully because often times the editor will remove or change entire paragraphs) then in this case, use the major media site. I'm recommending this because most people may not have heard of "lifeslittlemysteries.com" and if the entire, full version of the original piece can be found on a major media news site, then name recognition will avoid any arguments for removal in the future. Of course, you don't have to do this, I'm just trying to cover all of the bases. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

At the minimum, cite the reliable sources (such as Christian Science Monitor). If you still want to cite Lifeslittlemysteries.com, add a article page comment explaining why you used this cite. Include a link to this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [58]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it already blacklisted? For a couple years now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous that it remains on the blacklist for critiscm of Wikipedia,  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)