Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• [1] cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

Poll source	Date updated	Ghalibaf	Jalili	Rezaei	Rouhani	Velayati	Aref	Haddad-Adel	Gharazi	Others	Undecided
Rasanehiran	11 May 2013	21%	10%	9%	7%	7%	5%	2%	1%	37%	1%
Akharinnews	12 May 2013	39.54%	7.21%	–	1.75%	24.74%	2.75%	7.68%	17.39%	–
Alborznews	13 May 2013	15.08%	1.00%	5.07%	0.05%	8.07%	1.03%	7.06%	18.06%	17.08%	9.03%
ie92	14 May 2013	18%	7%	12%	8%	7%	1%	1%	4%	40%	2%
Arnanews	15 May 2013	8.8%	9.3%	3.9%	0.2%	3.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	70.5%	3.1%
Iranelect	15–16 May 2013	47%	21%	14%	10%	–	–	7%	–	–
Kashanjc	16 May 2013	43.25%	1.25%	5.81%	1.97%	24.04%	2.21%	6.46%	4.17%	9.43%	–
ie92	17 May 2013	16%	7%	11%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	44%	2%
Iranamerica	18 May 2013	33.33%	11.11%	22.22%	11.11%	–	–	–	11.11%	–
ie92	19 May 2013	15%	7%	10%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	47%	1%
AleF	20 May 2013	19.8%	11.6%	4.6%	12.5%	13.2%	12.5	4.7%	1%	19.1%	1%
Farsnews	21 May 2013	20.1%	13.5%	10.9%	6.6%	7.4%	3.3%	3.1%	0.2%	31.9%	3%
ie92	22 May 2013	31%	17%	22%	13%	12%	1%	1%	0.1%	–	4%
Fararu	23 May 2013	18.84%	9.56%	7.49%	24.36%	3.86%	30.96%	0.93%	4.01%	–	–
Ghatreh	23 May 2013	17.57%	16.83%	6.38%	17.32%	6.9%	30.87%	1.16%	2.92%	–	–
Seratnews	23 May 2013	22.96%	40.47%	4.84%	10.14%	6.93%	9.97%	0.84%	3.84%	–	–
Ofoghnews	23 May 2013	20.00%	19.00%	6.00%	20.00%	8.00%	23.00%	0.1 %	4.00%	–	–

Journal of Student Research

Some anonymous IP editors want to include the text below in the article Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, in the section, List of MAOIs. I do not believe that the Journal of Student Research is a reliable source. I have opened a discussion on it here

Lemon Balm(ref)Natalie Harrington (2012). "Harmala Alkaloids as Bee Signaling Chemicals". Journal of Student Research. 1 (1): 23–32.(/ref)

The text is supported by an article in the Journal of Student Research, the mainpage for which is here. I do not think anything from this journal should be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Editorial policy, scope, etc is here. This is a journal of articles by students; the editorial page is not clear but one assumes the reviewers are other students. This is not professional science. Please weigh in! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If the reviewers are experts (eg, university lecturers) then it might be usable. I can't see any detail on who they are on the journal's website, however. The journal also doesn't appear to be sponsored by a university or other scholarly organisation, which is concerning. As such, I agree that this shouldn't be considered a reliable source on the basis of what's on its website. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

http://jofsr.com/index.php/path/pages/view/reviewers states that reviewers need a doctorate, and implies that they should be affiliated with an educational institution. --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the qualifications of reviewers as a deciding factor: we don't really know on what criteria they are judging. I suggest a better test would be whether the article is cited by other, reliably published, articles or books. I have a feeling this was discussed here a while back and a similar idea was proposed then (but, sorry, I haven't checked). Andrew Dalby 08:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I searched the archives before I posted this and found nothing. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

added section of Uttarakhand controversy in BLP of Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.

Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are [2] [3]

Hope not hate as source.

Hi everyone. I'm dealing with a rather... passionate editor over at the Ilias Kasidiaris article who is working from some, at least in my view, rather odd interpretations of wikipedia policy. It would be much appreciated if you could examine this article on the hope not hate website and let me know if you'd be happy that the second image presented there would be a reasonable source for stating that Mr Kasidiaris has a nice big swastika on his arm. Thanks in advance, everyone. Dolescum (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. Here is another source if it helps: [4]. Formerip (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional People Magazine

Should Exceptional People Magazine be used as a major source in Raul Julia-Levy article? It's an odd BLP article anyway, with a film director who a NY Times story in 2005 (which isn't in the article) says the BLP subject is actually an impostor called Salvador Fuentes. The whole thing is probably a BLP nightmare. But just on the one question, that magazine, Exceptional People Magazine should it be half the BLP's sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This page certainly doesn't give me any real reason to think that the source qualifies as a very good one. I don't see any real indication of any sort of peer-review, or, even, of much editorial supervision. I would guess it should be used if at all only very sparingly, in any article, let alone a BLP, and if there is any reason to believe that any of the material sourced from such a source is even remotely controversial or possibly non-neutral, I probably wouldn't include it at all. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving unreliable sources to "further reading" instead

Is this acceptable? When it has been concluded that a work is not a reliable source, can it then be moved to the further reading section? The manual of style seems to have very little in the way of guidance other than it being a list of "editor-recommended publications".

On art game, editors are recommending a self-published work by a non-expect, who has never been independently published. I've tried to remove it, but it got reverted. If "further reading" really is as anything goes as "editor-recommended", I'm not sure I can do anything else. Despite the work being self-published and given no coverage in reliable sources, it is held in very high regard by Wikipedians. - hahnchen 01:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Some context: as Hahnchen is well aware it has not been concluded that the work in question is not a reliable source. In fact the last time Hahnchen posted this same question at this board he was told "Obviously it can be hard for those not familiar with whether those blogs are reliable to say for sure, but one can see he's been mentioned. I think what matters most is does he have something useful and informative for readers". The subsequent compromise that has been agreed to by all parties (except Hahnchen) has been to move this source that Hahnchen is so strongly opposed to into a further reading section instead of citing it inline. This compromise comes after more than a month-long discussion during which time Hahnchen has been revert warring to delete the source in spite of the consensus compromise. Hahnchen has also been forum shopping at WT:VG (where he has received no support for his intended excision of the source from all corners of Wikipedia) and at the talk pages of both Art game and Video games as an art form. Hahnchen doesn't like the current consensus compromise and he's battle-grounding to get his own way. -Thibbs (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A link to the discussion where compromise was established can be found here. -Thibbs (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is consensus that a source is unreliable, I'd say it has no place in Wikipedia at all! Only one exception (I can think of)... Unless the unreliable source created controversy covered by reliable sources making it notable.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's too drastic. There are various web pages and websites that are likely to be useful to readers of a particular article, but that we can't accept as RS as sources for ourselves. Those kinds of links are candidates for the "external links" section: I don't see why we should change that.

Our definition of RS is a working tool: we need it to write better articles, but we don't need to impose it on our readers. If we did, we'd have to tell them not to read Wikipedia ... Andrew Dalby 09:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And there is certainly not a consensus that the source is unreliable. The author has been cited by academic and journalistic sources in dozens of established RSes for his opinions on video game topics. He's been specifically praised by several important RS journalists and his current website enjoys contributions from several other established RS journalists. The specific article that is the topic of the compromise is a comprehensive 104 page criticism of art games covering arguments made by numerous other RSes and it's been cited by an academic journal published by Simon Frasier University. A month of nasty arguments over this issue has resulted in a workable compromise and Hahnchen is the only one still kicking his feet and holding his breath to get his own way. I'm frankly sick of continually re-litigating this issue so I'll just link the evidence concerning the source's reliability here. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is quite clearly unreliable. Or else Thibbs would not have to argue that WP:RS does not apply to opinion pieces, and that we should set aside policy of WP:SPS that self-published authors must be established experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications.

That "comprehensive 104 page criticism" that Thibbs describes, is self-published, has not been reviewed. In it's entire publication history, it has been cited only once, in a paper which described it as "a lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed". That's what the only reliable source thinks of the book our editors have so tirelessly promoted.

In fact, the "further reading" section was created solely to promote this self-published work. - hahnchen 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was commenting above on Iknow23's general remark, not on this specific case. There is a "proposed policy" on Wikipedia:Further reading sections. The majority of articles don't have them at all. I quote briefly from the policy: "Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation." So if the book has had no other review than the one you quote, and isn't from a known reliable academic publisher, and isn't discussed in our article, the strong presumption would be that it doesn't merit listing under "Further reading". Andrew Dalby 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that an article whose premise is that artgames constitute legitimate art would negatively characterize the arguments of a book that makes the case for the opposite. The relevant point for us is that the academic article saw fit to mention the criticism at all. The author has received sufficient praise and third party RS citation to meet the strictures of WP:SPS and the use to which the book is put in the Wikipedia article in question is almost precisely the same as the use to which it is put in the academic article - namely to provide a counterpoint in the interest of neutrality. A review of the materials covering this topic clearly shows that this is the most comprehensive source on the topic of art game criticism. This is almost certainly the reason the academic article cites it. Whereas the academic opinion piece argues against its thesis, Wikipedia's approach is, if anything, more conservative - merely listing it as a relevant book on the topic. Again if any other comparable source can be located by Hahnchen or anyone else that covers this notable perspective in anywhere near the same degree of depth then it will be gladly accepted in place of the Kierkegaard article.

This has already been discussed ad nauseam and I'd encourage anyone interested in the discussion to review the numerous arguments that Hahnchen has made against the source during the last month. They span the gamut from accusations of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violations to simple failure to meet WP:RS to accusations of WP:PROMOTION and WP:BOOKSPAM. They start here, carry on here, travel next to here, and then here, and now we're here again. The upshot of all this discussion has been that a rough consensus has been achieved by all parties except Hahnchen who is fighting tooth and nail to remove the source. The constant badfaith accusations of promotion are extremely tiresome as is the revert warring (Hahnchen has now reverted 7 times at "art game" alone). If a single iota of evidence can be furnished that anybody is trying to promote the source unduly then I ask Hahnchen to furnish it. Otherwise I again repeat my request that Hahnchen stop using this inflammatory and false language and instead work to de-escalate the conflict by proposing constructive solutions rather than by entrenching himself in the battleground mentality and revert warring to establish his counter-consensus vision. -Thibbs (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs' assertion that the author meets WP:SPS (which is policy), is not true. The author has never been published by a reliable source. The only people who view his book as a high quality publication, and not a "lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed" are the editors who have taken ownership of the art game article. - hahnchen 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the author's views have been published in RSes where they have been the subject of discussion (both in praise of and in opposition to). SPS doesn't effect a bar for opinion based references that are not cited. This one is merely included in a Further Reading section per consensus, in the interest of NPOV, and based on the fact that the author has gained a degree of notability by being cited by, discussed, and praised by dozens of RSes. You've paid lip service to concerns regarding reliability but you are anxious for some reason to avoid applying WP:RS (where WP:RSOPINION is clearly the closest on point). Instead you prefer to use WP:V's section on SPSes, recurrently comparing this source to a pseudoscientific source on the physics of time where SPS would indeed be closest on point. The Kierkegaard source is an opinion piece. It's written by a repeatedly RS-cited author. It's the most in-depth work on the topic of art game criticism currently available. It's being included in the interest of neutrality and it's being placed unreffed at the end of the article in a small "further reading" section. The consensus for this compromise (the third suggested) was achieved after a month of your battlegrounding the issue. We're now discussing matters at the fifth (!!) talk page you've expanded to in an apparent attempt to fish for support. Is this really your best effort at collaborating constructively with your peers, Hahnchen? -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I argued for the applicability of WP:SPS because it is clearly policy, and has a clear standard of expertise, which the source fails. I moved away from WP:RS because that is a guideline (rather than policy), and to shut down your ridiculous argument that WP:RSOPINION allows for any opinion, as they are by definition "reliable as to the author's opinion". We are discussing this on the 5th page, partyly because every time it's discussed - you've shut it down with walls of text, yet failed convinced a single uninvolved editor on any of these pages that a self-published book by a non-expert is worthy of promotion on Wikipedia.

Conclusion: Editors at art game have managed to keep a self-published book promoted on Wikipedia, despite the fact that the author has never been published by a reliable source, and the only coverage this book has received declared it to be a "a lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed". Further reading is where anything goes. - hahnchen 13:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Further reading is not "anything goes". As you know the author of this source has been cited by dozens of RSes and praised by established RS journalists and the blog he runs has been written-for by established RS journalists. Although the source was characterized negatively by an academic journal, this is clearly due to the opposing thesis of the academic article rather than that the author happened to find an "internet nobody" (your words) that he wanted to promote. Just as Simon Frasier University's Felan Parker non-promotionally discussed Kierkegaard as a counterpoint to his thesis, Wikipedia should non-promotionally list some kind of a source as the counterpoint to what will otherwise be the sole and non-neutral thesis of its further reading section. Neutrality is also policy at Wikipedia as well as one of the five pillars, you know? If you had spent a fraction of your time doing the research to find an equivalent or superior alternative source instead of searching for new fora to fish for support for your draconian approach then perhaps we could have buried this whole issue long ago. I have tried to locate such a source some time in early August but I was unsuccessful. I truly hope you will be successful in finding a replacement if you're willing to try. Again this author is not broadly considered homophobic or pseudo-intellectual by the RSes and your attempt to cast him in this light is nonsense. Please see the evidence you yourself anchored to here (Key words: "delightfully well-written and geeky", "unfairly ignored", "interesting", "cogent", etc., etc.). That an academic journal author saw fit to dispute the opinion of this dozens-of-times-RS-cited author is clear evidence that the author represents a notable perspective within the art game discourse. That the editors who have actually invested the time to create art game seem to agree that the source is useful and informative for readers is more indicative of the fact that actual research on the topic shows the source to be appropriate to an encyclopedic coverage of the topic rather than that a secret plot exists to promote the author. -Thibbs (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament

The following has again been deleted from the Gospel of Matthew

• Today, some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. (David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303) Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” ( Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101)

However, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are said to be on the fringe of Biblical scholarship and NOT reliable sources. Particular hostility seems reserved for Ehrman.

Requests

1. Do any of the aforementioned qualify as reliable sources re Biblical scholarship and New Testament studies?
2. Do they adequately support the above edit?

I have supplied links and I am available to answer any questions. Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would accept Ehrmann and Duling (writing in Blackwell) as reliable sources. I don't know Casey, and Continuum has published some questionable crap. On the other hand, Casey's qualification is not too shabby. However, I have a hard time getting the proposed text from the sources. For example, Duling says that Papias is in general regarded as fairly reliable, not in particular, and immediately and strongly argues against the thesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources listed, the one which would seem most likely to merit the least objections would be the Blackwell, although I haven't, at this time, seen reviews of it, and they can be important, because even reference books, at times, contain articles or material which falls outside the academic mainstream. When they do, that is generally indicated in the reviews. However, there are additional details beyond simply being reliable sources. The Blackwell, for instance, seems to run some 16 pages or so of printed article text at least on the topic of the Gospel of Matthew. That being the case WP:WEIGHT is potentially another consideration, as our own article is not quite that long. I also share the reservations expressed by Stephan Schulz above, particularly regarding how Duling seems to be arguing against the idea, which, based solely on that, might be an indication that the idea is perhaps one which received some attention when the source was published, but perhaps no particular support, which might indicate that the idea might perhaps have the same level sort of support in the academic community that the ideas of Michael Baigent and other fringe/sensationalist sources might have. That being the case, I tend to think that the better place for this discussion might be the WP:FTN, and that this same editor has already been recently discussed there, in the past month in fact, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Gospel of Matthew. I think it would probably be useful for anyone involved to review the material there as well. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've also been involved in a another noticeboard discussion about this recently, although I can't remember where. I think the Ehrmann reference may have been introduced since then.

The main issue here is that there doesn't seem to be any reliably sourced scholarship supporting the idea, via Papias, that Matthew wrote Matthew or a version thereof. The extract above combines bits of information from here and there so as to give the impression that this is a credible theory (though without directly saying that). Without a source that explicitly backs the theory, that's original research. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, these three sources are reliable.
2. No way! The material you quote, in the context in which it appeared, distorts these sources, all three of which say that the document described by Papias is a lost book and certainly not our Gospel of Matthew. Blackwell and Casey further say that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek (Blackwell cites this as the consensus view of "modern specialists in language"), with Casey declaring the view promoted by this paragraph "complete nonsense". - Cal Engime (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, at least to my eyes, given the fact that the same editor raised the same point on another board in the past month, in the link to RSN I provided above, this section here raises serious questions in at least my eyes regarding WP:TE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, glad to have your input. As always you make a number of good points. However, I do not think WP:TE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING apply here. At the Matthew talk page on several occasions it was argued that the trustworthiness of Papias re the Hebrew Gospel was a fringe theory. That is why it was raised at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It was decided that because of the large number of sources that raise the trustworthness of Papias issue, that Wikipedia:Fringe theories should not apply. Most agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See diff, diff, diff and diff )

With the fringe theory issue resolved the debate shifted to the reliable sources issue where you debated User:Smeat75 and User:Ignocrates over the past month. I must say you held your own.

Please read this.

I have not looked in at wikipedia for a few months for various reasons but did so today and see this discussion. I must say that in my opinion John Carter's statements about Bart Ehrman do not show a grasp of the policy he quotes, WP:RS, which states at the very beginning "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Ehrman is certainly "authoritative" on his subjects and the information from my edit in April quoted above is now a little out of date as he has two more forthcoming books on the New Testament to be published by Oxford University Press,[[5]]. It is disturbing to me that a powerful admin such as I believe John Carter to be seems to think he can decide that a respected authority with seventeen books published by OUP is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books". It seems to me from what John Carter says that his attitude is really a case of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and therefore he thinks it should not be here. Regards, Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC) It should also be noted that Ret. Prof. had himself already agreed in a separate discussion thread that Ehrman's popular works do not meet the level of scholarship indicated for WP:RS. And, yes, I also agree with several articles I have seen in academic journals, and even as I remember Ehrman himself in one interview, that popular literature in general is geared for a popular audience, tends to undergo thorough review and suggested changes to make it more appealing to the popular audience, and often winds up being something which, maybe in some cases, the author himself wouldn't necessarily support as being of optimal academic quality. Such popular material has material motivation to some extent as well, and the packaging and sometimes weight of material in such books is sometimes strongly influenced by editors looking for optimal profit. Personally, I read just about everything Ehrman writes, because his material is among the most accessible and easily understood out there. I first encountered him with his lectures from The Teaching Company, honestly, and was very impressed there as well. But popular sources are in general less well regarded than academic sources, and if we can find an academic source which says what Ehrman says, they would be the better sources. If Ehrman says something that academic sources don't say, then there might be a problem, and I think it not unreasonable that such information isn't necessarily acceptable simply on the basis of Ehrman having said it, particularly on central articles whose encyclopedic articles elsewhere sometimes run to over 40 or even 100 pages. However, yes, I believe it not unreasonable to say that a source can be "questionable" for use by us as per WP:RS if the source is not an academic source. Also, FWIW, I think I remember somewhere urging people to read Action Philosophers!, a comic book of all things, because it according to its reviews and my own experience of having read it does a better job of more clearly and straightforwardly presenting the thought of some philosophers, like Wittgenstein, than many or most of the academic sources. The same can be said for Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. Now, in general, except for perhaps particularly wonderfully phrased comments expressing a point more clearly and effectively than other sources, I do think that, in general, they shouldn't be used here either. Unlike some other academics, like James Tabor, so far as I can see Ehrman submits his work to academic journals for review, and in general receives good reviews. I believe that it might have been better had Smeat75 actually reviewed the prior discussion on this topic by Ret. Prof. and myself, which he apparently had not done, and also perhaps reviewed the rather inflammatory comments made by Ret. Prof. in which he clearly refused to AGF others regarding their reservations about including this material in an article. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) This is probably not the right place,another user's talk page, to continue this discussion, however I cannot help but ask if you think Oxford University Press (publisher of seventeen books by Bart Ehrman) and Harvard University Press (publisher of two) are publishers of "popular books?" If Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press are not "academic sources" then what is? Also as the WP article on Ehrman says: Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks and WP:RS says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The "popular books" by Ehrman you refer to are only a small portion of his output and the only difference between them and the academic works is that they do not have scholarly apparatus such as a lot of footnotes and references. Writing NYT best-sellers does not disqualify a recognised authority from being WP:RS.Smeat75 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC) You seem to feel obliged to make this comment repeatedly in multiple places, even if you beleive that they might not be the best place to comment. If, as you say, you can't help but discuss this matter, then maybe you require some outside assistance in not going offbase like this? The question is, I guess, whether the books being considered are published by the academic presses or not. I have not reviewed the specific quotes, but, if they aren't, they do not by default qualify as academic just because his other books are published by Harvard or Oxford or whatever. The quote about Ehrman from our article is also, frankly, worthless in this context, And, honestly, your unwarranted assumption in the last sentence of your little The rather completely irrelevant last sentence is also, honestly, worthless in this context. There is also one other, very significant, difference between his popular books and his academic books, the fact that they are written for a general audience and are, basically, "written to sell." Being an academic does not automatically indicate that someone's NYT best-sellers doesn't perhaps disqualify material which is not of a scholarly standard as reliable sources, either. Honestly, in cases like these, like I said above and elsewhere in the previous discussion regarding this topic, which you seem to have ignored, the best sources for an article are those which are cited in reference works (of whatever kind, including high-level textbooks I suppose). If you can indicate that Ehrman is cited in them, by all means do so. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I think you need to read WP:RS, especially noting the sentence "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" and WP:NPOV, paying particular attention to "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Smeat75 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC) And I very honestly believe that these comments of yours are themselves almost incoherent. You seem to be taking the opinion that each and every word uttered by someone who is generally regarded as a reliable source on a topic is to be taken as of equal weight. That has never been the case. If you were to review the history of the RSN, you would find that the editors there have rather often taken the position that someone who is in general a reliable source on a topic, but who also promotes a fringe theory related to the topic, is not considered a reliable source for the inclusion of the fringe theory. I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there. Feel free to raise these questions at WT:RSN, where I think you would get perhaps broader response, but consensus is in general that in general your comments above are right, but what we try to do is determine exactly how closely any individual source meets RS standards for the specific usage to which it is being placed. Ehrman has, in recent years I am told, taken a rather stronger position on the theoretical oral traditions of early Christianity than is supported by the bulk of the academic community. While that view might not specifically meet "fringe," it is perhaps a very distinctly minority position which might not, in some cases, meet WEIGHT requirements for a specific article. That is more or less inherent in the "fairly, proportionally (emphasis added), and as far as possible..." quote you used above. Proportinality is, as I think you can see, held to be more important than inclusiveness, at least per the comparative emphasis and weight given it in the sentence you quote. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Fyi, the issue re Ehrman was already raised at RSN as well as FTN. John Carter seems to have a massive problem with WP:I DON'T LIKE IT coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ignocrates (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the information. FYI, RSN only deems whether the sources can reasonably be used, not whether they are the best available sources out there. There is a difference, whether you have ever been able to recognize it or not. And your own huge problem with stalking, which I have to believe most people would consider the above edit to be, jumping to clearly prejudicial conclusions for no other apparent reason than to engage in petty personal attacks, which I believe is another long-term habit of yours which can be documented, and your own obvious almost absolute disregard for WP:POV is a much bigger problem, which, depending on the time I have available for this purpose in the next week, I would expect to be raised to ArbCom within the next week or so. I believe their conclusions about who has the most serious stalking and harassment problems will, basically, eliminate the problems you have presented and seemingly continue to present here. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC) My fyi was directed to Smeat75, so keep your accusations of stalking to yourself. Btw, "best available sources out there" is a subjective judgement. Do you have a scholarly review ranking who is "best"? I don't think so. In fact, your "best" is based on nothing but your own bias. Since you are not competent to contribute to article content in this category, by your own admission, there is no reason to take your recommendations about the "best" sources seriously either. Ignocrates (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Ignocrates, much as you apparently think otherwise, you are not an all-powerful entity who can make demands such as "keep it to yourself", and such arrogance is one of your long term problems to be addressed. And, FWIW, I think just about any reasonable editor with a substantial history around here would know that the sources which are most relied upon by other sources are among the ones we should most rely on here. As we both know, you yourself had for some time done your best to ignore the RSN comments regarding the reliability of The Jesus Dynasty, so it is amusing that you now seem to rely on it, at least when it doesn't disagree with you. And, however you say after the fact your statements were indicated, the content of it is also relevant, and it seems to not unreasonably be a form of personal attack, which, admittedly, I am more than used to from you at this point. And the issue of your own, fairly obvious bias, which seems to have existed from your very start here, which is itself a matter other editors should take into account when considering anything you say around here, and which will be one of the major considerations in arbitration when the request is filed on Sunday or next Thursday. Given the amount of time it takes to develop the lists of encyclopedic content I am still working on, I tend to concentrate on it. And, FWIW, there is an article on "reference works" in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion which lists some of the most reliable and relied upon sources on the topic of religion. Also, yes, there is at least one I believe book (it might be an article, I haven't checked it recently) on the "best" reference sources out there, but the only one I can remember which dealt with religion is the Coptic Encyclopedia, which isn't relevant to this topic. So, Smeat, take into account the history, rationality or (in the case of the last one above) irrationality of the comments here as well, and the prior history of editors who have displayed a history of POV pushing which is become so bad that they are being taken to ArbCom shortly. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there." I do not know how anyone could get that impression from what I said. Here is what needs to happen - "Bart Ehrman says x, citing source, however this other authority, citing source, says y". Not "Bart Ehrman says x but there is a "better" source that says y so we can't use Ehrman." It is really quite simple and I must say it surprises me that you don't know that.Smeat75 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) What I think needs to happen is that someone, probably you and some others, need to read WP:PSTS. Ehrman's books, which are in general highly regarded, admittedly, are also in most cases tertiary sources, much like encyclopedias, as he is most often just repeating the comments of others, from what I have seen, and not really discussing anything which is more or less original to him, much like the two comics I mentioned above. It is really quite simpole and I guess I must say that it surprise me that you apparently haven't paid much attention to policies and guidelines other than RS. It is not the only guideline here. I believe Ret. Prof., who is, as he said, reviewing policies and guidelines, may well know that. I would perhaps also suggest that certain parties perhaps read WP:FORUMSHOP. In general, the best place to ask about matters relating to policies and guidelines is to ask the person directly, probably on their individual talk page, unlike, like I saw, on one of the noticeboards. But, yes, even policies and guidelines do indicate some sources are preferable to others. Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions, it is rather simple, and something most people get fairly quickly, that probably the best place to raise them is either at RSN or of the individual directly, not on administrators' noticeboards or on the pages of third parties. I very strongly suggest that the thing that most needs to happen is that certain editors familiarize themselves with all guidelines and policies, perhaps, in this case, particularly you. Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources, more or less the people who present the ideas under discusssion in the first place, rather than people who repeat them later. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) "Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions " Yes, I have a serious question,. What does that previous sentence mean? It is incoherent. " Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources " That doesn't make any sense either - "A lot of his work is secondary but we prefer secondary sources?" Eh? I note that once again you have compared the work of probably the leading NT scholar of today to comic books and if you think Ehrman just repeats things in his books that he has got out of other books you need to read Ehrman's works.Also I did not "forumshop", I joined discussions you were taking part in in two places.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC) P. S. I would also suggest that you might be interested in checking some of the various reviews of reference sources which are generally created. If you were to do so, you would see that, in a number of cases, the reviewers themselves rather clearly state that some sources are better than others. Certainly, several indicate that one or more given articles within reference sources are better, or worse, than those in others, or otherwise speak of the comparative quality, accuracy, and neutrality of the sources. In fact, a few of the databanks I have access to have the content from one such journal, whose title is "Reference and User Services Quarterly or something similar, which generally contain reviews of reference works every issue, most of which generally contain some degree of comment similar to that I indicate above. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC) What other publications or websites may do is a matter for them, of course. This site has its own guidelines and policies, which despite the fact that you hand out admonitions to others about them, it does not seem to me that you understand at all. You must have read WP:NPOV but what you say does not even come close to following it. It is no business of anyone here to sit in judgement on respected scholars and their writings and say "here he is like a comic book, can't use that, here he is like a "tertiary source ", so can't use that,(interesting question, how can the same writer be like a comic book one minute and an encyclopedia the next?), here he is WP:FRINGE,can't use that, here he is OK maybe, but there is a "better" source over here so we will use that instead". It is all quite ridiculous, if there is a gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% WP:RS source, it is a leading academic, scholar and NYT best-selling author with seventeen books published by OUP.Smeat75 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) There are also a matter as per WP:WEIGHT, which specifically deals with the matter of which sources are to be given more weight in articles, based on the level of acceptance they have in the relevant community. which is yet another guideline we are supposed to follow. I also note how on this page you seem to have regularly given yourself the right to hand out admonitions, on, so far as I can tell. I have read WP:NPOV, several times in fact. Believe it or not. Also, if you could be bothered to follow the links to those articles, which seemingly you have not done, you would note that both those comics sources are also tertiary sources, as per the guideline above, and one of them, Gonick, is one I know to be at least used as a junior college textbook. What I believe is "quite ridiculous" is that you seem to believe that apparently, simply on the basis of an individual's reputation, each and every word he has ever stated must be regarded in some sense as reliable. Nowhere in any policy or guideline is such a remarkably irrational statement made. It seems to me quite clear that you refuse to believe that anything other than WP:RS can be made to apply in instances where you have a clear opinion, and that more than anything seems to indicate to me your own remarkable lack of understanding. Also, I would call to the attention of anyone reviewing this that, at no point have you ever done anything to indicate where the question you are raising was raised earlier. That is a rather serious question in and of itself. Carl Sagan, who had similar credentials to Bart Ehrman, was actually damned to hell in the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel Escape from Hell because, despite his having similar credentials, he toward the end of his life misused his name to promote the now widely discredited "global cooling" hypothesis, primarily to get media attention, according to that book. Despite those similar qualifications, however, he has been not been given the blind, mindless, total acceptance that you seem to indicate per your comments above must be given to every "leading scholar," even in those cases where he is specifically taken positions which are in sometimes clear contradiction to those of the academic community. I am sorry that you cannot seem to grasp the fairly basic and obvious conclusion that your own remarkably prejudicial assessment of Ehrman as a "gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% source" in some matters does not mean that he meets the same standard for each and every statement he has ever made. Regarding your threat of RfC/U, please feel free, but also realize that filing unwarranted complaints and accusations is itself a serious violation of conduct guidelines, and WP:BOOMERANG might well apply. If you are capable of pointing out specific instances where you believe this source has been removed, which you have to date refused to do, vy all means do so. It should be noted that Ret. Prof.'s own complaints were primarily about Ehrman's support of the oral gospel tradition, a belief which he gives much more weight and credibility to than most other "leading scholars," although obviously some cherry-picked supporters of any hypothesis can be found. I also believe it would be very interesting to add yet another instance of possible harassment against Ignocrates, considering that I expect to have a complaint regarding him filed to the Arbitration Committee for review and action within the next week or so. I imagine any complaints about similar conduct from others would be likely addressed as well. If you do have serious questions about any particular instances of where you think this source has not been given due weight, feel free to provide them, something you have to date seemingly refused to do. If you decline to do perhaps the only useful thing you might do regarding this matter, then, honestly, I believe it would probably be in your own best interests to review the conduct guidelines and content guidelines, which clearly include much more than simply WP:RS, and perhaps try to understand the application of some of the other guidelines as well. Good day. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC) And, to Ret. Prof., seeing how others have pointed out at WP:FTN regarding the Gospel of Matthew that you seem to have used quotes from various sources as support of beliefs/theories that are actually opposed by them, I think that it probably is a very good idea for you to at least take a break, and also read all the guidelines, including those which deal with the correct and incorrect use of sources, as you seem to have done there. Really, I cannot see any excuse for such conduct, and it is very, very hard to believe that such apparently willful misuse of sources to support beliefs that they do not in fact support is something you shouldn't already very clearly know should not be done. There honestly is no acceptable reason for doing so. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It was at the conclusion of this debate (I even remember some other discussions with User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz) that I sought help here carefully following all WP policy guidelines. My position is that Casey, Ehrman and Blackwells are clearly reliable sources. The main issue is to what degree do they support the trustworthiness of Papias re Matthew's early account in Hebrew (Aramaic).

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

• And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
• This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Issues

1. Trustworthiness: After reading pp 98-101 carefully, the central theme is that the testimony of Papias is trustworthy for it is testimony that "is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves."
2. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel: It is true that Papias “knows” that there was a "collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew". Nothing is said to challenge this fact.
3. BUT "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the book that we call...Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." Therfore, although Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not the same as the Gospel of Matthew, there was a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew!

Where conservative scholars (and for that matther user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed.

All of the following tertiary sources discuss the trustworthiness of the Papias tradition.

• Blackwells (2010) p 301,

• Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus (2008) p 256,

• New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) p 357

• ESV Study Bible (2012) p 1815,

• Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990) p 558

• The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (2013) p 891,

• The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. p 281

Over 179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic.

Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

As I said we are close to consensus re Casey, Ehrman & Blackwell being reliable sources but do they support the deleted edit? If the edit goes beyond the sources, Why?...and how can we fix it? 13:35, 31 August 2013‎ Ret.Prof (talk | contribs)‎ .

Ret.Prof, I thought you had recused yourself.

The enormous mass of these posts, and the continued reappearance of the same arguments again and again and again and again and again are incredibly tiring. As far as I have been able to follow the issue is not whether (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable, but whether the use to which quoted extracts are put to get "Lost Hebrew Matthew" "Authentic Matthew" etc. into key Wikipedia articles to promote a view 180 degrees the opposite of modern scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is Ret prof at it again? I can't be bothered to read the wall of text, but can I assume this is more of the same, namely an effort to include an argument supported with citations to respected authors who explicitly reject the argument? If so, let's file at AN/I right away and solicit a topic ban. Enough is enough. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi - I am overjoyed. Are you saying that you agree (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable sources. If so then I agree with you on the other issues and will let you do the honors of editing "The Gospel of Matthew" from a NPOV!

@ Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• SERIOUS BREACH OF WP POLICY - Eusebius: This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof., it is not your place to say that. If other editors do have serious reservations about the matter of your conduct, possibly including misuse of noticeboards or other forms of tendentious editing, which multiple editors have now expressed, it is not unreasonable for them to do so here. It is probably not the optimal way to do so, but it is generally accepted. It most certainly is not your place to misuse this noticeboard with such prejudicial, judgmental statements either. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Valid Source?

Could something from here be used as a valid source? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310Z07x10 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page. You need to let us know the article concerned, the source material (you've only linked the front page), and the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Youtube?

Can the various Youtube links cited as references in Dan Meyer (performer) be regarded as reliable sources for the details of the life and achievements of the subject? My own inclination is to remove them all forthwith, but I'd like to get the opinion of others before I do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not inherently unreliable. It's a medium like a television program, radio broadcast, or newspaper. The question to ask yourself when evaluating a YouTube source is what is the actual origin of the video. There are three situations that are commonly encountered in reviewing citations to YouTube.

1. If YouTube is being used by an official source as a way to broadcast official claims (e.g. if CNN uses YouTube to host some online interviews) then we can rely on CNN's reliability to allow the source. This kind of ref is perfectly fine, although it may be susceptible to link rot and a hard-copy source may be preferable.
2. If the actual source is JohnnyReb74723 or something like that then clearly it's just a single person's interpretation and it's most likely a non-RS. This kind of ref should definitely be removed.
3. It's a little more tricky if JohnnyReb74723 is mirroring a video originally created by CNN (especially if the CNN video was recorded off the TV from a TV program), but Wikipedia's policy in this case has been to avoid linking to the video as it is a copyright violation on YouTube and such a link would represent Contributory copyright infringement on Wikipedia's part. The solution in this third case is to simply cite the original CNN program without linking to JohnnyReb74723's YouTube video.

I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a very complete and helpful reply, thank you, and confirms my own less clearly formulated thoughts. It seems to me that a video such as this, apparently posted by Dan Meyer, falls into the second and possibly also into the third category. It also gives no information at all relevant to the article about him. Does that seem to be a correct evaluation? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If it could be established that this really is Dan Meyer's official channel then potentially it could be used to cite claims in the Dan Meyer Wikipedia article as a WP:SPS. But from looking at the Dan Meyer article here, it seems that this video is being used to bolster a claim regarding audience reach which does not appear in the video. Anyway generally it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to make an original claim and then to back it up with an instance of the claim in effect. In other words if you're looking to reference a claim that "Johnny built a house" then you need to find an RS where that actual claim is presented (either words or voice stating that "Johnny built a house" or something similar). A video of Johnny apparently building a house is technically not good enough since it requires the Wikipedia editor to interpret it and this is considered original research. This is a pretty hardline way of looking at it, though, and there may be resistance to edits removing those kinds of claims especially if the amount of interpretation the editor has to make is very small. -Thibbs (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable self-published source?

Source: [6]

Article: Human skin color, recently added to International migration, French Uruguayan and Immigration to Argentina as well

Content: File:Human_displacement_map_of_the_world.jpg

"In this map the average skin color of each country is used as way to highlight the effects of the migratory trends in the last century"

I have been involved with User:Czixhc over the last few weeks about whether this map meets the reliable sourcing requirements of WP:V. The only source provided is self-published and the discussion is whether the author meets the extra requirement of WP:V#Self-published_sources - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The discussion can be found at Talk:Human_skin_color#Discussion_about_the_Human_displacement_map_of_the_world

The source claims that "In this project the (von Luschan) scale is transposed on to the surface of the Earth, in accordance with data from the latest national census and includes an inset of Renatto Biasutti's infamous map[7] showing the skin colour of "native populations". On the surface this sounds reasonable but there are same seriously major issues here:

• Census data doesn't report skin colour, it reports self-identified ancestry which often covers a range of skin colours. For example "African American" from the US census includes people with skin colour ranging from lighter than Halle Berry's to darker than Samuel L Jackson - which skin colour did Hagos assume for "African Americans"?
• Some census categories don't appear on Biasutti's map at all, eg "Hispanic/Latino" from the US census. This is a post-migration admixed population and so doesn't appear as a "native population" anywhere on Biasutti's map - what colour did Hagos decide to use for "Hispanic/Latinos"?
• Some censuses don't collect ancestry information at all, such as the Indian census. Biasutti's map has 4 different colours in India, so how did Hagos come up with an average for this country?
• The census categories aren't always represented by a single colour on Biasutti's map - like with "African Americans", where there are 5 different colours that Biasutti used for Africa. Even if all "African Americans" had the same skin colour (which is not true) how did Hagos decide which of the 5 "African" skin colours to use?
• Biasutti's map is not considered accurate for modern use - it was made using obselete methods and is known to contain inaccuracies (both Hagos and the description on File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png acknowledge this)

It is quite simply impossible to accurately transpose the colours from Biasutti's map to the average skin colour of various countries today - the census categories and Biasutti's "native populations" aren't measuring the same thing and they just don't align in any meaningful way. This map is heavily based on the authors personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data.

The creator of the map is Jonathan Hagos of the Architecture faculty at Oxford Brookes university. Data from the author's personal webpage [8] and his staff page at Oxford Brookes[9] show his education, qualifications, employment and publications are all in the field of Architecture, and while he is a professional in that area, there's probably not enough evidence to qualify him as an "established expert" in that field. In addition he has made a number of artistic design works including other maps (eg [10], [11]). These works are clearly interpretive and not scientific documents, and are described on the site thus: "Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."

Czixhc initially claimed that Hagos was an expert in human skin colour, but has acknowledged this is not the case (or at least given up on it) and is now claiming Hagos is an expert in migration instead. Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. Secondly, I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture).

Czixhc arguments for Hagos being an expert in migration are basically: 1. The sentence "Research Interest and consultancy expertise: My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." on the Oxford Brookes page, which he insists proves that Hagos has worked as an expert consultant in migration, and 2. "Examples of recent projects: Production Designer on the feature film 'Simshar', exploring recent trends of illegal immigration in the Mediterranean and the impact on local communities on the islands of Malta and Lampedusa." which he insists means Hagos has been published in the field.

The problems with his arguments are: 1. "Research interests and consultancy expertise" allows for listing of one or both of his interests/expertise and doesn't mean that everything under it is "consultancy expertise". The text used is almost identical to the text use by Hagos to describe his artistic works on his personal site so it's clear that he's talking about this design work, not work in the sense of employment. 2. A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any).

To me this is a straightforward example of an unacceptable self-published source - it is clearly a creative work by a non-expert not a scientific document by an expert. Czixhc disagrees and has starting adding the map to any page with "Migration" in the title so I'm asking here to help end the discussion - is Hagos's map a reliable source as per WP:V?

Tobus2 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and thanks for your well-detailed case here. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've noticed that an administrator said that the file of the human displacement map of the world isn't reliable, however, that might have been decided based only on tobus2 claims without having considered my point of view in this discussion, so i will present my side of the case and will adress every complaint made by tobus2 (because better later than never) before starting i have to say that all the points and concerns that tobus2 wrote where already adressed in the talk page of the article where we've been discussing all this time, however regardless of that tobus2 came and wrote all that he wrote in this section pretending that nothing of that happened. With no more delays here I go: the image is reliable because it is done by an stablished expert on the field: Jonatahan Hagos, you can verify it here on the website if the Oxford Brookes University: [12]

• Research Interest and consultancy expertise:

My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.

The first thing i notice is that tobus2 uses a reasoning similar to the one he used in the talk page before: That it can't be valid because the site allows to mention both things "consultancy expertise and research interest" so it can be only one because the site doesn't specify on a implicit way which is which, however, that's false, because at the beginning of the quote the phrase "My work and research" is used, leaving clear that it's both, the only thing he does in that part of his post is to make assumptions based only on the bio found on his site, however the sections don't match at all, they aren't identical. what tobus does is to put in doubt the credibility of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University without any real back up. He also ignores that researchers backed up by prestigiousuniversities are well reliable.

In another part of his post he mentions that Hagos isn't reliable despite being working as a production designer on a film called Simshar, whose main topic is migration, it's causes and it's impacts (he conveniently didn't mentioned this), with he quoting this from the production designer article: (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" however he didn't mention that accord to the same article, the production designer isn't considered an art director anymore (he conveniently only says that is another name for art director) and that has multiple responsabilities on different fields in the production of a film. Another con on this part of his argument is that accord to [[13]] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (hagos is backe up on this part by the Oxford Brookes University) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties [14]), Again the assumptions he is doing aren't supported by any source, and he have admited to not be able to found sources or cite policies that agreed with the assumptions he is using in our discussion before [15].

Another of his arguments is that the map isn't situable because census data does not collect skin color information, however that's false because the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map [16] it's at the left side, in the bottom), he also says that biasuttis map is obsolete [17] However it is used on multiple articles (see file usage section) and have an article dedicated to it's methodology, and in fact, Hagos uses that map as a source and attemps at modernize it. He finally says that is impossible to get an exact representation of what skin color would be for each country, however the map doesn't attemp to be exact, the map strictly works with averages, and by the logic he is using the "completely accuracy" thing would be an issue on dozens of maps being used on wikipedia, icluding the ones already up on the human skin color article, isn't sensate neither objetive to ask so much to a particular map but let the other ones pass without any problem. He complains about the map being heavily based on personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data when the map bases itself only on scientific and governamental information, there is nothing that he is making up by himself, unlike tobus who uses oly baseless assumptions and intentionally half writes my arguments. And he have accepted his assumptions to be baseless before [18]

Now, besides tobus2 writing incomplete information and intentionally misinterpreting my posture another problem that i've found while discussing with him is that he bases his postures almost totally on assumptions, his own post on the reliable sources noticeboard contains various examples of this, like the second part of this one: A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any). - There is no policy that states that what he is saying about "only artistic knoledge being published" is correct, what the policy on verifiable sources say is that the expert in question must have work on the relevant field, and the movie's topic on which he is the production designer is on the relevant field on this case (migration and issues related to it). Here is another blatant example: Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. - This makes clear that he deliberately ignored my source (the Oxford Brookes University) that actually considers him a researcher and a consultancy expertise on the topic [19], another blatant lie: I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. - Apparently he forgot that the name of the map is Human displacement map of the world" and that on it's description is stated that it wants to highlight the effects of migratory trends [20], finally, here is another one: I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture) - The main topic of the map is migration and it's effects, and for the other factors included he uses information that is already accepted and included on wikipedia (like Biasutti's map and national census data) he is not "making up everything by himself" as tobus claims. In fact Hagos isn't doing anything for which he isn't qualified for. What tobus is doing is the old technique of "saying a lie as much times as possible, enough to make it pass as a truth" Here in the talk page are more examples of him making baseless assumptions again and again if anybody is interested on seeing more of his ways [21].

In short while his post above in the reliable sources noticeboard might have looked convincing, he only wrote half of the discussion (the elements that were on it's side) while leaving out, half-writing and misinterpreting all my arguments (he also wrote the section at an hour he already knows i'm not up on wikipedia, so i couldn't defend myself, he also used the same technique yesterday to attemp to get me blocked [22] but failed, this makes very clear that he is in no way a fair player). I understand that people here might have though that he was right for how he write it and what he write, but he intentionally ommited and misinterpreted all the things on which i'm basing my posture of this map being reliable and i have to ask to the administrator in question, and other people reding this to reconsider the decision after reading the full problematique, not only what tobus conveniently wrote to make me and my map look bad. Thank you all for your time. Czixhc (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In his university profile, Brookes writes that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." He isn't claiming to be an expert on any of these and he clearly isn't (if you think he is you'll have to provide citations to his work in publications written by people who are obviously experts). This map is being used to illustrate skin color, and he isn't an expert on that either. He's using what he says is a problematic and obsolete method[23]. And you say "the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map" but the map isn't reliable and it is certainly true that you can't determine skin color from a census. What you've written further convinces me that it isn't reliable - and I'm speaking not as an Administrator but as an editor with over 100,000 edits and a lot of experience in dealing with sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Straits Times Communities

An editor has asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hagen Troy whether a page such as this, posted on Straits Times Communities, should be regarded as a reliable source for the article on Hagen Troy, but has also raised the question of whether that site should in general be considered reliable. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

bollywoodboxofficenews.com

The site http://bollywoodboxofficenews.com/ has been used as a reference in a large number of articles about Bollywood films and movie stars. As an example, this subpage was used as a source for statements like "[actor's name] is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential actors in the history of Indian cinema", for instance in Mithun Chakraborty and Amitabh Bachchan. I do not dispute the claim that these actors are among the most important Indian movie stars, it's not an unreasonable claim to make. But up until a day or two ago, the site's disclaimer included the text

Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. All Informations Provided in this website are Purely based on unconfirmed media reports, news channel programs and gossips! Some of the compiled data includes Wikipedia statements. Statements and commentaries in this website can be entirely personal opinions and may differ from facts. BOLLYWOODBOXOFFICENEWS.COM will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.

This can be verified in archive.org; here's the version from Aug 24. Since that rather blatantly signals a non-RS, I went through some 40 articles a couple of days ago and removed all refs to bollywoodboxofficenews.com. Now a few of the refs have been returned with comments like "seems well-researched" and seemingly irrelevant statements about the disclaimer ([24], [25]) and when I look at the site again the footer has been changed to read

Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. Our film experts and analysts have tried their best to compile the data as acurately as possible and have made honest efforts to keep it factually correct. still, the data is for only informational purpose and BollywoodBoxOfficeNews will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.

It could be a coincidence that they have changed this right now.... but I really don't think so. The site does not have any hallmarks of being a reliable source, the anonymous "film experts" write very much like gossip columnists or fanboys, and I suspect serious refspamming and tweaking of the disclaimer to seem more trustworthy for the purpose of inserting links on Wikipedia pages. The content is still the same as it was before the tweak of the footer. I would like to see the site blacklisted, but since it's used as a reference I think this noticeboard is where the report needs to be posted, if for no other reason than to check if I'm right in my assessment of the source. --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment of unreliability is valid. If I were a gambling man, I'd think that the disclaimer has been changed in order to keep refs on Wikipedia and promote traffic to the site. No way can they have vetted all their prior published content and, if nothing else, using our articles as a source would make it a circular reference/mirror. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the research. Clearly not something we should be using, especially for WP:BLPs and I see no reason why it shouldn't be blacklisted, if only to make sure we comply with WP:BLP. If there's agreement about this we can request it be added. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point there's no evidence of widespread linkspamming/promotion, right? Isn't it just a few reverts by presumably goodfaith editors? I'd certainly be open to the idea of blacklisting it, but I consider the blacklist to be a final response to spam, not just a way to bar non-RS material (even if it's on BLPs). I'd be in favor of waiting and watching for now. For now editors adding or restoring links to the website can be reverted and pointed to this thread, but if the links become a problem again (40 refs is certainly problematic in this case) then blacklisting is a very viable option. -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

bdmilitary.com

I would like to know other people's opinion about bdmilitary.com, a "source" that is the only source on a large number of weapons related articles here on en-WP for claims about the types of weapon systems, and the number of weapons/vehicles/aircraft etc of each system, that are used by the Bangladesh Armed Forces. Claims and figures that in most cases aren't supported by other sites on the 'Net, or are only partially supported (such as for the BTR-80 where sources known to be reliable say 132 vehicles while bdmilitary.com claim over 500...). One such example is a Chinese-made self-propelled artillery piece designated PLZ-45 where bdmilitary.com claims that the Bangladesh Army has a number of battalions of that gun, a claim that is not supported by any other site on the 'Net (a search on Google for "Bangladesh" and "PLZ-45" lists only the WP article, where the source is bdmilitary.com, and a Pakistani forum that states that it got its info from bdmilitary.com). And the Sipri armstrade register has nothing on it, even though they list several other systems that Bangladesh has bought from China (the claimed PLZ-45 deal is not said to be a new deal, but an order placed in 2009 and delivered in 2010-2011, but Sipri still doesn't have anything on it). In addition to that bdmilitary.com has no information about where it gets its material from. As for the site itself the only info that I can find about it is that it is a private site, and not a government site. So what do you think? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can add that according to Sinodefence.com the only export customers for the PLZ-45 are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, not Bangladesh. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Two other sources, Global Security & Strategy Page also mention Bangladesh as a user. Sinodefence is a private website & there are many mistakes/errors in their PLZ-45 article. It was last updated in October 2008. According to bdmilitary.com, the Bangladesh army ordered PLZ-45's in 2009. The Policy Research Group in a January 2010 article stated: "Plans are afoot to acquire 155mm PLZ-45/Type -88 (including transfer of technology)". Aren't these three sources enough to prove the use of PLZ-45 by Bangladesh? I find nothing unreliable in that bdmilitary.com report (now a dead link but its text was copied & pasted on this forum). Maxx786 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Policy Research Group article you link to is dated 2010 and says that "plans are afoot to...", and thus does not in any way support the claim made on bdmilitary.com that Bangladesh signed a firm order in 2009 for a considerable number of PLZ-45s, and doesn't even support claims about Bangladesh ever having ordered any such systems. I would also like to point out that User:Maxx786 is one of the most notable/prolific supporters of bdmilitary.com as a source, and the seemingly incorrect, or at least very inflated, claims made there. Over the past year or so there has been a big problem on articles relating to military weapons and weapon systems here on en-WP, with IP editors geolocating to Bangladesh making exaggerated claims on multiple articles about the military strength of Bangladesh. And then bdmilitary.com, a domain owned by Ashiqur Rahman of Sydney, Australia (whois), with according to their Facebook page the motto "In Allah we trust & all others we dominate", suddenly starts to support those claims. Which makes me even more suspicious. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I agree with you about the lack of authenticity of bdmilitary.com. However, your figure regarding BTR-80 is not accurate. According to SIPRI arms register, Bangladesh Armed Forces has 232 BTR-80: 14 received in 1994, 78 received between 2001-2002, 60 received in 2006 and 80 received in 2011. Also, the most circulated Bangladeshi newspaper named "Prothom Alo" reported on August 24, 2013 that the government has bought 260 APC, 18 ARV, 15 APC ambulance, 44 3rd generation MBT, 2 helicopters, 18 SPAG and unknown number of Radar for Bangladesh Army in their 4.5 years. A details of the procurement has also been given on the same newspaper: Year 2008-2009 184 x truck - 3 ton - Japan - BDT 79.82 crore ২০০৮-০৯

Year 2009-2010 120 x APC, 10 x ARV, 10 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 510.95 crore

Year 2010-2011 44 x MBT-2000 Tank, 3 x Type Type-654 ARV - China - BDT 1201.81 crore 2 x Eurocopter AS365 N3+ Dauphin helicopters - France - BDT 179.42 crore ? X Radar - China - BDT 136.39 crore

Year 2011-2012 18 x Nora B52 SPAG - Serbia - BDT 541.34 crore 113 x Anti-Tank weapon System (unknown type) - Russia - BDT 222.07 crore 140 x APC, 5 x ARV, 5 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 651.45 crore

The same source also indicates that the Army also has an ongoing plan to procure"

2 x Aircraft, 3 x missile detection radar, Radio equipment, Multiple Launch Rocket System, lot of Anti-Tank weapons systems, ATGM and more APC.

Source: Prothom Alo. It is a Bengali news paper. Please translate it in English in google translator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 (talk • contribs) 11:32UTC, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've already tried to translate that article through translate.google.com, but it doesn't work. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

=> No issue. My translator worked. I am pasting the translated text as it is for you. Thanks.

Large block of text translated from Bengali to English, though probably not relevant for this particular discussion.

15000 crore weapons - Equipment Purchase Special Representative | Updated: 04:39, August 4, at 013 | Print version 19 and Four and a half years of military government purchasesThe former Soviet state of Belarus with the purchase of military equipment and technology exchange agreement said. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit to Belarus in the last 8 July between the two sides at the time - was the deal. The official said the agreement was not accepted. Awami League government for four and a half years in the military sector, a lot of shopping, but it was never published. At the Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Air), 15 thousand 104 crore for the arms, golabarudasaha various types of military equipment has been purchased. The eight thousand crore equipment purchase agreements with Russia. It is also in the process of purchasing equipment crore. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed the information. past four years in the purchase of military equipment sophisticated night fighter, yuddhajahaja, military helicopters, armored vehicles, missile and radar are different types. armed forces to learn more about business than the first light from the 1 March Inter-PR paridaptarera ( aiesapiara) Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces of the information is sought in writing. Aiesapiara are writing in response to the March 5, the National নিরাপত্তাসংশ্লিষ্ট because the answer is not possible. ' Armed Forces Day on November 1 last year, the Prime Minister in his speech on the occasion of the purchase of equipment for a variety of information. 7 February this year Parliament Questions and how to buy military equipment, he said. military purchases in this sector with one of the experts we talked to. They said, if the equipment is kinatei. Our defense - defensive policy should be. However, the attacker struck, we'll strick back, I'll break him continue to attack in front, it just is. retirement from the army, a post office name was not revealed in the light of conditions in the four and a half years in the shop, some people hope - a reflection of what is happening akanksarai. Defense policy because it is not a comprehensive shopping. However, if at any direction of the defense - must have the approval of the Cabinet Committee of Parliament. But he did not do anything. Through discussions with the defense policy not acceptable in the modern building at different times of the Armed Forces of the shopping options are not acceptable at all. Transparency is important, as well as the Gold said. former army chief Mahbubur Rahman said this context, the ability of the defense sector should be increased. In the case of investment required. However, the high-interest loan from Russia have been taken, they have never had. It's so high-interest loans for the events happened. This loan will be paid from the pockets of ordinary people. many shopping: Economic Relations Department of the Ministry of Finance has, from the beginning of the fiscal year 008-09 01 -13 fiscal year - three of the four years for 188 million U.S. dollars, or approximately 15 thousand 104 million of military equipment has been purchased. It has been bought by the army. For four years, five thousand of the 407 million of the 7 million worth of equipment has been purchased. Navy for four thousand 975 crore 49 lakh and the air force for four in 7 of the 13 million dollar equipment purchase. their business outside of Russia loans from the eight crore tanks devastating missile, armored vehicle (APC), pantuna Bridge, training aircraft, military helikaptarasaha the equipment purchase contract has been completed. From 0 to 018 in the April 15 annual installments over 10 years at 4 percent interest loan payments will be. Under the deal, weapons and equipment will be purchased in the 017. 013-14 fiscal year and the defense sector has been allocated a budget of 14 thousand 458 crore. The development of the armed forces of the 8 billion has been allocated. almost 100 million dollars more than the cost of creating the first submarine to complete yuddhajahaja (Submarine) government has decided to purchase. Pekuya upazila in Cox's Bazar Kutubdia channel submarine bases for the land allocation process. The military budget has been allocated to fund 14 percent of the 9. 13 of 88 crore in the previous year. The 011-1 of the fiscal year was allocated 11 thousand 978 crore. army: the current government came to power military and 60 armored vehicles, 18 military rescue vehicle, 15 APC ambulance, 44 third-generation tanks, two helicopters, 18 automatic cannon and military radar purchase. 008-09 79 million in the fiscal year from 8 million in Japan bought 184 tonnes of the truck. The next year is buying from Russia 1 0 armored vehicle (aramarda Personal Carrier - APC), 10 military rescue vehicle (aramarda Recovery vehicle - earabhi) and 10 APC ambulance. 510 crore 95 lakh purchase price of the equipment. Buying from China is 010-11 in fiscal year 81 lakh crore rupees of 01 MB The fourth generation of the 000 model 44 tank recovery vehicle and the military. Two helicopters were bought brand made ​​in France iurokaptara 4 million Rupees 179 crore. In that year, China bought from the radar is the cost of 136 crore 39 lakh. From next year, Serbia 18 automatic cannon (Self - propelada songs - esapigana) is buying 541 crore 34 lakh rupees. Russia seven million rupees from 222 million purchase of 113 tanks and equipment devastating. In the same year Russia 651 crore 45 lakh rupees buy 140 armored vehicles, five rescue vehicle and five APC ambulance. Sources said the Army for two aircraft, the missile detection radar, the radio sampracarakendra, multiple launch rocket systems, as well as some tyankabidhbansi weapons, short-range tyankabidhbansi gaideda uipana, episisaha the government's decision to purchase the equipment. Navy: the Navy for four years 16 new ships have been added. The 11 have been purchased with the assistance of the poor in China sipaiyarde creating five small-sized vessels. 008-09 163 crores in the fiscal year in Italy is buying the Maritime Helicopter. 141 crores were purchased from the same missile emake -1. 836 crore 87 lakh rupees in the next year, two large patrol vessels from China (elapisi) and five small patrol vessels are purchased. 136 crore 93 lakh rupees in the purchase of two ships and a survey of the ship. In addition, 30 of the 54 million to 50 million in China and 159 million missile radar equipment was purchased 64 lakh rupees. 010-11 of the fiscal year are brought to Germany for naval aircraft Maritime daraniyara two brands. The price of the 41 crore 38 lakh 78 thousand taka. On June 3, the last Navy air base's main kurmitolaya inaugurated. 659 crore 39 lakh rupees in the year one thousand two yuddhajahaja bought from China. This year, 65 million were purchased in two phrigeta. transparency Gold Navy Vice Admiral M Farid Habib want to know more about the June 3, said the Navy Gold transparency of all time. No irregularities of any kind. airforce: 009-10 of 33 billion rupees for the fiscal year flight from China is buying sbalpapallara air defense systems (esaeicaoaraedi). -7 F aircraft maintenance facility is to establish the cost of Rs 04 crore. The average time for a flight from China and Mig -7 - 9 aircraft missile from Russia for the purchase of the 7 million from 17 million. 010-11 538 crore in the fiscal year of the fourth generation is buying 16 -7 busy night fighter F-1 and 345 crore rupees to create a Russian helicopter MI esaeica -171. These include Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on April 9, bimanabahinite. The following year, four MiG - 9 - 119's maintenance cost is 50 lakh crore. The air defense radar buy from China are spending more money in eight of 15. no defense policy, military sources said, in the country there is no defense policy. The four-party alliance government defense policy is taken. It can be stopped. The current government defense ministry parliamentary committee has just talked. However, for the modernization of the armed forces' Forces Goal - the 030 in a five-year term to a four-step plan of the Armed Forces Division. 015 to 011 in the first step, the second step is from 0 to 016 and 0, 0 and 1 in the third step and the fourth step from 0 5 0 and 6 and will be implemented in 030. The Prime Minister gave the approval. The government is in the shop, it was part of the first phase. much logical: defense policy poor countries like Bangladesh, after having spent a large amount of money in the purchase of military equipment, how logical? In response to a question that the former army chief KM Shafiullah said, 'we open, it will depend on the development of our defense policy. The business case must be transparent, so it was not a question. If you need to take to protect themselves secure. 's Needs. ' country is a defense policy. The purpose of the decision is the shopping? Asked Parliamentary Chief Idris Ali said, defense policy own actions, but the Army are in the process, have goals Forces. The aim is also to shop. Gold was the clarity of this 15 crore think not - a question he said his shop is on demand. In the case of any irregularity in the only parliamentary committee may interfere. , but Russia, with eight thousand crore military equipment purchase agreement after the January 1 news conference, the Armed Forces of the Principal Staff Officer (PS) Abu Belal Muhammad Shafiul Huq, the military opacity does not leave any kind of equipment purchases. In the case of all of the comments are being taken. ' BRAC University to Air Commodore (retd) isaphaka Elahi Chowdhury said, if a force must have the capability. If you do not have to leave the keys? Competencies required for military equipment. However, many of these tools cost more, the common people can not think. But whatever the price, shopping of course want to be transparent, so that people do not have any doubt. published in the London January 9 durnitibirodhi international organization Transparency International (tiai) is one report, the risk of corruption in the military sector. National security - of the secret things of the body, such information is not given, the security sector's annual audit report of any debate that does not match. ' the 7 February the government army, held on corruption charges in the Transparency International Bangladesh (FDI) research report Published in FDI Sultana Kamal said, "The military sector of the shopping is not revealed to the public for any information. The lack of sbacchatarao. The Constituent Assembly had not yet been discussed. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 (talk • contribs) 12:03 UTC, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the article in The Policy and Research Group website was written by an analyst in 2010. So, the line "Plans are afoot to acquire 155mm PLZ-45/Type -88 (including transfer of technology)" is appropriate as (if we believe bdmilitary.com), the order was placed in 2009 and deliveries were expected in 2011. And If we consider the report of "Prothom Alo" (newspaper), are we in a position to ignore the other two sources ,i.e., Global Security & Strategy Page ??

And Thomas.W, the motto you got from the Facebook page seems to be a religious line rather than a challenge to dominate others (other websites about BD Defence) as you suspect. I think the line refers to Khilafah. I didn't find it (the motto) anywhere in their Facebook Page's details... You may help .. Maxx786 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And for your BTR-80 claims, BTR-80 > Operator:Bangladesh on Wikipedia (which is adequately referenced) puts the number at 502. An news article on Bangla News 24 website states: "Dimidyuk informed that Russia had already sold over 600 BTR-80 APC’s to the Bangladesh Army already." Something similar is in this article by Jane's Defence Weekly. Maxx786 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So, Your first claim to prove bdmilitary.com numbers about BTR-80 "inflated" are proven wrong. And for the PLZ-45 question, I believe bdmilitary.com as what it claimed was Bangladesh ordered three battalions of PLZ-45's for BD Army's Artillery units based at Chittagong, Ghatail and Savar cantonments. The Policy & Research Group also reported the plans to "acquire" PLZ-45's in 2010, and two other sources (Global Security & Strategy Page) state that Bangladesh bought PLZ 45s in the last decade. I think it refers to the order placed in 2009. No source (including bdmilitary) claims that those howitzers were delivered (till date) ... Maxx786 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The motto is in big block letters at the top of the Facebook page, in the image. How could you possibly miss it? As for the Policy and Research Group article it's no longer plans to aquire if an order has already been placed. Not in English at least. As for the Strategy page that you keep referring to it's a community where just about anyone can write, and not a serious newssource. Just check their guidelines for contributors: Facts, as best you know them, and analysis, as best you can do it, are what our readers want. Which disqualifies it as a reliable source. But this discussion is about the reliability of bdmilitary.com, not about the Strategy page or any of the other sites that you keep writing about in order to pull the discussion away from the subject. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The question remains about the authenticity of that bdmilitary.com report. What was claimed by bdmilitary.com is also suggested by Global Security. And it is possible that the deal suffered delays as nothing else came out since then. BTR-80 issue has been resolved as I have provided concrete sources some lines above... Maxx786 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This discussion is about the reliability of bdmilitary.com as a source for anything. We are in other words not discussing that particular report, we're discussing bdmilitary.com as a whole. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect. So far, at least in this discussion, everything (from bdmilitary.com)has been proven correct by comparing with other sources. This makes me believe it is a reliable source. What do you think ? And what opinion do other Wikipedia users / admins have about bdmilitary.com ?? Maxx786 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you're finally beginning to understand why I started this discussion. Next time read the first post before jumping in. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just answering the examples you provided to dispute the reliability of this website .. Maxx786 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology."
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

– S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the only assertion I am arguing Gene Callahan's blog should be used to source is: in the opinion of Gene Callahan, a former Mises Institute Scholar, the Institute is a cult. This assertion is presented specifically as the opinion of Professor Callahan in the article; the opinion is notable because Callahan is a notable academic who for years worked closely with the Institute. I submit that his blog is a reliable source for presenting his view of the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. We aren't a gossip rag, and his expertise does not relate to the sociological study of cults. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Steeltrap; what you need is a RS that identifies the fact that Callahan's opinion on this is notable. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, Callahan did not inititate the "cult" label. He is commenting on statment by Mises employee Robert Murphy, who wrote a blog post which denies that Mises Institute is a cult. I have no idea why Murphy denied it, presumably others uncited by Murphy asserted it. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (By OP): Thus we have a blog by Callahan commenting on another blog, by Murphy, who is SPS and an expert commenting about third parties (the Mises Institute and the members of the Mises Institute "cult") in a subject outside of his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the "non-expert" bit is a straw man. These are ordinary English language opinions. Neither blogger presents an academic theory as to the sociological structure and functioning of a cult. Please drop it and concentrate on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply by OP: Non-expert goes to the heart of the matter. If Murphy or Callahan are experts, they can comment as experts in their field of expertise. Either way their blogs are subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS. In this regard they are commenting about third parties and their opinions are not acceptable RS. (Are you defending the use of the Callahan (or Murphy) blog in this context? If so, say so. If not, please render an opinion and say the Callahan blog is not acceptable RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The assertion should be picked up in a more reliable source to be repeated by Wikipedia. Let's see if it appears in a magazine or newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Titsingh's Annals of the Emperors of Japan

I've noticed User:Enkyo2 adding a source from 200 years ago by Isaac Titsingh (translated from a 17th-century work) in countless places around the articles on the Japanese imperial family. Sometimes the source is being used for statements about what happened decades after Titsingh died. Titsingh is mentioned 100 times in List of Emperors of Japan. In many cases Titsingh is being lumped together with a couple of other sources that appear to say different things. I'm wondering if I can be forgiven for requesting a more modern source written in either Japanese or English? Enkyo2 also appears not to understand that most of his uses of this (and other sources) appear to be woefully inadequate ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretext for continuing a pattern which was difficult to parse neatly here and here. The fact that this is a pretext is made explicit in hopes that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm.

According to John Whitney Hall, who was the general editor of The Cambridge History of Japan, "Titsingh's Illustrations of Japan shows the result of careful translation from Japanese sources, as does also the posthumous Annales des Empereurs du Japon, which is a translation of the Ōdai-ichiran." This sentence comes from Hall's 1955 book, Tanuma Okitsugu, 1719-1788, at pp. 94-95.

Articles about Japanese emperors and Japanese era names -- and many other articles about Japanese events, places, government, history and historical figures -- are congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them. The array of articles is based on classic sources which are put in context by the Wikipedia article on Historiography of Japan. For example, when the reliable sources below are cited here, the reader is presented with links to other Wikipedia articles, including articles about the cited text itself, about its original author and about the translator:

• 1834 -- date that Annales des empereurs du japon was published by Isaac Titsingh was published in Paris by the Royal Asiatic Society, Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. OCLC 5850691

• Nihon odai ichiran (日本王代一覧) written circa 1650 by Hayashi Gahō, also known as Siyun-sai Rin-siyo

• 1979 -- date that Gukanshō: The Future and the Past by Delmer Brown was published by the University of California Press. 10-ISBN 0-520-03460-0; 13-ISBN 978-0-520-03460-0; OCLC 251325323

• Gukanshō (愚管抄) written circa 1220 by Jien

• 1980 -- date that Jinnō Shōtōki: A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns. by H. Paul Varley was published in New York by Columbia University Press. 10-ISBN 0-231-04940-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-231-04940-5; OCLC 59145842

• Jinnō Shōtōki (神皇正統記) written circa 1343 by Kitabatake Chikafusa

In this thread and elsewhere, Hijiri88's broad brush complaints and pretext are not justified. The analysis is not consistent with the cumulative edit histories of articles I have helped to improve. In these related articles, time and thought are invested in the structure of complementary, mutually reinforcing reliable sources. In contrast, for example, see

A>' diff 02:46, 31 August 2013‎ Hijiri88 . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Not in source. Enkyo, can you stop piling sources that say different things on top of each other like this??)

B> diff 00:53, 1 September 2013‎ Enkyo2 (46,720 bytes) (+133)‎ . . (Undid revision 570891967 by Hijiri88restore cite with embedded link; see WP:Citing sources#Bundling citations)

C> diff 03:46, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Revert revenge edit by Enkyo2. It's not in the source.) (bold emphasis added)

The striking use of the term "revenge" in the edit summary above is worrisome.

Another unrelated use of the term "revenge" here was not encouraged by acknowledgment or response; but Hijiri88 continues "framing" a personal attack strategy. This needs to stop. The pretext needs to be rejected in order for this targeting to begin to stop. For example, in an article about any emperor of Japan, adding cite support from the Imperial Household Agency website is not in itself provocative; but Hijiri88's edit summary responds to a perceived "pointy" provocation.

A> diff 18:25, 28 August 2013‎ Enkyo2 ‎ . . (18,592 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (cite Kunaicho in infobox?)

B> diff 04:50, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 ‎ . . (18,481 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Enkyo, if you don't like the traditional dates, bring it up on the talk page. Also, revert WP:POINTY citation of the ONLY IHA page that happens to spells it "Jimmu".)

Can we not agree that Wikipedia needs more light, less heat. -Enkyo2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)