Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

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

Religious demographic data in Russia

In the article Russia's infobox, statistics on religious affiliations in Russia from the CIA World Factbook have twice[1][2] been replaced by statistics from the following two sources:

• sreda.org (the Independent Research Service, a Russian NGO founded in 2011)
• Kommersant (a series of maps, their legends all in Russian, published on the web site of a Russian newspaper)

I make no claim that the new figures aren't accurate, but I am not persuaded that their reliability has been adequately assessed. Note that the new figures are significantly different from the previous ones. I opened a discussion on the talk page but the user reinserting the content has not replied thus far. Additional opinions would be much appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It hardly matters. Religious demographic data is notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Even the CIA fact book has to use local, widely differing sources, depending on self identification in response to wildly differing census or other questions the book has no control over. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. However, I think it does matter. Just because the best sources on a particular topic are flawed doesn't mean we might as well throw up our hands in despair and use any old sources. Using the most reliable sources available to us goes some way towards safeguarding articles from insertion of content based not only on misinformation but also on disinformation. (Not that the CIA is above peddling the latter, but that's rather beyond the scope of this thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to offer an opinion? Pretty please? Rivertorch (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to take the CIA World Factbook as any more reliable than the other sources cited. As HiLo48 says, they don't do research on such things, they merely cite whatever they can find. If we don't have reliable sources, we should tell the reader so, rather than citing questionable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, then. The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so" is by way of inline maintenance tags, which I have now added (and noted on the talk page). My sense about it was that the CIA source, warts and all, is at least a known quantity, whereas sreda.org is very new, which makes it hard to tell where they're coming from. I hope the tags will inspire someone with bilingual skills and a knack for checking foreign-language sources to look into this more closely someday. Thanks much to both Andy and HiLo for their input. Rivertorch (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion was asked by the person who added the new sources, and I'll repeat the pertinent part of it here as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sources being added—they both are reliable in the WP:RS sense. Kommersant in particular is a well-known publisher of various regional stats. I do, nevertheless, lean to using the CIA Factbook figures, since that's what's used most often in the articles about other countries, making it possible to directly compare the stats across different articles. As HiLo48 said, the religious demographic stats often vary wildly from one source to another, so the least we can do for our readers is to use the same source consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2013; 20:59 (UTC)

Good point. However, without making some major changes to the section, which I won't undertake at present, I don't see any way to put the Factbook figures back in. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is the main Russia article, but there is also a subsidiary article with the focus on religion. It has a breakdown of the smerda-dataset, in a table all by itself. Suggest adding a table with the CIA dataset, for comparison purposes... or if possible, a combined table, which shows the CIA/smerda/kommmersat percentages, or even better, 1980/1990/2000/2010 triplets. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository for huge tracts of land vast statistical tabulations, but when the sources conflict, we should describe the conflict in a way that mirrors the sources, not pick winners and losers.

   Agree that the *prose* sections cannot easily be repaired... but note that the pie-chart (which is in both the top-level Russia as well as the subsidiary article) can be tweaked to advertise the conflicting-source-problem. For example, in the big purple 'orthodox' section, there is enough room to say "30%[ref#7=cia] to 49%[ref#8=smerda]" or whatever the real numbers are, and then hyperlink that line-of-text to the separate-tables-or-combo-table down in the subsidiary article. Readers (and editors) that really care about the answer, will at least realize that the 'answer' you get is highly dependent on who is doing the answering, and will not have to hunt up the raw numbers themselves. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so" has THREE "ways": (1) Attribute the sources in the prose per WP:Attribution: "According to X, "a",^[1] while Y states "b".^[2]" is an excellent way to distance WP from differing sources. (2) Putting the whole disagreement in a footnote helps too, and allows more room to lay out multiple disagreeing sources. It's done all the time. (3) I also de-specify, as a fan of "two or three significant digits only" for population counts: after 3 digits it's all guesswork anyways. 1, 234, 567 becomes 1.2 million. --Lexein (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy

1. Source. Bernstein, David (January 8, 2008). "More Trouble for Ron Paul". Volokh Conspiracy..
2. Article. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
3. Content. The source is used to describe the views of George Mason University Law Professor (and libertarian) David Bernstein regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Specifically, the source is used to note that Bernstein believes the Institute is associated ("plays footsie") with racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. No particular person, living or dead, is mentioned, and these views are specifically attributed to Bernstein.

The basic question is: Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?

I ask that editors involved in the Mises Institute page offer their views as to whether it is an RS on a separate thread below. With so many problems and allegations of bias/edit warring on the Mises pages, we need the input of uninvolved editors. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification question

Are asking about:

1. With respect to establish the statement being made, or to
2. establish (per the RS-based wp:npov requirements) that rs's have covered it in relation to the article topic for inclusion in that particular article?

North8000 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

North, thank you for asking for this clarification. It has compelled me to form the question in a more specific and made way. However, I ask that you delete this post (or move it down to the "involved users" thread) because it is cluttering the thread.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

The clarification moves it a step towards resolution which is to show that it is now somewhat self-conflicting because you are still referring to presence in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article which is a different (higher) standard than how you have framed the question. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

The source is certainly reliable for his own statements, but a throwaway comment like this is unsuitable for use in an article in my opinion. The post is about Ron Paul, and only mentions LVMI in passing. Certainly this is too weak to be used on any individual BLP page, where you would be causing a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to link the statement to that person, where they are obviously not mentioned in the source. Additionally, as a WP:SPS, the statement would be a brightline BLP violation for any BLP article. In the context of the LVMI article itself, it is less objectionable, but still so, because of the throwaway nature of the statement, and there is no evidence that Bernstein's opinion on LMVI is notable (is he known for writing about them? no.), and selection of this quote out of context, creates a WP:OR WP:POV issue. Why is this quote selected, out of the thousands or millions of other possible quotes about the LMVI? and is still a WP:SPS which should be used exceedingly sparingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(reply to uninvolved editor by OP) Concerns about notability of the source are off-topic as far as the reliability of a source goes. I do strongly disagree with your view in that regard, however. That a major libertarian legal scholar refuses to publish with the Institute bc of its association with racists/anti-semites seems very notable, even if Bernstein's mention of this was cursory in an article about Ron Paul. Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The source may be reliable, but after reading what the source actually says and the way it is (was) used in the article is a clear BLP violations. The sentence included says ".view that the Institute "play[s] footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists." This goes beyond what Bernstein said and is a BLP violation. Bernstein did not directly associate LVM with any specific group other than general conspiracy theories. He listed a number of conspiracy theories along with racists and anti-Semites, but did not make a direct connection. Also he said "Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them." A direct reading of "latter types" per his previous paragraph would be "to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc." but even that is Original Research. The question of RS is really moot because the source, as was used, was a clear violation of BLP via Synthesis of Material. I have removed it as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable and a BLP violation. This appears to be a self-published source. You can't use an SPS as a third-party source about living people. Period. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• The Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source for this topic. It is a self-published source, and they can only "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." So it might well be permissible to use a post by David Bernstein on US evidence law or US constitutional history, which are areas in which he is an academic expert, but he is not a published expert on the Ludwig von Mises Institute and therefore this cannot be used. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• This may be a valid source if it is accurately described, but it is not accurate to say that Bernstein thinks LVMI plays footsie with racists. He said LVMI plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person or every single viewpoint within that range). Anyway, this does seem to be a BLP issue even though LVMI is a group rather than an individual. LVMI appears to be a small group, and so BLP applies. According to the BLP, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries." According to WP:BLPN, "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." If this does fall under BLP policy, then the Bernstein stuff probably cannot be included in the LVMI article: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved Editors

• I am somewhat involved, having recently edited at the article's talk page but not about this source. The "plays footsie" connection is very weak. I think too much is being made of the Bernstein source—it is thin soup, with no absolute statements made, just implications. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, the only reason "too much" is being made of this RS citation is because of the unfounded attempt to impeach it, contrary to policy, to deny the associated text. "Played footsie" is quoted in the text, so there's no question the source said it. If the RS said "facilitated" or "enabled" instead of this quirky but clear figure of speech, the meaning would be identical. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Having initiated the BRD at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Blog & law student commentary, I'll briefly restate: The source is a group blog, Bernstein is actually commenting about Ron Paul & the Mises.org comment is incidental, Bernstein is a professor of law and the subject of "Mises.org", its' history or philosophy is not within his area of expertise. Also, I note that Bernstein said "Congrats to the Mises Institute on this project [of putting] a staggering array of libertarian literature on-line...." – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Added comment: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says cited material should "directly support [bold in the original] the information as it is presented". The blog posting fails in this regard. 19:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're wikilawyering again but your claims as usual, are tenuous and transparent. Suppose you were a trial attorney and Bernstein were an expert witness in the field of entomology. Suppose he testified that he saw an African killer honeybee sting the plaintiff, your client, in the ass. Do you think you could get the judge to strike the testimony because the entomologist doesn't have academic training in human anatomy? Your argument, which you use to contest source after source here, is specious. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My client is a strawman, so killer bees can't harm him. In any case, your analogy to trial practice does not help in this discussion. Testimony from a percipient witness is always admissible evidence if the witness is competent and the evidence is probative. So if the witness saw the bee sting someone, that testimony is admissible. The bee-keeper expert witness might be competent/qualified to testify about bee behavior, but may not be competent to testify about the effects of bee venom on humans. (As a percipient witness, s/he could say s/he saw the bee sting someone on the ass.) In this case Bernstein can testify that he did not accept an invitation to publish with Mises.org, but cannot testify as an expert that Mises.org had any particular characteristics. His lay opinion about Mises.org would not be admissible. Along the same lines, his blog comment about turning down an invitation to publish is not encyclopedic even if he gives an opinion on why. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich - You managed to completely misrepresent my example and question, which was so brief, to the point, and carefully worded that your evasive reply (I do assume you understood my words) only strengthens the obvious inference that you are wikilawyering and throwing up specious and unfounded theories. Please re-read my message and you will see that your remark above concedes and affirms my rejection of your argument. You have made no credible or even coherent argument for rejecting what is manifestly a Reliable Source for the content on which it's cited. Case closed, as Judge Judy would say. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• (OP) It seems to me that Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most widely-viewed websites in the legal world (regularly cited by the NYT, WP, and other mainstream news sources), whose writers are tenured professors at second-tier, first-tier, and elite law schools, is a reliable source for the views of Bernstein (which is the only thing it is used to source in the article). It seems to me that a major libertarian scholar's refusal to publish with the Institute bc of its alleged association with bigots is notable. But concerns regarding notability are off-topic; this thread is about reliability of sources. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• This www.volokh.com search shows only a few uses of the site [clarify later: as references]. This WP:RSN found it not appropriate for WP:BLPs. Since the institute is made of individuals, a number of whom are mentioned in the article, I don’t think it should be used to make a blanket accusation of “racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists”. If it's used it should be within the context of being written during the Ron Paul newsletters revelations period (because a lot of people panicked and disassociated selves or were far more critical than today). So, in addition to comments above, another reason not to use it. User:Carolmooredc 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Carol. Two points. 1) BLP isn't applicable here because no particular person is mentioned. Broad statements about institutions are not BLP statements. If I say something like "BYU is full of homophobes", "Brooklyn Polytechnic students don't do their homework", or "The Mises Institute is full of racists", I won't be accused of libel even if I provide no evidence (and indeed even if the statements are false), because that's not the same as making those statements about a living (or dead) person. This is an important logical distinction.

2) Volokh has been used 203 times in WP articles. I have never heard the term "a few" applied to such a huge number. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified above - uses of the site as a reference. Also note that BLP concerns are expressed as part of RSN notices above. BLP implications of this are now under discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute. User:Carolmooredc 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Volokh is RS for this content This is a straightforward statement which is directly supported by the source, I see no problem with this one. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is fatally flawed The question is posed as merely supporting the statement, but but context is a totally different standard. 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the setup question – The basic question is: "Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?" – is flawed. It is safe to assume that Bernstein made the statement posted in the blog. (And thus meets requirement #4 in WP:ABOUTSELF.) But editors are commenting about the appropriateness of using Bernstein's comment in the context of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it is rs for what Bernstein said. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT. A website that says the moon-landing was faked for example may be rs for what specific writers have said, but that does not mean they should be included in articles about the moon-landing. TFD (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. If I understand your view, then, the discussion should take place on the article talk page, without further debate as to reliability of the source? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it never should have come here. The question posed was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed here, and someone incorrectly implied that it was. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. I ask the group then, are we ready to close this thread as RS confirmed and discuss the WEIGHT question back at article talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

First, it's clear that most editors do agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. Considering that Volokh Conspiracy only has been used a couple times as a reference. I think it's reliability for what still looks like a personal blog entry, unedited, negative personal opinion which by implication casts aspersions on dozens of individuals is questionable. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or anything like that in his bio. And his comment could be motivated by biased factionalism. User:Carolmooredc 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I think you're getting confused again. The weight issue should be discussed, but this is not the proper place for that. Rather than throw up all your balls in the air at once, you should try to separate your concerns and address them in the proper venues. Once again, nobody has stated that the weight issue is resolved, but the RS question appears to have been resolved. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The group blog is RS only in one respect – we do not dispute that Bernstein said what he said (WP:ABOUTSELF #4). But another factor must be considered – what is the subject of his comment? This is needed because ABOUTSELF #2 restricts comments about third parties and #3 says blog comments may "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" [source meaning the blogger]. Because Bernstein's blog comments involve third parties and because Bernstein goes beyond claims and events not directly related to him, the question of WEIGHT does not come into play. (WEIGHT would be considered in Bernstein's article, not other articles.) The non-involved editors opine that it is not RS in this context and most of the involved editors opine not RS as well. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, please. It doesn't say related exclusively to the source. You are misstating and misapplying policy. What would be related exclusively to the source? "Bernstein said he believes that his arms are too long" ? Many editors here, including myself are prepared to consider the WEIGHT issue on the article talk page, where such discussion belongs. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

SRich makes a good point. To me it's just one more in a long line of self-published negative/hostile opinion pieces some editors want to use in the Austrian Economics articles, which happily is now under official community sanctions here. User:Carolmooredc 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure proposal

1) We close the RSN as solved, with Bernstein's Volokh post clearly being a reliable source for Bernstein's views (this would be progress, as many were questioning the RS aspect of this on the talk page, and now are shifting to other concerns). 2) We create an RfC on the LvMI page to address WP:Undue and WEIGHT concerns with the use of Bernstein. 3) We do not re-add Bernstein into the article until a consensus has been developed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with this proposal: One, it stages the question as if the RS issue on Bernstein is settled "as RS", which is not the case. Two, this closure proposal only serves to prolong a needlessly convoluted discussion. That is, the issue was raised at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Blog & law student commentary and hashed out quite enough on this page. And it proposes to throw the issue back onto the article talk page. (Reminder, RS is determined in terms of how the source is used a la WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.) If enough discussion has ensued, then a WP:ANRFC should be posted. (And I recommend that one be posted.) I am confident that the reviewing (and dauntless) admin can figure out the issues, thereby giving us peace. (And I doubt that an RfC would bring in anything new or useful). – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note – a WP:ANRFC has been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A request for closure immediately following a rejection of respected editor Steeletrap's proposal? With no resolution of the disagreement? How could that possibly make sense? I am dumbfounded by this request, Srich. Closing Admins are not here to choose one side or the other, they are here to recognize consensus. Srich, you are premature. Please withdraw. Reinsert at consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• (OP) Support 1) Bernstein's views are clearly accurately described and do not relate to a living person. WP:BLPGROUP states that statements about organizations (that do not name particular people) are not generally considered BLP statements. There is no compelling argument prevented above that LvMI -- a huge org with by its own account 350 associated scholars (1) and a multi-million endowment -- should be an exception to this general rule. 2) Weight and undue concerns are legitimate, but should be hashed out on talk page, as it's off-topic for purposes of an RSN (use of a source can be undue even if it's reliable, and vice versa.) 3) Re-adding the material would serve to polarize editors and encourage edit warring. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is clear from the above discussion that the Bernstein bit is not appropriate for the article. Whether it is reliable for Bernstein's opinion turns out not to be as important as other considerations such as weight, balance, applicability, accuracy, etc. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Our job here is to determine RS for the associated content. Weight, undue, and "accuracy" are not what we decide at RSN. Please review the thread -- editors are prepared to discuss your stated concerns on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The particular item has been removed from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Three sources on Ludwig von Mises Institute article

I’ll make each a subsection. While these are in different stages of debate, we might as well address the repeated use of questionable sources in one thread. (Volokh Conspiracy originally was on the list.) User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gene Callahan personal blog

• This sentence: In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar Gene Callahan noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, citing Neo-Confederate causes, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early 2000s.
  • Ref: Gene Callahan’s blog “La Bocca della Verità”, article “Murphy on LVMI”, January 2, 2012

• Discussed here:

1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com Recent WP:RSN discussion ruled not usable for another statement.
2. Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Callahan_personal_blog_material_.28BRD.29 discusses this use in more detail.
   

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]

Uninvolved editors

• Unreliable and a BLP violation Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. See WP:SPS for further information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I read the policy, and that's absolutely not what it says. It says we can't use self-published sources where there is risk of WP:BLP violation, but there is no such risk because the LvMI is not a living person, or even a small organization of them.

I am forced to conclude that, as your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of policy, it has no bearing on this issue. Please read WP:SPS and WP:BLP more carefully, and consider them before further involvement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? You are forced to conclude? I'm the fifth most frequent contributor to RSN[3] so perhaps my opinion shouldn't be so easily dismissed without reason. But if you think I've missed something in regards to WP:SPS and WP:BLP, then I encourage you to point it out. Unfortunately, you've failed to do so, so I am sticking to my previous opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Since AQFK has quoted directly from WP:SPS, I'm not sure how MilesMoney can opine "that's absolutely not what it says". Bizarre or what? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What's bizarre is that you think a rule against BLP violations can apply to reliable sourcing in cases where BLP is impossible. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable Again, a self-published source can only "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." There is no evidence that Callahan is a published expert on the Mises Institute or racism. Neljack (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter is the LvMI, which advocates Austrian economics and provides jobs for people like Callahan. As an economist and former member, he is eminently qualified to speak on this matter. If you'll pardon my skepticism, you seem to be defining the requirements so tightly that absolutely no real person could qualify. In reality, our requirements are intended only to prevent people from talking about things they have no expertise in, which is obviously not the case here. MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Originator opines: It's self-published, he's making a throw-a-way comment about his past experience, not a reasoned analysis from specific incidents/statements/etc. from a libertarian "expert" perspective.
• RS for this content It's preposterous to assert that only "a libertarian expert" is able to recognize what, in his opinion, is racist. Anyway, Callahan happens to be one of the foremost living libertarian experts and was a key Mises Institute scholar on site for many years. So it's a no-go double whammy trying to impeach this source. This issue has already been vetted, shredded, sliced and diced on the article talk page. Callahan's blog is RS here. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF as the assertions of Callahan are attributed to him, and not presented as if they were facts (nor are there any statements about people dead or alive). Callahan was one of the Institute's most high-profile scholars, so his criticism of the Institute is particularly notable. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Non-RS – This is Callahan's personal reflections on what might have occurred before he came to Mises.org. The statement he makes does not directly support the information presented in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF #3 because he is commenting on "about events not directly related to the source [e.g., himself]". – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, that's the sixth different reason you've trotted out to quash Callahan. None have been valid, and the cumulative effect of swinging blindly at the perceived pinata is making it hard for readers even to give each new assertion serious consideration. (Of course we do, but it's difficult. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• RS for this content It's WP:ABOUTSELF by an expert witness. Callahan is fully qualified to comment on the organization that he was a member of. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even if he was not a member at the time he refers to? - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. His membership qualifies him to compare the state of the organization during his stay with what he knew about it prior to that. Membership makes him an expert opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

He certainly has expertise on the past of the organization having been a prominent scholar in it. A Catholic Cardinal knows more about Church history than a layperson, even if he "wasn't there".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

I'd like to see you verify your analogy regarding cardinals because it seems like pure opinion to me: are members of the Catholic clergy ecclesiastically ranked according to their knowledge of church history? What about church historians who are not members of the clergy and are therefore uninvolved? As for Callahan, he may well struggle to fairly compare something he did not experience with something that he did experience. I've no idea how much his opinion might be influenced by hearsay, for example. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not RS, at least not for this stuff. Recently got to the article via the drama on ANI, SPS is quite clear on this, Callahan is not being used to cite anything about his expertise (economics), he is being used to cite stuff about racism, neo confederate causes, and all this before he even joined the bloody group. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding Heart Libertarians web blog

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

---

• This sentence: In a discussion of the paleolibertarian period of the Mises Institute, Austrian economist Steven Horwitz criticized what he describes as the Institute's "numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers".
  • Ref: Steven Horwitz, "How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?", Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.

Resolved

 – The allegedly unreliable BHL source has been replaced by an RS from Reason which republished the BHL Horwitz article.

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

• This sentence: Horwitz and political scientist Jacob Levy state that Rothbard identified the need to attract social and religious conservatives to establish a libertarian-conservative fusion constituency, distinct from the more socially progressive followers of Cato and the Koch Brothers.
  • Ref: Jacob Levy, "Ron Paul continued." Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.

• Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Several_unreliable_sources.3F but no response on this specific source.
  

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]

Involved editors

• Originator opines: These both are self-published blog entries on an advocacy site, as discussed at the about us page. "All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians." Just negative personal self-published opinions that don't belong on Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content An author's being "broadly speaking, libertarian" doesn't disqualify the author. If it did, we couldn't use sources involving any of the Mises Fellows, its Founders, or even Mises himself. Horowitz is a distinguished Austrian economist, and this statement is credible RS for the WP content it supports. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content Non-libertarians don't tend to write much about libertarians, especially not at the same level of detail. BHL is a perfectly good source. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Remnant (newspaper)

• This paragraph: The Catholic journalist Christopher Ferrara responded in the "The Remnant" newspaper to Mises Institute scholars Llewellyn Rockwell and Mises Fellow Thomas Woods' criticism of his 2010 book "The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State". Ferrara criticized the Institute's outreach efforts to Catholics and its attempts to persuade them that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with Catholicism. He wrote that part of the "Institute’s mission is to sell Catholics an outrageously phony bill of goods: that a school of thought dedicated to the legacy of [Murray Rothbard], a radically laissez-faire liberal agnostic who defended the legal right to starve unwanted children to death" and as being compatible with and even congenial to Catholic principles.
  • Ref: Christopher Ferrara, Fury in the Cult of Rothbard, The Remnant, September 4, 2013

Resolved

 – The allegedly unreliable Remnant Review source has been replaced by an RS from New Oxford Review, a mainstream Catholic publication that has been cited by many mainstream authors. Their review of Ferrara's book conveys all the information the original Ferrara source did, so the issue is resolved.

• Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Several_unreliable_sources.3F but no response on this specific source.
  

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]

Uninvolved editors

• I basically agree with S. Rich. In fact, I would go further and say that the material should be excluded from the article altogether on UNDUE grounds. There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I (an involved editor) disagree because the LvMI makes a major point of being -- in contrast to libertarian groups -- an organization sympathetic to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Ferrara is well-published, in mainstream RS and publishing houses, about religious and theological matters; he is a good RS for purposes of responding to the Mises Institute's attempts to recruit Catholics to its ideology. Steeletrap (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Originator opines: According to its Wikipedia article, The Remnant (newspaper) is an extremist advocacy site which Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate site; it doesn't call Mises Institute one, FYI. This sort of publication not usually considered WP:RS, even if articles seem to be passed by the editor Michael J. Matt. User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• One can be hateful while still having solid/reliable scholarly standards (see most famous Western philosophers); do not conflate the two. Ferrara is a well educated guy, attended a top 30 law school (Fordham), has had a fairly prolific career as a journalist, and has published academic works with mainstream publications. He's an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable source for the opinion, but placement/emphasis is undue. In an earlier edit I put the Ferrera comments into a footnote [4]. Later on they were restored to the text. A full paragraph for his comments, and a second footnote to his book which does not provide page numbers for criticisms of Mises.org (which may or may not exist), does not further WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Publications promoting hate cannot by definition be reliable sources because their objective is to defame (i.e., present false information). Individuals are not reliable sources, it depends on where their writings are published. Barnes for example had articles published in academic journals, which are rs, but his writings on holocaust denial are not. And opinion pieces are not rs for facts. We are supposed to present topics in accordance with how they are presented in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is no extensive writing about the LvMI and its writers, hence little to report. TFD (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Brigham Young University is (arguably) hateful against LGBT people, yet its academic journals are (properly) deemed RS. Aristotle -- a grotesque sexist -- is an RS. I don't think there is a tight logical connection between hatefulness and lack of scholarly rigor. Steeletrap (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Better source

The Dina Eastwood article needs a source for her middle name. I think that This PDF file of divorce papers filed October 22, 2013 is a better source than This tabloid article containing a copy of one page of legal separation papers that have since been revoked and need approval. Mystiques00 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that either citation is useable, but I may be misinterpreting the guidelines on primary sources. While the separation filing is a primary source, it's being "quoted" (through being printed verbatim) on third-party sites. My one concern is that the Daily Mail uses it within the context of a news article, while Radar Online — a gossip site not normally a reliable source, but one that does post public documents and does directly interview named sources from time to time — posts it independently, without journalistic comment. My question is, is it still considered a primary source in the Radar case, or is it useable since it does appear on a third-party site, albeit without being part of a journalistic news story?

As a side comment, I would note that while the Daily Mail is a tabloid-format newspaper, like the New York Daily News or Newsday, It is not a tabloid in the sense of a tabloid magazine such as the Weekly World News. While the Daily Mail can be sensationalistic and while some celebrity stories use unnamed "anonymous sources", rendering such stories highly dubious, it is still a major, professionally run newspaper in other regards. I believe the editor above in his characterization of it tars with an overly broad brush and gives an inaccurate impression.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar problem with the birthyear of a BLP, where few sources claim anything exact, and the sources that do make claims, require use of WP:CALC to backtrack from "here she is in 2000 as an 18-year-old frosh" to the contrasting "here she is at 27 for her 2013 birthday party". The article ends up with the infoboxen explicitly saying both: "date of birth: ~1982[1] or ~1986[2] (sources differ)". This was based on the Mariah Carey article, which has a similar problem with 1969/1970 as the birthyear. Wikipedia should mirror the sources, not pick winners and losers: when they conflict, describe the conflict. "Dina Anne[1] or Betty[2] Eastwood...." Hope this helps. p.s. In the birthyear example, *one* source must be correct and one incorrect, but in the middle-name example, that is not necessarily true, since people like George Herbert Walker Bush with multiple middle names do exist, and names can legally change over time, unlike birthdays. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Senhaja language and Ghomara language

Hello,

Here's an issue related to linguistics: On the articles Senhaja language (Talk) and Ghomara language (Talk), a user insists on using as the sole source a list established by Blench in 2006 to classify these dialects as "Zenata dialects" (by opposition to "Atlas dialects") ; The point is that the author (Blench himself) says clearly on its first paragraph that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems".

On the other hand, the same user persists on deleting three sources claiming they're not RS ; The following sources classify these languages as "Atlas dialects" (see respective talk pages for more details):

• BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 (1993), Morocco - VII. Linguistic survey, p.598 (for both articles) ;
• Bernard & Moussard (1924), p.278 (for the Senhaja article) ;
• J. el Hannouche, 2008. Ghomara Berber: A Brief Grammatical Survey, p.20 (for the Ghomara article).

Note that recent (highly creditable) sources link ethnic Ghomara and Senhaja to ethnic Atlas Berbers, but without discussing linguistics.

Thus, the main problem is that Blenche's classification is contradicted by the three last sources.

The questions are:

• Is the list established by Blench a WP:RS even if the author himself says that it isn't correct?
• Are the three other sources (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bernard & Moussard and El-Hannouche) WP:RS or not, even if some were published long time ago?
• Is that contradiction a WP:NPOV or a WP:RS case?

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Blench listing is reliable, but you should say in the text that it is a draft list. Hannouche is reliable, even though it is only a masters thesis; you should say tht it is a masters thesis. The older texts are no use any more. Are these the only sources available? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are the only WP:V academic sources available. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit1: Just found that Mena Lafkioui describes Senhaja language as "non-Zenati" [5]. However she gives no-statement about Ghomara language. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit2: non-RS sources include Souag's communication to Ethnologue describing Senhaja language as "not Zenati, but rather Atlas". --Omar-toons (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit3: About El Hannouche's work on the Ghomara language (MA thesis), note that even Stroomer (& Kossman) implicitely acknowledge that this work is highly valuable (see p.6) and take it as a basis for their ongoing study. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Souag and Lafkioui seem both to be reputable scholars, and even their comments in non-reliable sources might be usable, with the big IF that we mustn't imply that any classification of these languages is settled. It is clearly a matter for exploration and debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My take is only very slightly different from the excellent advice given by Itsmejudith above:

• Both views should be presented, with relative sources
• The older sources would be reliable for describing a change in academic opinion if there has been one ("it used to be thought that ..., but recently ...")
• The ethnic connection could be mentioned, with due care to avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from it.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the change to Senhaja, since Omar was eventually able to provide a RS that supported it. I don't think there's any problem now with that article. However, AFAICT, he has no RS contradicting Blench for Ghomara, so we can only report what Blench says. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

El Hannouche says explicitely in his thesis (a thesis that Stroomer acknowledge as a valuable work) that Ghomara language has its origin in South Morocco. Unless you can give us a RS saying that there are Zenati languages in South Morocco (per WP:SYNTHNOT), El Hannouche thus links explicitely the Ghomara dialect to Atlas languages. --Omar-toons (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with Justlettersandnumbers's opinion: both views should be presented as long as there's no consensual opinion among scholars. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In a couple of years' time the scholars will probably have reached agreement. :-) Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• A question remains: is the list established by Blench in 2006 a WP:RS, despite the fact that the author himself claims that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems"? --Omar-toons (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer above was "yes".

Hannouche does not say anything about classification, so we can't use him as a ref for classification. We can use him as a ref for where the language came from. The two are not necessarily related: English is not an American Indian language just because most native speakers are in North America. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I made a draft on Talk:Ghomara language. I would like to have your opinions regarding that. :)

--Omar-toons (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit complicated, as it often is when the scholarship isn't settled. I know I said that the older sources are no longer reliable, and that's still the case, but assuming that we think Camps & Vignet-Zunz is reliable, and it does seem so, then their comments on Colin are also reliable. Kwami, I do think that in this case "where the people came from" and "where the language came from" are related questions. By way or an analogy: the southern and northern Cheyenne are separated by hundreds of miles, and the reason for that is a matter of recorded history, so linguists automatically classify varieties of Cheyenne as varieties rather than separate languages. It is also a bit like the link between Finnish and Hungarian, which aren't very close at all today, but as it seems with these Berber languages, were spoken more widely in the past. I'm sure we all understand that language and ethnic identity aren't necessarily tied together, but sometimes they are, or at least ethnic identity can be a clue to language and vice-versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com and http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is a one-person blog (although the author has professional writing experience - http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) with no hits in Google Scholar or Google books; in a quick Google web search I did not recognize reliable sources citing the website:

1. http://www.google.com/search?q=desktoplinuxreviews.com
2. http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Adesktoplinuxreviews.com

The author claims to have been published by sources such as ZDNET, Forbes, MSNBC, Salon but I could not find it:

1. https://www.google.com.br/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Azdnet.com,
2. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Aforbes.com
3. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Amsnbc.com
4. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Asalon.com

I did found him on extremetech and PCMag:

1. http://www.extremetech.com/author/jlynch
2. http://www.pcmag.com.br/us/article2/0,2817,10414,00.asp

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is used in Unity_(user_interface)#Reception as one of the sources for the claim "Its design and deployment has been controversial with some software reviewers finding fault with its implementation and limitations". I actually agree with this claim, but would like to remove this particular source. Editor User:Ahunt disagrees and wants to keep the source.

The other questionable source is http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. It is used all over Unity_(user_interface) and Ubuntu_(operating_system) to back several facts and opinions. -- Jorge (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lynch appears to be a regular contributer to ITWolrd.comTwo kinds of pork (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• As noted Lynch has been widely published in third party publications and so meets WP:SPS "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". OMG Ubuntu is an independent third party publication covering Ubuntu and related topics with editorial oversight and so meets WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't source anything to Lynch's blog under WP:SPS. Not accountable to anyone for what he writes there. I especially would not rely on such a source for anything controversial. With respect to omgubuntu, I don't see a single article that they ever issued a correction for. I wouldn't rely on it, it is just another SPS with some guest posts. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Times of India

Is this source "Writing Her Way to Glory" by journalist Munna Mishra in the Times of India reliable for citing that Rashmi Singh is "amongst the few female writers from Bihar writing in English fiction"? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment here. Green Cardamom is mis-stating the issues somewhat. They are not merely related to whether this might be a puff piece but also to linking to a copyright violation, incomplete citation and seemingly inaccurate representation. I've been trying to find the original story online so that the entire thing can be evaluated, especially given that there is a history of misrepresenting sources in the article and an outstanding request for translation. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In my judgment:

• TOI's main "news" section would generally qualify as a reliable source. Of course, it has occasional problems with accuracy, POV, publication of lightly edited press releases etc... but these problems are not dramatically greater in TOI than its competitors amongst Indian newspapers and can be handled by cross-checking with other sources and using common sense.
• On the other hand, TOI's Metro and some other supplements are no better than tabloids. Mainly filled with gossip, puff pieces, and (local) celebrity profiles and interviews, they show little no sign of fact checking. These should be used with great care/ not be used. (And if someone believes that I am being unduly harsh, here is how the publishers themselves describe the metro supplements).

So in order to judge the whether the article is reliable for the claim, we will need to see more than an extract and also determine which part of the newspaper it was published in. If you know the date for the article, I can look it up on Proquest. Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The image linked to says that the thing was "in conversation with TN". The citation said that the source was ToI & Green Cardamom seems not to have picked up the discrepancy. Is TN a ToI supplement or stablemate? The ToI often regurgitates PR puff pieces - some people call it the "Toiletpaper of India" (!) It is already evident that there has been much PR puffery surrounding the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New information has come to light, TN apparently stands for Times Neighborhood published by Times of India, an example cover.[6] According to a previous AfD[7] they are "built on a platform of citizen journalism where the content is uploaded on social media". Obviously not a reliable source if true, and confirmed with TN Facebook[8] and Twitter[9] pages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is useful to know.

I guess the rule of thumb is: The more local Times of India gets (National->Metro->Neighbourhood), the less reliable it becomes. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• One hilarious example I've come across of appalling reporting by Times of India is this. In October 2009, Faking News, a parody and satire sub-site (which I love reading) posted a hilarious article on a made up guy called Vaibhav Bedi, claiming he sued Unilever as the Axe deo he bought failed to act in the same way as it was shown in the advertisements. Guess what Delhi Times, a city supplement of Times of India, does in May 2011. They fall for the faking news and print it as real. In other words, what Abecedare says above is more or less true. Wifione ^Message 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

chinaag.org

For your consideration:

Website: chinaag.org

“ All production source data is collected and organized from China's National Bureau of Statistics (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/). All trade data originates from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, which gets its data directly from China's Customs Agency. All raw data is referenced and embedded for download on ChinaAg.org. Any user is free to verify its veracity.

Although http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/ is base data source, I had to research and verify with secondary sources (news articles, USDA databases/publications, journals, and trade associations) that the data presented was indeed accurate. Much in the same way as a journalist verifies information by interview multiple sources. As you are probably aware, Chinese statistic agencies, particularly those dealing with farming and aquaculture industries, have been known to either over/under report figures. Since I have put in the effort to extract, organize, verify, as well as include the appropriate links and raw data within ChinaAg.org, I believe I met the burden necessary to reference the website.

” — Author: User:ChinaAg32, source: User talk:ChinaAg32#Your recent edits

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anna -- I'm going to let somebody else give their better-researched-commentary here... but what it basically sounds like is, there is a wikipedia editor User:ChinaAg32, who self-publishes a blog at www.ChinaAg.org, in which they have synthesized some original research by combining the not-very-trustworthy figures of stats.gov.cn with some cross-referenced data-sources like the USDA, USA Today, trade rags, and so on. This is, pure and simple, WP:OR. However, there is an important exception, that *might* apply here.

    In real life, is User:ChinaAg32 somebody with Notable expertise in the field? For instance, if you are a stanford professor of economics, and you publish a position-paper in your official professor-blog, then in some cases that can be treated as WP:RS on your position, and because you are a Notable expert in economics, can be exact-quoted in an article. There is no peer-review of the blog-entry, necessarily, but there is peer-review of *you* as an expert.

    So, there are two ways that the *direct* contents of ChinaAg.org can be used directly as a Reliable Source. The first way, is if some 'normal' reliable source, such as a newspaper or a peer-reviewed journal or the blog of a Notable expert in USA-Chinese trade relations, re-publishes the material under *their* stamp. The second way, is if User:ChinaAg32 (or to be more precise -- the acknowledged author of the content at www.ChinaAg.org -- I'm just presuming they are the same humanoid), is in fact *themselves* such a Notable expert on USA-Chinese trade relations, with a PhD in economics and/or international relations, and such.

    Failing those, it sounds like ChinaAg is a blog, by a non-Notable-in-the-wikipedia-sense human, with no editorial-and-fact-checking-staff in the background. Of course, there is always the possibility to use the secondary sources, which were collected for the ChinaAg analysis-papers, to offset the 'official' information from stats.gov.cn -- but citing ChinaAg as a reliable source when it is not, or alternatively synthesizing/editorializing within the pages of wikipedia, is Not Good. When you have a USDA report that claims X, and a CNBS report that claims Y, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and give both numbers, not pick winners and losers. HTH. p.s. If you cannot use the dataset from ChinaAg, you *might* be able to put it into the External Links section... not as a source/ref/citation, but as a Unique External Resource, kinda like the "one major fansite" exception to the WP:LINKFARM policy. That situation would be a different question entirely, of course. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the very intelligent and thoughtful reply. I fully agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

VoiceChasers.com

Hello. I would like some opinions on the following site, VoiceChasers.com. I was hoping to use this to source voice actors in video games, specifically for the Batman: Arkham Origins page. Currently, as the in game credits are not formatted like that of a film's (actor name with a character attachted to it), myself and others on the page are currently forced to try to search an actor's personal Twitter feed, in hopes of a confirmation, or hoping that a reliable new agency's review mentions some of the characters and their actors. This site would be a tremendous helping in allowing info to be added to the page that we currently cannot, because no RS can be found to support it.

I believe this source to be reliable, and unlike a site like IMDb, because of the following:

• The site is run by a select group of people - While it does allow people to register and participate on the site, in regards to their database, outside users can suggest updates, not actually contribute to updates themselves.
• The Batman: Arkham Origins page does not have every credited actor attached to a role yet - This leads me to believe that a name is only attached to a role once it has been verified by the site, reliably. Since I found the site a day or two ago, before starting the discussion here, the game's page did not have Khary Payton's name attached to Warden Joseph or Killer Croc - both since confirmed by Payton himself on his Twitter here and here.
• I don't see much difference in this site than Behindthevoiceactors.com, which is considered a RS. - BVA.com utilizes a green "check" next to an actor when they are confirmed, and I do not see this as any difference than the system I believe VoiceChasers uses as I noted in the bullet above this.

Just as an FYI, this site was asked about on the RSN in February 2012, here, with the commenting editor saying that "it looked like a blog" with "no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy," both of which I'm not inclined to agree with by my looking at the site and would like others opinions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Favre1fan , I've done a bit of looking at both sites. At first I thought BTVA was *not* suitable to be a reliable source: "unofficial site.. for fans, run by fans in their spare time..." The key reason why BehindTheVoiceActors aka BTVA is used as a reliable source is because they have a verification process.[10] "...any green checkmarks those are confirmed credits. Click the greencheck mark to see the source... official voice actor websites, voice actor resumes, DVD/Blu-ray ending credits and from conversations with the voice actors & voice directors..." Especially valuable is this bit: "Sometimes multiple sources conflict... leads to additional work on our part to find out the truth." They are definitely a fan-site, but they have an editorial-slash-fact-checking process. The process *is* flawed, of course, since a green checkmark might just be 'sourced' to some blog or twit of a pretend-actor that claims credit for roles they did not actually perform; cf WP:SELFPUB. It might not even be a blog -- BTVA trusts private email from actors, saying "I was the voice of so-and-so" which might never be corrected. Still, pretty reliable, at least on the level of the politics section of a daily newspaper in a mid-size city, right? Right.

   You are asking whether VoiceChasersDotCom aka VCDC is also good enough. They have a similar approach, where fans post in forums, and then the VCDC staff puts the information into the database. What's the editorial-and-fact-checking-process? They do not say, neither giving details, nor even whether they *have* any fact-checking. "Our large, comprehensive database... over 120k voice credits..." Notice the focus on quantity of info, not quality of info; they say comprehensive first, accurate as an afterthought, and they give a total count only, never giving a total-count-and-a-verified-true-count. "... meant for research, education, and entertainment purposes only."[11] It is also run by a dedicated group of volunteers, like BTVA... but although VCDC claims to be an "accurate resource for professionals" they give no evidence, in the we-commit-our-reputation-to-the-following-written-process sense, to back that claim up. At the end of the day, they sound more like IMDB than like BTVA.

   That does not mean all is lost. Maybe VCDC *does* have a strong verification-process, maybe even stronger than BTVA, and have just not documented it in the FAQ.[12] Maybe email them this link, and see if they'll commit to publishing their verification procedures, and adding something like the green-check-means-verified-click-here-to-see-cited-source. Another workaround would be, look up the info you need to verify with a reliable source (e.g. Warden == Khary Payton), and post the info at BTVA. Once they give Warden==Khary the green checkmark, you can put it into the wikipedia article. Anyways, at the end of the day, I have the same bad news as the 2012 person: "no evidence on whether they check". Your experience of watching the evolution of the Batman listings *is* evidence, of course... but it is anecdotal evidence. Maybe you were just lucky. Maybe they sometimes verify, but not always. Maybe some VCDC contributors verify, but with others anything goes. Maybe they verify batman, but not Bill Murray. The key is, they do not commit to verifying, they do not document how they verify. That is the substantive difference. HTH. Ping my talkpage if you have any question or concerns, I rarely check this noticeboard. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food - Advice on a source

1. Source. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers [13] The first line of the report reads:

"Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded."

2. Article. genetically modified food controversies
3. Content. From the wiki article: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."
4. Discussion. We would like some advice on the use of this source, and I do not want to sway any neutral parties, so I won't offer my own view or any other info about our previous discussion until we hear from some new faces. I would urge my friends from the gm food pages to do the same. Thanks everyone --Geraldatyrrell (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science is respected scientific organization, yes, they are a reliable source. But I'm not sure I would word the content the way it is above. The article doesn't really say that there is broad scientific consensus, although one could certainly draw that conclusion. Instead, the article lists specific organizations. I suggest we do something similar. Also, the source article doesn't quite say "conventional food". Instead, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" which may or may not be the same thing as "conventional food". So, I think the AAAS is an excellent source for the article, but we should try to stay closer to what it says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Quest, thank you for pointing out that AAAS is a reliable source here. Speaking as an involved editor, I want to address your concern about "broad scientific consensus". The source also says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”" I think that is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus", and that the AAAS is reliable as a source to make that assessment. I'll also point out that the community very recently made a careful examination of the question raised here, at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", and the consensus there was that the language on the page is reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Have you tried finding a source that says what you want it to say? If you don't mind using the popular press, here's a source[14] that says what you want it to say almost word for word. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll bring it up at the article talk page. On the plus side, that source uses language that is just about word-for-word what the page says. On the minus side, they are popular press as you say, and I wonder if they mirrored the language from Wikipedia! Of course, the AAAS source is a reliable expert source, and I don't think there is the slightest bit of OR in going from the passage I quoted to the language we cite to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from an involved party: The content that this source is used to support (which is narrowly focused on the relative safety of food from currently marketed GMOs), and the many sources used to support that content, went through an RfC not too long ago - see here. The conclusion was that the statement and sources are fine. More recently, Gerald wanted to remove this particular source; he is not currently challenging the content. Gerald failed to gain consensus for removing the source on Talk, so I recommended he bring the source here. I will leave it to him, to make his own arguments. I have argued that under MEDRS, specifically the section on Medical and scientific organizations, that this source is acceptable. It is not the kind of peer-reviewed secondary source that we generally rely on for sourcing (of which we have several already) but it is really valuable to have a statement by such a reputable major scientific body to support the content (which is in a controversial area, where the scientific consensus is clear but the public is very emotional). The only legit grounds I could see to exclude this source (given the paragraph in MEDRS) is that the AAAS is not a "reputable major scientific body". I don't see how that argument could be made, so the source should stay. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern was that the source doesn't back up their own claims with cited info. Honestly, I'm not sure why they referred to the 2 cited sources at all. They could have easily backed up the report by citing more heavily or just left them out completely. Maybe aaas is suggesting that those are the two best sources available. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I would appreciate other thoughts on this type of source in general. When is it appropriate, when not and why this over something more closely linked to the science. With all of the public confusion over the scientific consensus, I understand why the aaas would want to put the issue right, but I didn't think it was wikipedia's job to address that same public confusion, but instead to report the facts. Jyt and Tryp have the right of it, this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it. I would appreciate some comments from RS folks on the lack of peer-review and limited citations of the report. Thanks Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why you continue to ignore the specific authorization of this kind of source in MEDRS is beyond me. For you to be solidly grounded in policy and guideline, that paragraph would have to not-exist. But it does exist. You just have a preference that we not use the source, but you are not arguing that way. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the paragraph and recognize that it permits use of sources like this. The questions I'm raising are more for my own education. Seems like there ought to be circumstances that drive which types of source to use. Does that exist somewhere? (I'm curious when one should cite an organization's statement and what makes it preferential.) Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a much more reasonable position than the one you have taken thus far. But I think your efforts on the Talk page went beyond raising questions to strenuously making claims and arguments that this source should be cut. In any case, wanting to learn is always a good thing. My sense (but I too am happy to be taught) is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines specify what types of sources are most preferred, which are less preferred, and which are not acceptable, both generally and for health-related content in particular. With respect to choosing among acceptable sources, there is no guidance other than a) use the most preferred kind of source whenever possible, and of course, b) the fifth pillar (there are no rules, use common sense). In this case, as was stated several times on the Talk page, the AAAS source is both acceptable and is extremely useful for supporting the given content (the board of one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the US, issued a statement clarifying what the scientific consensus is. (Rhetorical question - who would know the scientific consensus better than the board of such an organization?). Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw this on Forbes the other day stating:

A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.

So, Forbes is stating in no uncertain terms that there is scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe (well, as safe as non GMO)Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the substance, but the Forbes article is an op-ed by a named contributor, and hence only representative for the opinion of that particular author, not Forbes itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't see that oped part. The link to the research is inside for those that care.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Policies (e.g. wp:ver and wp:nor) establish sourcing/source/sourcability requirements for the presence of material. There is no policy requirement for the presence of a source. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure what you are saying. WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS are policy and guideline, respectively, on acceptable sourcing. Please elaborate! Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that North8000 does not understand why there is an argument about whether a *reference* is worth removing, and is pointing out that most wikipedia policies talk about *sentences* sometimes needing to be removed. Basically, they are asking what the point of this whole discussion is. Methinks the answer is WP:STICKTOSOURCE, because here is what Geraldatyrrell said: "...this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it." In this case, the AAAS report is signed by 'board members' and gives a general-sounding statement, which is in *agreement* with similar statements made by other folks, but does not *cite* very many of the other folks. In a nutshell, the AAAS report almost sounds like a communal blog, where the board writes up their opinions, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

(added later) in hindsight, I realize that I misunderstood an argument that was being made; and that my comment a couple posts back is not relevant to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks!Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

    Since the sentence in question does not depend solely on the AAAS report, and since the AAAS report was somewhat weak-seeming (in terms of academic formalisms) when you follow it a little deeper, Geraldatyrrell was trying to get a better feel for how valid using such a source might be... in a hypothetical situation where it *was* the sole supporting WP:RS for some sentence. My take is that the 'board members' of the AAAS, and their newsletter, are best seen as a *journalistic* body, rather than a *scientific* publication. The board members act as the editorial and fact-checking department, in practice very much like a science-oriented magazine such as Technology Review functions. They don't cite deeply-and-broadly, because the are *reporting* on existing conclusions, not generating any new ones. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just a quibble with what you said, and I think that you are largely making a very reasonable point. But I'm going to quibble with your characterization of the AAAS Board as acting in an editorial/fact-checking capacity. Although they are indeed expressing an editorial view after reviewing available factual material, they differ from typical editorial offices (including the staff of the editorial office of their major publication, Science (journal)) in that most Board members are highly distinguished scientists, selected somewhat like the National Academy of Sciences. They are a governance board, as opposed to office staff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Source:Building a Legend: The 'Skinny' on the Slender Man

Article: Slender Man

Content: The classic distinction between folklore and fakelore, and whether it applies to this phenomenon.

It's a paper that's obviously passed muster at university level, but it is by an undergraduate. I've been keeping this source on ice for a while, because I'm not sure if it meets all the criteria, but the information it imparts is gold, and reliable sources on this topic are, as you can imagine, rare. Serendi^podous 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the PhD thesis and Masters thesis paragraph. The key phrase is "shown to have had significant scholarly influence" which basically means, lots of other academics have cited it, in lots of other thesis papers, peer-reviewed journal papers, and similar. I'm guessing that is not the case. Did anybody publish the work, as part of Proceeding of the 7th Annual Such And Such Conference, or the equivalent? If neither a bunch of cites, nor a non-COI-publication, then prolly not usable as WP:RS. The paper itself *might* be suitable as an external link, though, specifying pretty clearly that this is an undergrad student paper published by the student on the university wiki (or whatever the actual detailed explanation is). Hope this helps. There was actually just a rewrite of that section of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is why I remembered that sentence about Masters thesis stuff. If you want the explanatory details, ping my user-talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia, sorry my news is likely not what you were wanting to hear. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:No Gun Ri massacre

I'm a non-participant in ongoing edits/talk. This looks to me to be a POV noticeboard problem so I have posted at POV noticeboard, but might be worth someone looking at the problem from the RS perspective too. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote

User:CFredkin claims that Talking Points Memo is not a reliable source for documenting a Senator's vote. [15][16] The content will be easily sourced from elsewhere, being a US Senator's vote, but I don't like editors attempting to move the Overton Window by making false claims. Please advise. — goethean 16:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither Talking Points Memo or Policymic are reliable sources. They are both pushing an agenda. A similar argument has been made elsewhere regarding Breitbart. If TPM and Policymic are reliable, then I would argue that Breitbart would be as well.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No experience or opinion with TPM/Breitbart ... but last I remember, PolicyMic is not at all a reliable source, it is like examiner.com , anybody can write for it, no fact-checking. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming here? You think that Kirk didn't vote the way that these journalists say that he voted? Or are you just using RS as a weapon to remove content that you don't like? — goethean 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that the vote referenced in the content you're trying to add to the article is significant. Mention of it in a reliable secondary source would indicate whether it is significant. I don't believe the sources mentioned above would be considered reliable.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you are making a different argument. Whether the content is appropriate is a different question than whether the source is reliable. Your first argument was that the source is unrelisble. Are you discarding that argument for a new one? — goethean 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's a tit-for-tat. Breitbart is an obviously unreliable source, so you are attempting to impeach other sources which you know are reliable. That makes sense. — goethean 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Breitbart seems very comparable to these 2 sources to me (although obviously from different political perspectives).CFredkin (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is certainly reliable in this instance. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What's your rationale?CFredkin (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While partisan, this is a legitimate news operation with professional editors and reporters, who has credentials that can be verified. I'm not saying this should be used in the manner suggested, but as towards the claim it makes it seems utterly reliable,Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that if Kirk's vote was any more notable than any other vote he's had, it would be commented on in an established WP:RS and not some partisan rag. WeldNeck (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've never heard of this source before, but they appear to be a professional news organization with editorial oversight.[17][18] In absence of other contradicting information, I would lean towards it being reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• TPM is a liberal/progressive opinion source. Much like Newsmax. They are reliable for their own views, but information from TPM is going to be liberally biased. There opinion about others should take this into consideration. Generally speaking, if something is that notable it will be covered as such by less biased sources than thses. Additionally, the manner it which it was being used in this instance is clearly pushing a liberal POV, which makes the edit a NPOV. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference in question is not an opinion piece. We should accept it as reliable. Whether or not its usage here is warranted per NPOV is a different question altogether.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, just because the source is a biased one, does not mean coverage in that source is not reliable. It sounds like folks here are pretty well agreed that TPM in this case counts as a reliable source, and if a reliable source gives something significant coverage, then that something is almost certainly WP:NOTEWORTHY, though not necessarily WP:N enough for a dedicated wikipedia article or anything. There is a separate question, which is how WP:UNDUE applies... maybe the stuff the reliable source is discussing, are worth a tiny mention in the mainspace article, or even *no* mention if the editors reach consensus that the stuff is just not necessary to the article, per WP:IAR. But usually, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and maintain NPOV tone by *saying* that "avowed liberals[1][2] at TPM said[3] '...' in October 2013...." for instance. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with AQFK's argument for why it's a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Then presumably Breitbart would be considered a reliable source as well.CFredkin (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is not required for a reliable source (although, of course, it's preferred). However, lack of neutrality can impact negatively upon reliability. This is the case for NewsMax, for example, which routinely gets the facts wrong when they don't suit their political narrative. MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• The noticeboard has had a discussion about Policymic before here, and it's a self-published thing unreliable for use. Should be removed. TPM is reliable, but Policymic should go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel: Can you please weigh in here? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here. As I indicated below, I'm just looking for a level playing field. Both TPM and Newsmax are edited and POV. It appears that they should both be reliable, or not.CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture

Over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Forbes/Forbes.com

After seeing a WP:Edit war between Atotalstranger and NorthBySouthBaranof, evidenced by this, this and this, over whether or not Forbes.com is a WP:Reliable source, I decided to bring the matter here. Notice what NorthBySouthBaranof links to in the first diff-link. I always thought that Forbes.com counted as a WP:Reliable source for celebrity/public figure information; it's certainly widely used on Wikipedia with regard to who is richest and/or most influential, though it's often being used to source itself in such cases. I haven't checked this noticeboard's archives to see if, or how many times, Forbes/Forbes.com has been discussed here, so forgive me if this thread is redundant.

It is also worth noting that Atotalstranger's approach to sourcing is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Forbes should be considered reliable, despite North's claim otherwise. It's an elementary exercise to prove this, so I won't. However the link in question is an op-ed, so it's an opinion piece.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Two kinds of pork. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong. The Romenesko article I posted specifically points out that Forbes.com bloggers are NOT regularly fact-checked or edited. This means that they are no more than personal blogs with a fancy name. Fact-checking and editing are at the heart of our reliable sourcing policy because we rely on those external sources being true. Absent internal controls at the publisher level, there is no guarantee that what is posted in that blog is true because it has NEVER been examined by a fact-checker or professional editor. This does not apply to material published in the dead-tree magazine, which the material in question is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see this bit that Tarcil added to the Forbes Wikipedia article; NorthBySouthBaranof has a valid point on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the source in question an op-ed? I don't think anyone is going to contaminate the entirety of Forbes.com over this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Any of the blogs hosted by Forbes.com are un-edited, non-factchecked, self-published posts. See this article from the Poynter Institute: "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said. This flies in the face of what we demand in a reliable source. It doesn't matter what the name is, or what we "contaminate" - the contamination to be worried about is the contamination of Wikipedia content with material that hasn't been vetted by a traditional system of editing and fact-checking.

At the very least, this makes any Forbes.com blog an unacceptable source for contentious material about living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogs hosted by generally RS Websites (such as Forbes.com) can be treated as analogous to columns in RS newspapers, which also are not generally fact-checked and often given no more than very rudimentary editing. Fine as a source for the writer's opinions, and in practice fine for non-contentious statements of fact if there's no other source available (especially where the writer is an expert), but not good sources for contentious factual suggestions, especially where BLPs are concerned. Barnabypage (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of putting it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsblogs (which Forbes blogs count as) are opinion or editorials and can not be used to source any facts. All opinion from them must be accompanied by attributing the source in the text like: "John Smith of Forbes.com believes..." with the inline citation to the blog.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "can not be used to source any facts," but Mark Miller is referring to what the WP:NEWSBLOG policy outlines. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Rarely used to source facts. Per: WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Although I have yet to see when an editorial has ever been used to source a fact reliably.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some analysis articles are very serious and are excellent sources. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to find objective criteria to distinguish them from filler pieces. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the point isn't about something as ill-defined as a "filler piece". What is at issue is whether an opinion piece (or editorial) is appropriate to use to source a fact. The answer is simply, "very seldom, if ever".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that most Forbes blogs are not reliable for contentious facts, unless the blogger themselves is a well-known authority on the subject. For uncontentious straightforward facts or description, I see no objection, though better sources are preferred even here. But nlogs in major publication have become a more customary form of publication since our guidelines were written, However, a good deal else published by Forbes is unreliable in other ways--most of their directory information is contributed by the subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References for Sagar Dutta Memorial Medical College and Hospital

The third reference in the article appears to be a copy of this wiki article.Even the language is exactly the same.Am I correct in my judgement in the fact that this is not a reliable source?The one objection that can be raised against the points I have made is this:It is hosted on the official website of the department of health of the West Bengal government,which oversees the functioning of Medical Colleges(as medical schools are known in India.)

The section I am referrng to is this:

Sagore Dutta Charitable Hospital and Dispensary initially started as a philanthropic organization with an objective of all round health care of the poor peasants and industrial workers of Kamarhati and adjoining areas. Its immense service to fulfill the objectives was recognized when the then Medical Secretary, Dr. Anderson, on his India tour, visited ‘a rural hospital and dispensary situated outside Calcutta, the Sogore Dutt Charitable Hospital and Dispensary’ in January, 1937.The Sagore Dutt Hospital Act, 1958 (Act 14 of 1958) was enforced with effect from the 1st March 1959, vide notification No. Medl./852/14-84/58, dated 30/01/1959, published in the Calcutta Gazette of 1959, Part 1, page 662. The Act provided for the taking over of Sagore Dutt Hospital at Kamarhati in the district of 24 Parganas together with the charitable dispensary attached thereto, by the State Government with a view to the promotion of public health.[3]

Guru-45 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be the official Government of West Bengal's Health & Family Welfare Department website. If the language is the same, most likely we (Wikipedia) ripped off the wording from them, not the other way around, but anything is possible. If you think this is a case of WP:CIRCULAR, you can try to figure out which was published first. But taking a quick look at the article history, it appears that the offending text was added very recently, about a month ago on September 29, 2013 with this diff.[19] That would make most likely our article a copyright violation. You can contact someone at the WP:HELPDESK for assistance on how to fix copyright problems. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, Guru-45! There were copyvios from a number of sources. I think I got them all, but if you think I missed any, please say so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Peter Sellers article regarding the use of word "Jewish" of a character

There is a RfC regarding the use of the word "Jewish" to describe a conman character in several 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials. There is a heated discussion regarding the sources to support the content.

Discussion at Talk:Peter Sellers#Request for Comment: Use of term "Jewish" to describe conman character. --Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldsfinestonline.com

I cannot tell if this is an actual media arm of Toonzone or is a wikia. I am trying to determine whether the site is RS or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This request for WP:RS assessment is a spin-off-question, from a discussion of whether or not fansite-wiki-URLs are permissible in the external links section (not as sources per se, but as Unique Resources that might be of further interest to wikipedians). See the exception about 'one major fansite' under WP:LINKFARM. All of which, obviously, has nothing to do with the specific question here on RS/N, which is whether or not WorldsFinestOnline is an official slash reliable source about the various shows/characters/etc it covers, in the sense of being useful for inline-citations of statements in wikipedia articles. But although my comment is off-topic, I figured I'd give the context here, in case people follow the backtrail, and wonder what the heck we're talking about on EL/N and the article-talkpage. HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

74Anon is correct; I wasn't asking about the use of fansites as external sources. As I understand it, so long as it isn't a banned site and doesn't create a landing strip for all sorts of fansites, the major one is usually allowed.

The question here pertains to the use of WF as a reliable source, as some users were seeking to use it as such to add material to the article. I am almost certain that YoungJustice Wikia isn't a RS, so I dodn't even bother to ask. WF could do with some extra eyes, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The policy is very clear guys:" most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority" are unacceptable. For example...all fan run sites are excluded, but the official fansite, owned, operated or approved by the studio of the film or series etc. is acceptable. Wikis are not that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, nice to see you again. So, right, and when you look at WorldsFinestOnline, the creator/maintainer has a toonZone.net email address, and at the bottom of the contact-page it says 'hosted by toonZone' ... yet it also seems to permit at least *some* kind of fan-edited-content, though not much. So I guess the question is, if the fansite is "hosted-and-partially-written" by a recognized authority (ToonZone in this case), does that make it acceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we *presume* that ToonZone personnel are exercising some editorial oversight? Or, on the other hand, does that make it unacceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we alternatively *presume* anything goes? We can try emailing the maintainer, and asking them what the oversight policy is, I suppose, and whether they are a 'fan' with a courtesy webmail account, or an official employee. But maybe the "fansite... operated... by [somebody official-like]" part applies here. Thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going? First, I don't see that the sites that Toonzone represent have any official status from the actual copyright holders and, in fact, their "About us" content states: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans." This is not a news agency or publishing company that appears to be RS to our standards. It does actually appear to be a very elaborate and popular fan run site. Then, when I search for the founder, it appears they are using a username: Brian Cruz Tag (comics) which seems to be a fictitious character. I may be incorrect about the founder, but it does appear they are not using their real name.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Further looking finds this: "Staff - Over the site's almost seven years of history, the editorial, news, and moderator staff have changed significantly, but all are unpaid volunteers. Most take nicknames, often based on the names of cartoon characters."--Mark Miller (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat suspected as much. Thanks for a definitive answer on the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added a source ( a newspaper) to other existing sources. It was deleted. am I wrong?

• Source. --ref name="ahram1">"The road to Naksa". Cairo , AL-AHRAM. 7 - 13 June 2007. Retrieved 7 - 13 June 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)</ref>
• Article. Six-Day War
• Content."Mohamed Fawzi (general) left for Syria for one day tour, verified that the Soviet report is false and reported that there are no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border". The Diff page]

I have added a source ( an Egyptian newspaper on line) to other existing sources. (The article was not modified). The reason is that some Pro Arab readers do not believe that Israel did not planned the war in advance, and would suspect the bias of Israeli / Western history books who claim otherwise. Hence it is better to add a well known Egyptian newspaper (on line, English). Unfortunately, it was deleted since "nor al-Ahram ... are WP:RS sources for history articles" Am I wrong? Ykantor (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify which passage from the source is being cited to support the text in our article? Unless I've missed something, the only mention of Fawzi in the article you cite concerns him ordering a book to be withdrawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant source sentences are:"In April 1967, Russia told Egypt that Israel was amassing troops on the Syrian borders. Israel had no strategic or tactical motive to do such a thing. And an emissary sent by Nasser to Syria reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria.". According to other sources, the emissary was Fawzi. In my opinion the important aspect is the last quote words:"reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria." (In retrospect, the article words should have been slightly modified.) Ykantor (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a WP:OR from your side.

And al-Ahram is a newspaper. This articles is an historcial event more than 40 years old. Scholarly sources exist for this matter. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a ignorence from your side. The article stay the same, which means that there is no WP:OR. Ykantor (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot cite a source for something it doesn't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• If approved, it will be a source for other points as well. Besides, the "Al-Ahram" quote: "an emissary sent by Nasser to Syria reported back that the information was false" is supporting this sentence (except of the emissary name, which is a secondary detail).
• There are a lot of newspapers among the article sources. e.g. 197 Haaretz, 194 BBC, 193 Chicago tribune, 192 Boston globe and more). Why should we avoid another newspaper , especially since it is not the sentence sole source? Ykantor (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere near reliable for history. Nor are the other newspapers used in the article. They should be replaced by academic works by historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not give blanket 'approval' of sources. We may approve the use of a source for particular statement - which may have little or no bearing on the use of a source for other purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, AndyTheGrump thank you. Ykantor (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AuthorHouse

I'm currently rewriting the Etchmiadzin Cathedral article. Quite a few sources call it the oldest church in the world and that claim is obviously debatable, so I added "often called the oldest church in the world."

Two of the six sources are published by AuthorHouse, which is "a self-publishing company." Since self-published sources are not considered reliable should I keep them? Also, please consider that I used a wording (i.e. "often called") which makes it clear that it is not a fact, but the opinion of some authors anyway, so does it really matter if its self-published or not?

the two sources

Benedict, C. T. (2007). One God in One Man. AuthorHouse. p. 121. ISBN 9781434301062. The Holy Etchmiadzin cathedral, dates back to the fourth century, and is thought to be the oldest Christian cathedral in the world. Greer, Charles Douglas (2008). Religions of Man: Facts, Fibs, Fears and Fables. AuthorHouse. p. 47. ISBN 9781467840835. The rest of the Armenian Church and its catholicos who live at Echmiadzin monastery near Yerevan Armenia, said to be the oldest monastery in Christiandom.

--Երևանցի ^talk 01:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not usually considered reliable. There is an exception that might apply in your case: If the author of one these books is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, then it would be acceptable. If not, then no, you should not keep them. If you have four books from reliable publishing houses, then you're off to a good start. I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Four sources are enough to get the point across. And these authors don't seem to be authoritative. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Are the four sources reliable sources also using weasel words, like the two you show here? 'said to be' / 'thought to be' / 'often called' ... not very inspiring in terms of reliability.  :-)     As for the two sources mentioned here, yes, they should be left out of mainspace -- suggest you leave a copy of the refs on the article talkpage, in a section called 'mine these for research-pointers', since even selfpub sources sometimes have bibliographies or pointers that can later be tracked down in reliable sources for verifiable mainspace facts. There are only a couple big WP:SELFPUB exceptions: one pointed out by Yerevanci, which is if the person is a Notable expert, e.g. the official blog of some Stanford professor of economics *can* be WP:RS. The second exception is opinions about themselves, WP:ABOUTSELF. This does not stretch like taffy: we cannot say that "Charles Greer has stated the fact that he holds the opinion that Echmiadzin monastery is said to be the oldest Christian monastery"... too much indirection! We can only go one step deep, and say something very straightforward involving no other objects-of-discussion, and no controversy, such as "Charles Greer states he is a Christian" (example sentence only -- no clue about the real Greer). HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1) "generally regarded as the oldest in the world" 2) "is thus the oldest Christian monastery" 3) "the oldest cathedral in Christendom" 4) "the world's oldest cathedral"

As you can see, only one of the four sources uses a weasel word. But my point is that it is always going to be disputed whether Etchmiadzin is the oldest church in the world or not, because there are several criteria that can be taken into considered, so we have to use vague-ish words here. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?

I want to write an article on P.K. Mohan also known as Mohanji.

Official website: [www.mohanji.org].

General coverage: [20][21][22][23].

The Power of Purity book: [24][25].

"Kailash with Mohanji" book release media coverage: [26][27][28][29].

Valedictory address by Mohanji at the The Life Positive Expo - 2012 in Mumbai: [30].

Mohanji's Charity organization Ammucare third party sources coverage: [31][32][33][34].

Mohanji as CEO of a Shipping Company coverage: [35][36][37].

Mohanji coverage in Serbian magazines: [38][39].

Please take your time to check the sources and let me know what you think. Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend trying to find at least one source with higher readership. Andrew³²⁷ 12:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. Anyone else has an opinion on this? Zlio2004 (talk)

Polemical or Scholarly

Edward Granville Browne spent a year in Persia back in late 19th century during which he did some research on Bábism/Bahaism as well. In 1915 a Christian Missionary after staying in Persia for some time wrote another book on Bahaism in which he used Browne's findings. The book got a good review from Harvard Divinity School. The question is whether I can use this 1915 book (reprinted in 1970 By AMS Press Inc.) as a scholarly source for this edit. Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

considering that the material is negative, and reported indirectly, that someone preached that another person had said that someone had told him the negative information, I do not see how it is encyclopedic content regardless of date. Equally important, there seems no direct relevance of the entire paragraph to the subject of the article DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit did not elaborate enough why the content can be relevant to the article. Consider the following quote from the same page of that book:

After the Bab had declared the law of Islam abrogated and before he had promulgated new ordinances, there ensued a period of transition which we call fitrat(the interval), during which all things were lawful. So long as this continued, Kurrat-ul-Ayn (a.k.a. Tahirih) may possibly have consorted, for example, with Hazret-i-Kuddus, as though he had been her husband.

While Currently in the article all allegations are voided on the basis of being polemical the above confession from a Sheikh of the same faith sheds some light on that matter. Let me know what you think.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Much too old to be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is post-von Ranke isn't it?--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's from the colonial era and colonizing countries have axes to grind. From our article on Browne. "He is perhaps best known for his documentation and historical narratives of the Bábí movement as relayed by Count Gobineau." Yes, that's the Gobineau, the notorious scientific racist. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If this were still 1915 it would be rs. But future scholarship may have invalidated some of the claims and therefore it should not be used. That is not to say that modern scholars may not find it useful as a primary source, which is possibly why it was re-published. TFD (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was careful to say no direct relationship. I did figure out what the rhetorical purpose of the material was, as an indirect attempt to blacken her character, but using it this way is WP:SYN. A modern discussion of the issue might clarify this in an acceptable way. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

linkedin profile of a site founder

User Loki racer added the LinkedIn link to the LokiTorrent page:

LokiTorrent was a BitTorrent indexing service operated by Edward Webber ("Lowkee")

Seems a pretty clear conflict with WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:SOURCES. It's not even there to back anything up -- just to link Webber's professional profile. Posting to RSN after the link was added for the fourth time. Not sure if this should maybe be over at ANV -- or COIN, based on the fact that the user appears to be the subject of the article.

Diffs:

• added: 1, 2, 3, 4
• removed: 1, 2, 3

--Rhododendrites (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it isn't a source at all. Nowhere on the LinkedIn page does it state that "LokiTorrent was a BitTorrent indexing service operated by Edward Webber". It says nothing about LokiTorrent whatsoever. And no, even if it did say that, it would be a questionable and unnecessary source, given that third-party sourcing for the same thing is already available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So it sounds like this is a better fit for ANV? I've already reverted 3 times already and the user seems to disagree that it's inappropriate. E.g. the last three edit summaries:

• Undid revision 580240408 by Rhododendrites (talk) Nothing about this edit violates the External Links or Identifying reliable sources policies. Please stop removing this edit.
• Undid revision 580270166 by Loki racer (talk) - pretty explicit, actually. see WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:SOURCES (or search the RS noticeboard for linkedin)
• Undid revision 580285363 by Rhododendrites (talk) Nothing you linked to says that Linkedin is a bad reference. It's an original, unique, fact-checked source for this person's info.

--Rhododendrites (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory

Is Robert Parry's self-published, donation financed "Consortium News" website (with all of the relevant articles written by Parry himself) a reliable source for historical facts? The site is barely above the level of a blog, although Parry's past work as a journalist may give him some credibility (along with a strong conflict of interest). At the moment, "Consortium News" (and an editorial from the far-left advocacy group FAIR, also by Parry) are the primary sources used in October Surprise conspiracy theory. I'm hardly surprised that the article has been written entirely by editors who take everything Parry says extremely seriously; the resulting lack of neutrality is merely the collateral damage that comes inherent with a project like Wikipedia. No doubt the page requires mass deletions of unsourced content ("Bush provided several alibis that fell apart," with no source, when Secret Service logs show Bush engaged in a large number of appearances in the United States), as well as removal of useless external links like Rumor Mill News, and it should probably portray the delusional con man Ari Ben Menashe (whose inglorious career includes serving as chief witness in Robert Mugabe's farcical treason trial of the leader of the chief opposition party in Zimbabwe) in a less glowing light. But even granting that perhaps fringe theories are most written about by fringe theorists, is "Consortium News" a suitable source for Wikipedia at all? Keep in mind that Parry claims to have found a "Russian X-file" proving the October Surprise after he snuck into "a remote storage room on Capitol Hill," and that this is typical of his style. (Here he talks about how he found Carter's "green-light" allowing Saddam to invade Iran, "which apparently had been left behind by accident in a remote Capitol Hill storage room". Certainly, none of his "well-placed official[s]" are sources we can check.) Also consider that "Consortium News" is often the sole source used to ascribe factual statements to important political figures, for example Yitzhak Shamir.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

sole source used to ascribe factual statements to important political figures, for example Yitzhak Shamir. - well yes, Parry was present in the interview with Shamir, so he's the direct source for what Shamir said. Podiaebba (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Not a reliable source in the whole article as far as I can see. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Great efforts were made to paint Ari Ben-Menashe as delusional and a con-man, but that line is no longer sustainable, which is probably why his house was fire-bombed recently, shortly before he was due to assist Parry with an interview of a senior Israeli intelligence figure (who concluded it was a message to him, and cancelled the interview). Podiaebba (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Consortium for Independent Journalism meets rs as does Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. FAIR is actually a "progressive" organization, not the Weather Underground. Also, you should have posted a notice on the article's talk page that you were posting here. TFD (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, can you elaborate? Surely you aren't suggesting that they are RS because there are Wikipedia articles dedicated to them, or because you find my "far-left" description objectionable? Of course Parry revels in his self-published status, claiming that it allows him freedom from the constraints of biased corporate fact-checkers so he can uncover "the real story". But WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry revels in his self-published status - that is absolute crap. Look at Parry's backstory and you will see that he left both AP and Newsweek because they were too willing to draw a line under Iran-Contra and not publish any further digging into who knew what when (like Amiram Nir briefing Bush in 1986, as came out years later from an Israeli source). Podiaebba (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FAIR comes up all the time.[40] U.S. conservatives do not like it because it concentrates on right-wing media.

The Wikipedia article says Parry who worked for AP and Newsweek is the editor and there are three other contributors. It's "reporting has featured several times in Project Censored's Top 25 Most Censored Stories of the Year". The close control of an owner over a publication does not make it self-published, otherwise we would have to exclude Fox News. Here is a link to a copy of the cable on Consortium's website. The Road to 911 by Peter Dale Scott (University of California Press, 2007) quotes the cable, which he sources to Parry.[41] I do not know if the contents of the cable were accurate, or if it means anything, but see no reason to doubt it was actually sent, and Scott's book is rs that it did exist. I do not know where Barry wrote that he "snuck in" and found the document, my reading is just that he said it was stored for years.

TFD (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He didn't "sneak in" anywhere, he asked for access to the files and got it (and found the files in such a "we don't really care" mess that classified materials he shouldn't have been given access to where in there as well, which AFAIR includes the Russian cable and the State Dept memo proving that Casey was in Madrid at the relevant time). Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No. See more here. Whatever credibility as a journalist Parry once had went up in smoke captain Ahab style. And I agree with Itsmejudith that there are no decent sources in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? You're trying to use the 1991 Newsweek article by Steven Emerson which included claims Newsweek knew to be false (Craig Unger, who warned them, "They told me, essentially, to fuck off.. It was the most dishonest thing that I’ve been through in my life in journalism") and which the House Task Force dropped without comment? Even without knowing anything else about Emerson, that's going some. PS Is it possible that knowingly publishing false information might affect Newsweek or Emerson's status as a reliable source at least for this subject? ... Ah, though not. Podiaebba (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry (journalist) is probably the leading expert on the October Surprise; as such, his publications on the subject are reliable sources by any meaningful interpretation of the concept. Anyone who dismisses Parry on the basis that he's still pursuing the October Surprise when the House Task Force "proved" it was wrong really ought to look at House October Surprise Task Force. Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I actually agree with you about FAIR--I would consider them a reliable source. Keep in mind, my concern is Consortium News. You seem a lot more concerned about proving FAIR is reliable, which is not what I am focused on, and doesn't prove anything about Consortium News. Now, I don't think a media watchdog advocacy group like FAIR is ideal for establishing historical facts, but I do think they can be cited for claims specifically ascribed to them. Regarding Consortium News, I am not persuaded by your comparison of a donation-financed blog with 3 contributors to Fox News, suggesting that we would have to blacklist them both. Nevertheless, that you found a RS (The Road to 9/11) citing Parry on the Russian report is quite helpful. The article should be structured around RS like that, rather than extensively quoting Consortium News uncritically (while I would need to look a little more closely to be sure, I think it may be fair to say the article as currently written is based on Consortium News). If anything Parry has written on the subject has been published, even by institutions like FAIR, then it could also be cited. However, the claims should be ascribed to him rather than treated as gospel truth, and the article should focus on how these assertions are viewed by impartial mainstream observers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry is an RS, and mainstream sources are hardly interested in continuing to pursue the details of it post-House Task Force, so the new information Parry has come up with (of which the State Dept memo is probably the most critical - the Task Force chairman told Parry two decades later that if that hadn't been withheld, the conclusions might have been different [42]). I don't object to more explicit attribution of claims to Parry, but that will make the writing pretty awkward. I'm not happy to have to rely on one author so heavily, but when it's an RS who is the leading expert on the subject, and few others are interested in continuing to write about, that's how it is. As to "impartial mainstream observers" - this is a joke, right? Or did you miss the deliberate publication of misinformation by New Republic and Newsweek? Or that the efforts to discredit every source (cf Ben-Menashe) still leave the whole thing a radioactive mess for any mainstream journalist - potential career suicide even if they could get their employer to publish it (remember Parry left Newsweek because they wouldn't)? Podiaebba (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NB if it makes any difference, the large majority of the info on Consortium News will also be available from Parry's books. Podiaebba (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

PS Those who insist that the House October Surprise Task Force is the last word on the subject might pause to consider Rep Dymally's refusal to sign the report - a refusal relegated to a single sentence on page 244, in a section with an irrelevant heading, whilst the cover letter claims unanimous approval of the report's conclusions. (And that's not Parry, that's verifiable from the HOSTF report itself.) Podiaebba (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

After a brief review, there are several high quality sources on this subject.

1. The New Republic Piece
2. Newsweeks investigation
3. American Journalism Review
4. The Village Voice
5. Two congressional inquiries

Even if a case could be made that Robert Parry is a RS, his website isnt and the way the article looks now, Parry is responsible for the majority of the content which would seem to violate WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. WeldNeck (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, Newsweek and New Republic 1991 pieces knowingly published false information at a time when there was a concerted Republican effort to prevent Congressional enquiries taking place; and the House enquiry mislead readers about one of its members' refusal to sign the report. No discussion of "reliability" which refuses to engage with these facts can be at all credible. Podiaebba (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if a case could be made that Robert Parry is a RS, his website isnt - this is the sort of absurdity which comes up a lot. If Parry is an RS, then his claims published on his website are too. We don't even need to take into account that those claims have been reprinted and repeated on other websites (some with at least a modicum of editorial oversight, like FAIR and truthout), in Parry's own books, and in others' books. Podiaebba (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On quick example of the issues with Parry's work. The following is directly from the article and sourced to Parry: "David Andelman, the official biographer of French spy chief Alexandre de Marenches, testified to the House investigation that de Marenches had told him that he had organised the Paris meeting.[19]". I can find no mention anywhere else outside of Parry or individuals who use Parry as a source that David Andelman testified to the House investigation or that deMarenches claimed to organize a meeting in Paris. If anyone has a copy or can obtain a copy of Andelman's The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism this could be positively verified but I wouldnt count on it. WeldNeck (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Weldneck; the article is unquestionably giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. However, if Podiaebba is correct in saying that most of the relevant material can be sourced back to Parry's published books, doing so would resolve this matter as far as RSN is concerned. To create a neutral article, I would suggest restoring the version that existed prior to Podiaebba's edits. Podiaebba could then create a section devoted to Parry, succinctly summarizing his most important claims and making clear they are his claims. If RS have commented on Parry, they could also be mentioned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The main issue appears to be weight, rather than rs. It is not that there is doubt about whether Parry's facts are accurate, it is their significance to the article. Weldneck, Andelman spoke to the task force about Marenches and the Paris meeting.[43] I only have access to a snippet view so I cannot verify that Parry's description is accurate. Do you have access to the report? TFD (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's both whether his facts are accurate and whether there's a weight problem. Do they account for his claims? Yes. Should we necessarily trust something he writes that doesn't have editorial oversight? I don't think so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I do not have ready access to the report. Kudos for looking for it in Google books, nice move, I only thought to look for the biography. The snippets of the report on google books are tantalizing, but we cant see more than the preview. WeldNeck (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Check that, I found a copy online [44]. Looks like (according to pg 168) de Marenches categorically denied it when interviewed and Andelman himself had some doubts when de Marenches mentioned it in passing. Not exactly the slam dunk its portrayed n the article. WeldNeck (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is nobody even reading my posts? The hathitrust link is in House October Surprise Task Force, which I recommended reading... Podiaebba (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

De Marenches' denial when directly asked isn't worth much given his history with Casey (and his denial to investigators preceded his admission to Andelman, and investigators said they were "unable to reach" him to confront him with Andelman's testimony). I will add Pierre Salinger's corroboration of de Marenches' knowledge of the meetings, which I wasn't aware of til just now. And BTW the deletion of the 8-paragraph passage from the 1995 English edition of Salinger's book ought to be a reminder of how toxic the subject became in the US. Podiaebba (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

NB In case anyone cares, some of the consortiumnews articles were republished by truthout. [45]. Podiaebba (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, I am reading your posts, but they are completely irrelevant. "No discussion of "reliability" which refuses to engage with these facts can be at all credible." That's just not how Wikipedia policy works. If a source is reliable, as Newsweek clearly is, I'm afraid that your dislike of it has no impact on its reliability. Wikipedia is not the truth. I think there is a consensus that this article, and many others you have edited, will require significant clean-up to meet our standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. But you're not going to get away with claiming that Newsweek's reliability is unimpeached even on this specific subject without explicitly addressing Craig Unger's point that he warned Newsweek that a key claim it was about to publish in that 1991 piece was wrong, and they went ahead and published it anyway - he later said "They told me, essentially, to fuck off.. It was the most dishonest thing that I’ve been through in my life in journalism." [46] Any further attempt to pretend that this is about me "not liking" Newsweek or about seeking "the truth" regardless of reliable sourcing - or to simply ignore the issue ... well I'll leave others to judge what conclusions to draw from that. PS I see no consensus - just you reasserting your initial claim that started this thread, ignoring all reliably-sourced information and commentary that doesn't support your view. Podiaebba (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Every editor, except you, agrees that Newsweek is RS and Parry is being given undue weight: Itsmejudith, Weldneck, Thargo Orlando, TFD, and myself. Hence the need for clean-up. Your obvious failure to understand the concept of WP:RS doesn't help your case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your willingness to assert without evidence what I do or do not understand whilst refusing to address specific evidence of reliability problems speaks for itself. Is it really necessary for WP:RS to be amended to give explicit weight to publications knowingly publishing false information before you're willing accept that this impacts on their reliability?? Also, this is not the Undue Weight board, so don't try to change the subject. Podiaebba (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of Parry's criticisms of the report were published in January 1993 in The Nation. [47] Does that help any? I have no problem with avoiding use of consortiumnews when the same thing is published in a source others consider better. Podiaebba (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat up on Podiaebba, who obviously has very strong feelings in favor of Robert Parry's professionalism and credibility, but he has tried to shoehorn Consortiumnews onto the Ghouta chemical attack page, with similar responses: Noticeboard and Talk as examples. Regardless of Parry's "amazing track record", the fact that his website is self-published and other red flags like it lending credence to fringe personalities and conspiracy theories really should be weighed when we're looking at whether to include it. I just don't think it rises to the level of a reliable source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

lending credence to fringe personalities and conspiracy theories, eh? This seems a remark carefully crafted to make consortiumnews look like infowars.com or something. I suppose you're thinking of "fringe personalities" like Ray McGovern, who received the CIA's Intelligence Commendation Medal? Perhaps Paul R. Pillar, a professor at Georgetown until 2012? Do tell. And I like your equally handwavingly vague "conspiracy theories" - citing concrete examples of the claims actually made would involve admitting that they fall very well within the normal range of investigative journalism. I can only imagine that it must take years of practice to be this good at obfuscation. I'm reminded of Richelieu's Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him. Podiaebba (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for a translation of Voltaire

Any French speakers around? This question also possibly involves other policies than WP:RS, but to start somewhere...

Article: Teleological argument. Text: a translation of Voltaire's: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger

• Currently in article, and being defended with reverts (bold added): I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream. Source: Harbottle, Thomas Benfield (1908). Dictionary of quotations: French. S. Sonnenschein. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-4212-5720-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• My translation as a Wikipedia editor (given that I found the above not good): The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all

The following alternatives were then offered by third party User:Myrvin:

• The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.. Christianity Unveiled, Paul Henri Thiry Holbach, Hodgson Press, 2008, p. 285
• I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker. A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011, p. 271
• this watch could be and watchmaker have none. Voltaire and his times. Authorized transl (Google eBook), Laurence Louis Félix Bungener, 1854, p. 462
• The Universe troubles me, and much less can I think That this clock exists and should have no clockmaker., From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution, Etienne Gilson, Ignatius Press, 2009, p. 126

I believe all the 21st century ones look preferable to the 1908 dictionary of quotes? However, these were however rejected by the person who found the original translation on the grounds of accuracy (if I understand correctly) and they have suggested:

• The universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think That this watch exists and has no watch-maker. Man and God: a physiological meditation, tr. from the French By Jean Marie A. Perot 1881 ISBN-13: 9781279158883.

Personally I believe WP:RS does not need to dominate knowledge of French here, but I also think WP:RS and a knowledge of French would probably agree on the 2008 translation, but in any case neither the current one nor the last one proposed (they both just seem wrong to me, although I see how using a dictionary could lead to them)? (Keep in mind that the article we are writing is not about poetry, so it needs the real meaning of the sentence.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the 2008 one too. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Any other comments about either the French or the strength of sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, are suggesting that Jean-Marie Perrot used a French dictionary or an English one to translate the 1881 source? The fact that your hubris allows you to suppose that you can provide a more accurate translation than a French scholar is astounding. Let's just use my suggestion and cite multiple sources. You yourself have not stated which source you prefer, you've stated that you like your own translation better. I've said the 1908 (which was what was there before you deleted it) is fine, I also offered a second cited source, the 1881 Perot. Exactly what is the problem here?Tstrobaugh (talk)

• apparently Perot, Jean Marie Albert, 1814 wrote in French, the name of the translator is not available, but the author was involved in the translation.Tstrobaugh (talk)

Let's not worry too much about how the translation was done in 1881. We can discuss translations two ways (which are not mutually exclusive), under WP:RS as a sourcing issue, which is what this board is mainly for, and as a translation as such, just like any wording decision when editing (because actually we are not obliged to use published translations, especially if we only have weak ones). This board is of course also often helpful concerning wording, because nearly every sourcing question involves wording choice to some extent. This is my rationale at least: In terms of both RS and French, the two versions you want to use are very poor. I hope we can get broader feedback because this really shouldn't be so difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone interested to be a third party in this discussion on the article talk page? It feels like a case that is stuck for silly reasons. It is in any case not a major crisis or complex issue, so should not take much time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. The one third party opinion we got above has not led to closure. In summary:

• The 2008 translation proposed above is argued to be a poor source compared to the 1908 quotes dictionary or the 1881 translation which contains the clear mistake of translating m'embarrasse as "embarrasses me", because (a) it looks like Hodgson Press are self-publishers? and (b) the translation is claimed to be a 1761 source from Baron d'Holbach?
• The 2009 translation is also proposed to be a worse source because (to quote) "John Lyon is an Associate Professor of American and Comparative Literature, Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. So no I don't think "John Lyon" is an appropriate source for this citation." (I do not really get the point here, so I just quote.) It was also stated that this can not be considered a scholarly source because it is not peer reviewed.
• A new proposal has been made "In God's Defense: Writings on Atheism [Kindle Edition] Voltaire (Author), Kirk Watson (Translator). To quote the proposal: "NB This is a self published Kindle only edition but thought more versions might help pinpoint our issues." The translation is The universe contains me: there's no way, This watch exists without a watchmaker.
• I think there might be issues of policy understanding, but anyone seeing the discussion will appreciate that my policy advice is not being treated as neutral given that I was the one who questioned the translation originally. A third party opinion is really needed.
• If there is a good forum for translation discussion, can someone please advise us? (But note that the discussion has so far been based on reliability claims.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased political article used for quotation

A gentleman publishes a recording of himself making a controversial statement and small, biased, news organizations quote him saying it. Could someone please check these sources for being WP:RS? Please do so at Talk:Bryan_Fischer#Please_determine_whether_these_sources_are_WP:RS_for_this_content. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

People For the American Way is notable, Fischer self published the statements being sourced so there is no question as to being untrue. Sepsis II (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, Sepsis II, your opinion is welcome, but not conclusive. There's been no consensus of several editors here that People for the American Way is generally reliable, or its Right Wing Watch blog, since it's not a news organization. I searched. It's an advocacy organization. We don't automatically call them (or their blogs) generally reliable, because it can be difficult to separate their reportage from their advocacy, depending on the article. So, I support asking the question here, requesting input from uninvolved editors:

Is this source ("Fischer: Michelle Obama Is Inviting Demons Into The White House". Right Wing Watch blog, People for the American Way. November 5, 2013.) reliable enough for this edit?

--Lexein (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved; I joined the "discussion" after this post was made here, you seem to be confusing reliability and notability for PAW, no reliability is needed as there is no question as to whether the statements were made, notability of PAW is what is required for inclusion. That said, this is probably not the right forum for this as this is not actually about the reliablity of the source but seems to be a hostile war of egos, please head to DRN. Sepsis II (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're involved because you edited the article, that's all - nothing hostile about it. So am I (involved), and I've done some RSN work here, too. So let's just get a 2nd or 3rd opinion of "Yes, reliable" or "No" and go from there. Please? No big deal. --Lexein (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like one or two other uninvolved RSN editors to reply to the specific question, please. Anyone else? I'll be quite satisfied with "yes" or "no" from uninvolved editors. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment. BLP. You need better sources, e.g. CNN, Huff Post. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RWW etc. are reliable only for statements of opinion ascribed as opinion - per the usual caveats about groups with specific strong political objectives. Historically, quotations may be taken "out of context" and thus the fact a person said specific words is not necessarily something usable on Wikipedia unless unrelated reliable sources also make use of them. IIRC, even a major news organisation can err -- vide NBC news on the Zimmerman police call which used his "words" but presented them in a misleading manner. To make claims as "fact" would require better sources less noted for editorializing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The quotes can be found in the speakers own self published work, there is no question as to whether he said it. Sepsis II (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And an independent reliable source has noted the precise context of any quotes, or are you just saying the words are "found" in the SPS? If the former, than a recognized "fact oriented" reliable source would be good, and should be findable if the information was deemed notable by such.. If the latter, third party sourcing is always better than sources which wish to make a point out of a quote. The Zimmerman "quotes" were verbatim -- but taken substantially out of context, IIRC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the video -- and suggest the claims made are taken woefully out of the religious context of the presentation - which is that St. Paul described idols as demons or devils, and that those who worship idols are worshipping demons -- which is not all that odd for a religious speaker. Any more than saying that anyone who has recited the Apostle's Creed is a "creationist". Making an issue of a religious person advancing his own religion is rather non-encyclopedic -- a claim may be "true" but unless an impartial outside reliable source finds it noteworthy, neither will Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax

Greetings, I'm looking for consensus on the propriety of using Newsmax as a source at Sean Maloney. Here's the edit. And here's the source. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given this discussion, it seems like it should be acceptable.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me for the simple claim being made.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have some serious problems with this. The source itself is not neutral, and more importantly, is not very high quality. On purely journalistic grounds, they have earned a reputation for being sloppy with the facts when it suits them. Votes are something that should be easy to confirm and hard to get wrong, but it would still be better to find a more reliable source, one that hasn't been known to let bias stand in the way of facts. It should not be hard to find a more credible replacement.

My primary concern, though, is the statement in the edit, which is only partially true. According to http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/10/02/sinema-maloney-obamacare/, Maloney crossed party lines to oppose Obamacare, not only voting to delay it, but also to repeal part of it: the tax on medical devices. Yet you want to say that Maloney "voted against repeal", which is at best a half-truth. He voted against full repeal, but voted for a repeal of part.

In conclusion, find a better source and make a more accurate statement. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to chime in. I'm not sure we should be using Newsmax for anything. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Newsmax shouldn't come anywhere near a Wikipedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to meet WP:RS just as many other sources with factual content which are perceived to have political overtones are -- the article does not appear to be "opinion" as far as I can tell, and simply not liking a source is never a sound reason for rejecting it. I am sure that if "according to Newsmax" were appended, there would be no reasonable cavil at all. BTW, voting to amend part of something is not the same as "voting to repeal" -- "repeal" is complete excision in normal language. Collect (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it meets WP:RS, to be honest. I'm not seeing the necessary accuracy or editorial oversight, and they play around with a lot of fringe stuff, especially in their political and science coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney,User:Thargor Orlando: How is Newsmax different from Talking Points Memo?CFredkin (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC) (Regardless, this noticeboard is for discussion regarding source reliability, not for the accuracy of a particular statement. In this case, that is indisputable.)CFredkin (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Personally, I'm just looking for a level playing field here. To me, Newsmax and TPM seem pretty comparable. I'm fine with both being reliable, or both being unreliable.CFredkin (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

TPM is an award-winning journalistic enterprise that, while having a point of view, keeps up with basic journalistic practices. Newsmax is a journalistic enterprise, yes, but it's more of a political tabloid. The true Newsmax left-wing analogue would be something like Truthout or ThinkProgress. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why Newsmax inst a sufficient source for this particular piece of information. WeldNeck (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This gets into philosophical questions - how much support does a true statement need? It's true anyways. But Newsmax is not a reliable source in general, and hence should be avoided even for uncontroversial facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The awards that TPM has received were for advocacy not for their standards of professional journalism. I don't see how the standards of journalism differ between TPM and Newsmax....CFredkin (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about TPM, being a rightpondian. But the George Polk Awards are indeed given out for reporting, not for activism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no reasonable justification for this particular article not to be considered reliable for the fact in question. John Gizzi, the author of the article is an established journalist. That being said, there are probably a dozen other sources out there that also support this statement. It might be a better use of OP's time and energy to just go with one of those.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a source that doesn't repeatedly run "exposes" on President Obama's birth certificate could be used for a claim this simple, doesn't it? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Three Movie Buffs

I already know the answer to this is going to be a resounding no, I think. But while I'm trying to track down a 1912 source that may or may not still physically exist, I'd like to make sure that I'm not being unduly hard on my sourcing expectations:

Source: Patrick Nash's review and commentary of A Cure for Pokeritis at Three Movie Buffs[48]

Article: A Cure for Pokeritis, although not in use there currently.

Content: I've got a 1912 source on deck that essentially describes cousin Freddie as effeminate. I'd like to have a modern source that discusses that as well, since a lot of the other critical commentary about the film is based on its treatment of gender expectations. Sadly, the better treatments of this film mostly ignore the character in question, and the several excellent works on gay characters in silent film don't mention this work (as they tend to focus more on the flamboyant period "sissy" characters ... and to examine feature films rather than Vitagraph comedy shorts, anyway). Can I cite the following text as confirmation that this character is effeminate, and that modern audiences might perceive him as homosexual?

The cousin Teddy [sic] character represents another common stereotype. He is fastidious and effeminate, has fussy hand movements, belongs to a bible study group and clearly deplores poker. He immediately takes the wife’s side in the situation. Any modern audience would see him as obviously gay.

The site is obviously an independent-citizen movie review site, whose reviewers have no particular film studies qualifications, by their own admission. However, it has considerable longevity and some measure of recognition (Rotten Tomatoes considers it a source of reviews, at least sometimes[49]) and a master's thesis (itself insufficient to be a reliable source) cites it as an example of movie reviews shifting to citizen journalism in the online era.[50] Bleh. Typing that out really makes this look meager, but there we go. Is that enough for this source to be acceptable to bookend the 1912 observation? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Digital Journal

Digital Journal is a Canada-based website which describes itself as "a global digital media network with thousands of members and content creators in 200 countries around the world... A media business where everyone can contribute and engage... a platform and a destination where everyone can contribute content and share their unique perspectives on the world and issues of the day"[51] Is it correct to regard this site as a blog, rather than as a regular news source? Under what circumstances, and in what manner, can material be used in articles, if the only source is Digital Journal? Can it ever be used as a reliable source in a biography of a living person? In particular, can it be used as a reliable source for the unattributed assertion that Unite Against Fascism is "believed to be a front group for the far-left extremist Socialist Workers Party,” and that it planned “to counter demonstrate and disrupt rallies in memory of Lee Rigby"?[52] RolandR (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. As you say, like a blog, or worse, a wiki. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind direction on the night of Syrian gas attacks, and the source supporting it

We have a source dispute on the page for the Ghouta chemical attack, which occurred early in the morning on 21 August 2013. Content added here using this article from the New Scientist argues, quoting Richard Guthrie, that the night of the chemical attacks was the one night that week in which wind blew east: away from government soldiers, and towards rebels.

The statement hasn't been reported elsewhere, so far as we can find, and it's not clear how reliable or what kind of a news source the "New Scientist" is. Because I study climate, perhaps, I was a little skeptical of the claim: at a given site and time period, you'll usually see one or two dominant wind patterns, and see that change with seasons. So after editors began arguing about the veracity of the statement, I went to the NOAA, which has the largest available database on this and is regularly used for research or practical purposes globally. According to the site, wind did blow ENE on the night of the Ghouta attacks. However, and you can check this yourselves, wind also blew that direction every day of that week, and of that month. It turns out that the average wind direction at the site over the last 5 years is 245, or ENE.

All Syria civil war related articles are under sanctions because the issue is politically charged. I have the impression that efforts to retain the statement using the New Scientist source, invoking WP:V and WP:RS, amount to WP:GAMING because retaining the information seems to violate WP:COMMONSENSE. Input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A relevant discussion on the talk pages can be found here. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"it's not clear how reliable or what kind of a news source the "New Scientist" is." - well New Scientist is easily a reliable enough source for Guthrie's claim. The issue is that it's merely reporting Guthrie's claim, which appears to be contradicted by NOAA data. I've been part of this discussion at the relevant article, but I still feel it bears pointing out to a potentially new audience that Guthrie's highly damning claim was published 2 days before the US Government Assessment, in an article with a highly relevant title in a fairly prominent and widely available non-academic science journal - yet the Assessment doesn't include it. (Nor has the US Govt ever used the claim since then to back up its argument.) In the circumstances, I feel this is extremely strong "dog that didn't bark" evidence that the claim is wrong. Podiaebba (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the deluge of text, but here is a response from a non-involved editor to our last RFC that I think is particularly relevant: '(responding to bot-generated RFC): Fails WP:RS for total of five reasons: Cannot add a hearsay of a statement from a non-expert in weather when there are no references where the weather data were taken, so that we can verify. No additional sources found so fat to corroborate the statement. Evidence of contrary found in a factual source. (Hearsay issue: countless cases are known when a phrase "was a day of the week" may magically convert into "was the only day of the week"). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)' I think this well summarizes the problem. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick look (I commented in the RFC) is that Guthrie is of course a Reliable Source on the topic. Weight of the claim and how to treat a quick claim right after the event happened versus a much more authoritative source (the UN) which issued a major report (which certainly would have looked at wind patterns, but didn't emphasize it as evidence), is another thing entirely. And probably should lead to the claim being removed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet: I really do not think there is any need to imply editors are gaming in this case. This is a judgement call, in my opinion a close one. We have a reliable source making a claim, but only one source has made the claim. Meanwhile, the primary sources appear to contradict the reliable source, though there are some complicating factors that make interpretation of the primary sources problematic re WP:SYNTH (ie the chemical strikes were closer to upwind mountains than the weather station). VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's basically where I am on this as well. I'd like to be able to qualify Guthrie's claim in-text, but I'm not seeing reliable secondary sources that explicitly contradict it; at the same time, we should probably recognize that the fog-of-war may be relevant here. I don't want to pull the statement altogether, because what we have here is a credible source reporting a relevant statement by someone who I think is universally recognized as an expert on situations like this. But nor do I want this claim to have undue weight, as it hasn't been widely repeated and primary data doesn't back it up, even if it doesn't necessarily contradict it (for the reasons VQuakr outlines). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, Kudzu1, both of you have made strong cases on the talk page, and it seems clear you have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind (not that I have a crystal ball - that's just my feeling). So I'm sorry - I didn't meant to implicate you two in my statement. Unfortunately I wouldn't say the same of some editors, though to be fair, for every partisan editing for one side of this conflict, you'll find another editing for the other. Your concerns over the NOAA data's relevance to Guthrie's claim on the talk page are well-reasoned and have made me less certain. What the NOAA data shows, nevertheless, is that wind direction on the night of the attack was the same as the mean weekly, monthly, and 5-year wind direction at the nearest met station, 8-10 miles away. Without any knowledge of how Guthrie could have acquired (apparently) conflicting information, and without repetition by other sources, the statement is highly problematic; in my view it's likely wrong. Right now, as opposed to earlier, the article qualifies the statement and doesn't present it as a fact. That's an improvement at least. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Is Steven Emerson's "Investigative Project on Terrorism" a reliable source for BLP's? Emerson was awarded a Polk Award for his work on terrorism. WeldNeck (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure (and by coincidence, I created the article, which was previously a redirect to Emerson...). There's certainly evidence against, eg here. And whilst the project employing a former Tampa Tribune reporter speaks against the impression one can easily get from Googling that it's basically a one-man show (the man being Emerson), there's also this. In general, I'm not fan of debates that try to boil something down to whether X and Y are "reliable sources" or not - it invariably seems to oversimplify. I suspect that in context whatever IPT is claiming can be included with explicit in-text attribution to them, and that the issue is whether to imply that IPT's claim is true by relying on it without that explicit attribution... Feel free to elaborate. Podiaebba (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This be in regard to the Sami Al-Arian article. No one has written more on the subject than Emerson has but he isnt used as a source anywhere in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole section on Emerson's work though - Sami_Al-Arian#Emerson_film_and_investigation. But given that Al-Arian was convicted, I'm not sure how controversial any additions sourced to Emerson could be. At worst, substantive additions might raise WP:UNDUE issues (which I would generally seek to address by adding info, not subtracting, though with this article's lengths and details that might require undoing the recent merger). Podiaebba (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the SPS bar would apply. But whether or how a source should be used depends on circumstances. TFD (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• The Polk Award is a serious journalism award. I would expect that Emerson would be seen as an RS journalist, and his work treated appropriately as RS. And as to that particular article, Podiaebba makes a good point. Al-Arian signed a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of a Specially Designated Terrorist organization. However -- if you read the lede and headings in the article, it appears that someone has worked to leave a different impression. Needs fixing by someone.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of references to Gerald Steinberg and to his NGO Monitor

• The following is a compendium of Wikipedia articles that contain statements by Gerald M. Steinberg or by his organization, NGO Monitor. Both have been known for their skewed analysis of Human Rights Organizations and other organizations, all that are involved in the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab Conflict. Gerald Steinberg and some of his employees are frequent contributors to the right wing and conservative Jewish and Israeli press, opposing compromise and opposing human rights organizations, and use the services of some extreme right wing journalists in papers such as J. Post, who base their articles on information from NGO Monitor.
• All of those are highly non-reliable sources, and the reliability of NGO Monitor and of its founder and president is hereby questioned. It should be clear however, thay NGO Monitor and Gerald Steinberg, for the sake of publications, are one and the same.
• Recently, Steinberg’s main on-line editor was indefinitely banned from any editing on subjects related to the Israel-Arab conflict. User:soosim was involved in many or most of the following introductions of critical information of organizations, individuals and other.
• My request is to Wikipedia editors to examine the extended information presented below in its details and as a whole, and to make a decision on the reliability of references, links and other sources by Gerald Steinberg and by NGO Monitor.
• To make things easy to follow, each article title is followed by the controversial text and the reference number/s, as well as by the numbered references. In some case, where the sources are “external links” or “additional materials” this is also clearly marked. In some articles (all marked with ARTICLE:) there is more than a single text/reference. IN a few cases, it is not clear why NGO Monitor is mentioned, see my Q:
• There are many more mentions of NGO Monitor sources and of Gerald Steinberg, including on their own articles. The promotional character of those articles is also questioned, while the information presented below is an extension of that promotional character.
• The following present a mixture of several problems for editing on Wikipedia. Most of them are problems reflecting WP:RS guidelines – WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPS as well as WP:NPOV.
• I wish to clarify, that although I would probably sympathize with some of the criticisms by NGO Monitor of organizations and of individuals, this has nothing to do with the issue of reliability of sources, which is the only one questioned here.

extended list

ARTICLE: +972 Magazine NGO Monitor criticized +972 as being antisemitic "because it seeks to strip the Jewish state of its legitimacy" by using the apartheid analogy regarding Israel.[4] [4] NGO Monitor slams funding of ‘+972’ blog (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=255167) ARTICLE: B’Tselem NGO Monitor said that B'tselem distorts its data and uses "abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians".[56] [56] ^ Betselem: Report Uses Outdated Sources and the Rhetoric of Demonization (http://www.ngomonitor.org/editions/v2n12/v2n12-4.htm) , NGO Monitor Analysis (Vol. 2 No. 12), 15 August 2004. ARTICLE: Yesh Din NGO monitor has been critical of Yesh Din's activities.[8] [8] ^ "NGO Monitor slams Belgium funds for ‘anti-Israel’ group" (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=233680) . The Jerusalem Post. 14 August 2011. ARTICLE: Criticism of Amnesty International Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] {24] ^ 'Amnesty administrative detention report PR gimmick' (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=272985) [25] ^ 'Amnesty report against Israel written by pro-Palestinian activists' (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4584) ARTICLE: The Electronic Intifada Gerald M. Steinberg, head of the pro-Israel NGO Monitor, described Electronic Intifada as "an explicitly pro-Palestinian political and ideological Web site".[7] that hosts "anti-Israel propaganda."[8] [7] ^ "Human Rights Watch needs watching" (http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=4055&print=yes) , Gerald M. Steinberg, The Jewish Week, March 25, 2005 [8] ^ "Ken Roth's blood libel (http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525949034 &pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) , Jerusalem Post, August 26, 20067. ARTICLE: International Federation of Human Rights FIDH's mandate “is to contribute to the respect of all the rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It aims to make “effective improvements in the protection of victims, the prevention of Human Rights violations and the sanction of their perpetrators.”[1] [1] ^ http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/international_federation_of_human_rights_fidh_paris_ Q: Why is the FIDH mandate attributed to an NGO Monitor site ?? FIDH’s finances lack transparency, as funding sources are not itemized on its website or in financial statements, and no response was received to letters requesting this information. Instead, FIDH lists general figures and provides a financial summary: “FIDH relies heavily on donations from the public and from private businesses, contributions from its member organizations and on the commitment of its voluntary workers. It also receives grants from international and national bodies, and from foundations...”[3] 3. ^ Report "FIDH: Prioritizing Politics over Protection" (http://www.ngomonitor.org/article/fidh_prioritizing_politics_over_protection) , NGO Monitor, 2006 ARTICLE: Daniel Machover Machover represents the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, a Gaza-based NGO, which, according to Anne Herzberg, legal adviser to NGO Monitor, is "leading the lawfare strategy."[4] 4. ^ Lawfare Against Israel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122583394143998285.html ) ARTICLE: Anne Bayefsky She has also argued that Human Rights Watch "fanned the flames of racial intolerance" in the lead-up to the Durban Conference by facilitating the exclusion of Jewish representatives from an NGO caucus, later covering up its role in the affair and misrepresenting the outcome to the media.[9] 9. ^ "Human Rights Watch Coverup" (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908) . Ngo-monitor.org. External Links Human Rights Watch Coverup (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908) ARTICLE: Marc Garlasco Gerald M. Steinberg, in an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, wrote that while HRW had promised an investigation, it has not offered any information about it to the public, or addressed the issue of the credibility of Garlasco's reports on Israeli human rights violations.[42] 42. ^ Ottawa Citizen The sad state of 'human rights' organizations, (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=2679204&sponsor=) , Gerald Steinberg, March 14, 2010 ARTICLE: Hamoked The state attorney's statements received support from Gerald M. Steinberg of NGO Monitor[4] [4] Gerald M. Steinberg (11 March 2006). "Challenging the NGO mythology - HaMoked and B'Tselem have been accused of besmirching the state and its security forces". The Jerusalem Post. ARTICLE: Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) In a July 2012 letter to the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, Steinberg wrote that ICAHD is a "fringe political NGO that fuels conflict by frequently accusing Israel of ‘apartheid’ and ‘ethnic cleansing.’ ICAHD officials are also active in promoting BDS [boycotts, divestment and sanctions] campaigns, particularly in churches in Europe and North America."[31] Steinberg also said that "In reality, ICAHD does nothing to advance coexistence and instead promotes extreme views which fuel theconflict."[32] 31. ^ 'Peace mustn't become ‘orphan’ of Arab Spring' (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx? id=276734) 32. ^ EU ends funding for ICAHD (http://www.jewishtribune.ca/uncategorized/2008/09/16/eu-ends-funding-foricahd) ARTICLE: Naim Ateek In addition, Daniel Fink, writing on behalf of NGO Monitor, shows that Ateek has described Zionism as a “step backward in the development of Judaism,” and Zionists as “oppressors and war makers.”[25] 25. ^ Sabeel’s ‘Peace’ façade (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3464067,00.html) ARTICLE: Kenneth Roth Kenneth Roth has been criticized by the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor for allegedly being biased against Israel. Gerald M. Steinberg has been a long-time critic of Roth's role as head of Human Rights Watch from 1993. Writing in a 2004 Jerusalem Post article[28] 28. ^ "Israelis Have No 'Human Rights'" (http://www-ngo monitor.org/article/_israelis_have_no_human_rights_ ) By Gerald M. Steinberg, March 08, 2004, The Jerusalem Post ARTICLE: Durban III Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, said, "If, as in 2001, the same NGOs are provided a platform in New York at 'Durban III', this will set the stage for another round of activities that exploit and undermine the moral and human rights agenda."[46] 46. ^ Concerns growing over NGO participation in Durban III (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=226320&R=R1) ARTICLE: Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions Naftali Balanson, writing a response, says "Even if BDS messaging were improved and there was no backlash among 'besieged' Israelis, BDS would still be immoral and inherently wrong."[104] 104. ^ Balanson, Naftali (2010-11). "Moral Argument Against BDS" (http://zeek.forward.com/articles/117084/) . ZEEK (The Jewish Daily Forward). Retrieved 6 March 2011. In an op-ed published in The Jerusalem Post in November 2010, Gerald Steinberg and Jason Edelstein contend that while "the need to refute their [BDS organizations] allegations is clear, students and community groups must also adopt a proactive strategy to undermine the credibility and influence of these groups. This strategy will marginalize many of the BDS movement's central actors, and expose the lie that BDS is a grassroots protest against Israeli policy. Exposing their abuses and funding sources, and forcing their campaign leaders and participants to respond to us will change the dynamic in this battle."[105] 105. ^ By G. Steinberg and J. Edelstein (6 November 2010). "Turning the tables on BDS," (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=194275) . Jpost.com. Retrieved 13 December 2010. ARTICLE: List of Projects Supported by George Soros Center for Constitutional Rights[3] [3] ^ NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/center_for_constitutional_rights) Q: (why is NGO Monitor used as a source ?) ARTICLE: War on Want NGO Monitor's Dan Kosky wrote that due to War on Want's support of an Israel boycott and its stand against the British presence in Iraq, a thorough review of the organization should be conducted by the UK regarding funding, for "if not, the United Kingdom could find itself aiding an Israel boycott campaign."[18] 18. ^ Where War on Want is itself found wanting (http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/where-war-wantitself-found-wanting ) ARTICLE: Breaking the Silence According to NGO Monitor, the testimony is anonymous, without dates, locations or contexts for the incidents described and included 183 incidents that were submitted by alleged soldiers, but only 16 were reported to the Israel Defense Force superiors at the time.[43] 43. ^ a b Lori Lowenthal Marcus (30 March 2013). "Penn Hillel Provided Platform to Venomous ‘Breaking The Silence’" (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/penn-hillel-provided-platform-to-venomous-breaking-thesilence/). ARTICLE: Human Rights in Israel According to Gerald Steinberg, the attempt to label Israel an apartheid state is "the embodiment of the new antisemitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination.".[128] 128. ^ a b Steinberg, Gerald M. (28 August 2004). "The Apartheid Propaganda" (http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48909392.html) . Aish.com. Retrieved 2010-07-22. Amnesty International (AI) has been accused by the American Jewish Congress and NGO Monitor of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel. [197] 197. ^ Getting human rights wrong (http://www.ngomonitor.org/article/getting_human_rights_wrong) ARTICLE: Adalah-NY Although Adalah-NY is not financially transparent,[2] [2] ^ a b c "Adalah-NY" (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/adalah_ny). NGO Monitor. ARTICLE: Palestinian Center for Human Rights According to Anne Herzberg, legal adviser to NGO Monitor, PCHR is "leading the lawfare strategy."[12] 12. ^ Lawfare Against Israel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122583394143998285.html) External Links NGO Monitor Lawfare Monograph (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/lawfaremonograph.pdf) ARTICLE: World Conference Against Racism 2001 Critics described the description of Israel as apartheid as the "Durban Strategy". They claim that this comparison was made with the intention of causing and encouraging divestment from and boycott of Israel.[16] 16. ^ Steinberg, Gerald (15 June 2006). "Anti-Israel obsessions" (http://www.jewishtoronto.net/content_display.html?ArticleID=185328) . Canadian Jewish News (United Jewish Communities) Analysis and greater detail Steinberg (Summer 2006). "The Centrality of NGOs in The Durban Strategy" (http://www.yaleisraeljournal.com/summ2006/steinberg.pdf) (PDF). Yale Israel Journal (Yale College undergraduates) 9. — an analysis of the NGO Forum by the Executive Director of NGO Monitor Gerald M. Steinberg (10 August 2005). "ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND THE AUT BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN: EXAMINING THE LESSONS" (http://www.biu.ac.il/rector/academic_freedom/files/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Steinberg- %20boycott%20jcpa%20draft.pdf) (PDF). Conference of the National Postgraduate Committee, UK , Glasgow. 2005-08-12. p. 8. ARTICLE: Israel European Union Relations The European Union has been criticized for funding Israeli-based political Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that attempt to undermine Israeli policies and preach "division and confrontation".[20] NGO Monitor claims they have identified over 48 million dollars that have been allocated to Israeli and Palestinian NGOs by the European Commission.[21] As a response, the Israeli Knesset attempted to pass two bills that would limit the amount that a foreign government or organization could gift. However, these two bills were never passed into law.[22] 20. ^ Funding Israel's Detractors. Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121003096750769111.html) 21. ^ throws out NGO funding case brought by Israel-based watchdog. Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-court-throws-out-ngo-funding-case-brought-by-israel-basedwatchdog/EUcourt) 22. ^ Factious funding. Jpost. 2011. (http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport/Israel/Article.aspx?id=247585) ARTICLE: Birthright Unplugged According to NGO Monitor, "much of the substance of these tours and programs is provided by officials from radical anti-Israel NGOs".[4] [4] ^ "NGOs and Birthright Unplugged: Plugging into anti-Israel campaigning" (http://www.ngomonitor.org/article/ngos_and_birthright_unplugged_plugging_into_anti_israel_campaigning) ARTICLE: Christine Chanet In the view of NGO Monitor, “Chanet has formed pre-existing prejudicial opinions on areas directly covered by the Mission mandate.” (NO REF) ARTICLE: List of Palestinian Civilian Casualties in the Second Intifada Other sources assert that B'tselem's definition of a civilian is too broad and includes Palestinians killed while attacking Israelis.[7] 7. ^ Betselem: Report Uses Outdated Sources and the Rhetoric of Demonization (http://www.ngomonitor.org/editions/v2n12/v2n12-4.htm) NGO Monitor Analysis (Vol. 2 No. 12), 15 August 2004. ARTICLE: Durban Review Conference External Link Durban Conference 2009 (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/durban_conference_0) at NGO Monitor ARTICLE: Palestinian Christians Daniel Fink, writing on behalf of NGO Monitor, shows that Sabeel leader Naim Ateek has described Zionism as a “step backward in the development of Judaism,” and Zionists as “oppressors and war makers.”[39][40] 39. ^ Sabeel’s ‘Peace’ façade (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3464067,00.html) 40. ^ Updating the Ancient Infrastructure of Christian Contempt: Sabeel Footnotes 36-47 (http://jcpa.org/article/updating-the-ancient-infrastructure-of-christian-contempt-sabeel/) 44. ^ ngo-monitor.org (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/holy_land_christian_ecumenical_foundation_hcef_) ARTICLE: International Solidarity Movement NGO Monitor said that ISM "has a long record of encouraging activists to take ‘direct action’ that often places them in danger and in direct confrontations with the IDF."[59][60][61] Q: (None are references to NGO Monitor) ARTICLE: Foreign and Commonwealth Office In 2012, the Foreign Office was criticised by Gerald Steinberg, of the Jerusalem-based research institute, NGO Monitor, saying that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to Palestinian NGOs provided more than £500,000 in funding to Palestinian NGOs which he says "promote political attacks on Israel." In response, a spokesman for the Foreign Office said, “we are very careful about who and what we fund. The objective of our funding is to support efforts to achieve a two-state solution. Funding a particular project for a limited period of time does not mean that we endorse every single action or public comment made by an NGO or by its employees.”[12] 12. ^ ‘Investigate UK funding of Palestinian NGOs' (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/82746/investigate-ukfunding-palestinian-ngos%E2%80%99) ARTICLE: Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center It has also been accused of using antisemitic rhetoric.[4] [4] Gerald M. Steinberg. Cut the cash, end the hostility (http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? External Links NGO Monitor study (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n11/SabeelsEcumenicalFacade.htm) ARTICLE: Criticism of Amnesty International Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] 24. ^ 'Amnesty administrative detention report PR gimmick' (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=272985) 25. ^ 'Amnesty report against Israel written by pro-Palestinian activists' (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4584) ARTICLE: Jewish Voice for Peace In July 2013, j. published an article about a report on JVP from NGO Monitor. The article noted that NGO Monitor's report "concludes that JVP has 'actively promoted the central dimensions of the political warfare strategy against Israel.'” The article quoted Yitzhak Santis, chief programs officer at NGO Monitor, as saying "the organization supports or has partnered with groups such as Sabeel, Electronic Intifada, Al-Awda, International ANSWER Coalition, the International Solidarity Movement and Students for Justice in Palestine, all of which label Israel a racist apartheid state, support BDS and, in some cases, support violence against Israelis." [33] [33] ^ BDS backer bumped from Heroes contest (http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/10/3089794/bds-leaderbumped-from-federation-heroes-contest) ARTICLE: Criticism of Human Rights Watch On 7 September 2010, it was announced that George Soros planned to donate 100 million US dollars to Human Rights Watch.[7] Soros's donation was criticized by Gerald Steinberg, the founder of the pro-Israel research organization NGO Monitor.[8] Political Science Professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor, a pro-Israel NGO[32] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[33] He claimed their reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony" — testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[34] 8. ^ Steinberg, Gerald (2010-09-12). "Selling Out to Soros by Prof. Gerald Steinberg" (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ) . Nypost.com. Retrieved 2013-01-28. 33. ^ Gerald M. Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, 25 January 2009, For HRW, Israel is always guilty (http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1232643745914) 34. ^ Steinberg, Gerald (2009-09-03). "Op-Ed: Who are Israel’s accusers? | JTA - Jewish & Israel News" (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/03/1007523/op-ed-who-are-israels-accusers) . JTA. Retrieved 2013-01-28. Links: NGO Monitor: HRW in 2011 - More Balance, Less Credibility (http://www.ngomonitor.org/article/hrw_in_more_balance_less_credibility) ARTICLE:Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership And Rights Activation NGO Monitor criticized PYALARA's publishing of two articles for children which glorified Palestinian terrorism. One was about Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader Abu Ali Mustafa, calling him "a political leader ... whose history prides his nationalistic activism," without mentioning anything of his activities in planning and carrying out terrorist acts. The other article, referred to suicide bombers as "young Palestinians who have willingly sacrificed their lives in the name of their homeland." In addition, NGO Monitor criticized PYALARA for using funds “donated explicitly for non-political and non-violent projects in order to promote blatantly political objectives, including the indirect support for terror attacks on civilians."[1] 1. ^ Palestinian Poster Calling for Israel Boycott Includes Logo of U.N. Agency (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/palestinian-poster-calling-israel-boycott-includes-logo-un-agency) External links NGO Monitor article (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n05/v1n05-1.htm) Retrieved ARTICLE: The HALO effect The term "halo effect" has been applied to human rights organizations that have used their status to move away from their stated goals. Political scientist Gerald Steinberg has claimed that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) take advantage of the "halo effect" and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the media.[14][15] 14 Jeffray, Nathan (24 June 2010). "Interview: Gerald Steinberg". The Jewish Chronicle. 15 Balanson, Naftali (8 October 2008). "The 'halo effect' shields NGOs from media scrutiny". The Jerusalem Post. Further reading: Steinberg, Gerald M (30 December 2009). "Human Rights NGOs Need a Monitor". The Jewish Daily Forward. ARTICLE: Israel and the apartheid analogy Opponents of the analogy claim it is intended to delegitimize Israel.[13] 13. ^ a b The Apartheid Propaganda (http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48909392.html) Gerald M. Steinberg In an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, argued that "Ethno-national disputes, occupation, and charges of discrimination against minorities are also part of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, etc., but the demonization campaign is unique to Israel. ... Indeed, the racism and denial of legitimacy characteristic of apartheid are actually applicable to Arab and Islamic rejection of Jewish rights . ... By screaming 'apartheid' at every opportunity, the leaders of this campaign have succeeded in burying data showing that [the security] barrier has saved the lives of many Israelis. In today's immoral political doublespeak, protecting Israelis from terror has become 'apartheid."[261] 261. ^ Steinberg, Gerald M. Abusing 'Apartheid' for the Palestinian Cause (http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=271) , Jerusalem Post, 24 August 2004.

רסטיניאק (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

I share Rastignac's concerns here. Indeed, I have recently removed several defamatory assertions, sourced to NGO Monitor, from one of the articles he lists above. The problem is not that the source is partisan; there are plenty of acceptable partisan sources, representing both sides in this conflict, which should be allowed to remain in articles. But NGO Monitor is different; its entire raison d'etre is to defame and smear those it considers to be hostile, or insufficiently loyal, to Zionism and the state of Israel. Nothing it says about its targets can be accepted as reliable, even if, as Rastignac argues, it may occasionally make a valid criticism. In that case, such a criticism could be found in a reliable source, which could be cited in a Wikipedia article. But when the sole source for a contentious assessment or assertion is NGO Monitor, we should definitely not repeat this. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I share the same concerns. We shouldn't treat NGO monitor as a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Book cover quote

Jesús Huerta de Soto article. Can sentence Former European Central Bank director Jean-Claude Trichet wrote that Huerta de Soto’s Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles "is indeed a remarkably stimulating and thought provoking summa." be used in a "reception" section with ref being Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, 2012, 3rd Edition, Back cover quotation. I put it in because couple past WP:RSN discussions said that unless there was evidence the quote was fabricated it could be used. I saw several non-RS mentions of it but could not find original quote. (Perhaps they sent him the book? don't know.) Thanks. CM-DC talk 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• I don't see why not from a reliability standpoint, but if this is source is being used for how the book was received, it's not a particularly good source. Obviously, book publishers are going to put the most flattering quotes on the book covers and it may not be a fair representation as to how his work was received. Personally, I would try to find better or at least other sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is a significant danger of promotion if positive reviews are taken from the book itself. I have seen reviewers misrepresented by book review blurbs. For instance, Day of Deceit quotes a primarily negative review out of context to make it seem as if the reviewer called the book stimulating and thought-provoking without tearing apart its premise. The original source should be found or the review blurb left out. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Thanks for opinions. I see this done a lot when people trying to make someone look bad for praising a book the don't like in a blurb. And other opinions I heard weren't too trustworthy. Obviously best to find original quote. CM-DC talk 16:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RS for Murray Rothbard as an historian

Some editors are trying to remove mention of, and/or categories about, Rothbard as an historian despite the following sources from talk page mostly in format as others presented it; duplicates integrated where possible. (Pardon length: The talk page "Not a historian" section discussion is too long to ask you all to read through it.) Three editors keep arguing against these sources for reasons they can explain.

• In the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Rothbard is characterized as a "libertarian economist, political philosopher, historian, and activist" p 441, Sage Publications
• Mark Thornton, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, 2 vols., Southern Economic Journal, July 1, 1996
• Gerard Casey (2013}.Continuum International Publishing Group Murray Rothbard, editor's "Introduction" to book. "Murray Rothbard was an economist, historian, political and moral philosopher, and legal theoretician." (refers to it (p.98 and later) in discussing reviews of a book
• Justin Raimondo (2000).Prometheus Books An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, page 54]. "...the young Rothbard was now embarked, fully armed, on a remarkable career as a thinker, philosopher, economist, historian, and all-around champion controversialist." p. 54 Also On pages 19–21..
• Brian Doherty (2008). PublicAffairs, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, Part 64. Doherty says that The Panic of 1819 was Rothbard's history thesis work at Columbia, published years later in 1962. Doherty describes how Rothbard was given a grant to write an exhaustive work on American history. The grant was running out in 1966 when Rothbard had performed a lot of research but little of the writing. Doherty describes Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty as one of his major works in American history.
• Vincent Gaddis (2005). Herbert Hoover, Unemployment, and the Public Sphere: A Conceptual History, page xx. University Press of America Gaddis gives an overview of the historiography of the 1920s. He says historian Rothbard was a prominent re-interpreter of Hoover's legacy.
• David Gordon, ‎Carl Watner (1986). Murray N. Rothbard: a scholar in defense of freedom, page 14. "A historian, besides possessing the correct theory, must also master the techniques of empirical research. Rothbard passes this test with flying colors. His doctorate was in the field of economic history..." 'Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Mark Skousen (2008). Regnery Publishing Economic Logic, page 412. "Rothbard was a highly influential American economist, historian and natural law theorist belonging to the Austrian School of economics... who helped define modern libertarianism."
• Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden (1996). Rodopi (publisher) A Revolt Against Liberalism: American Radical Historians, 1959-1976, page 58. Linden describes Rothbard as a conservative historian who allied himself with radicals to challenge liberal histories of the New Deal.
• Ronald Lora, ‎William Henry Longton (1999). Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, p. 373, The Conservative Press in Twentieth-century America. "Murray. N. Rothbard is a libertarian economist, political scientist, and historian."
• Daniel S. Dupre, "The Panic of 1819 and the Political Economy of Sectionalism", Penn State University Press, page 274, chapter 9 in The Economy of Early America: Historical Perspectives & New Directions. Rothbard is listed as one of the few historians who have written about the Panic of 1819.
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Murray N. Rothbard – Economics, Science and Liberty", Ludwig von Mises Institute, page 238, within the book The Great Austrian Economists. "Furthermore, although first and foremost a theoretician, Rothbard was was also an accomplished historian..."
• Editors of The Austrian Economics Newsletter, 1995, volume 16, page 33. "Murray N. Rothbard, economist, historian, political theorist, and philosopher, died on January 7, 1995."
• Bruce Frohnen, ‎Jeremy Beer, ‎Jeffrey O. Nelson (2006). ISI Books, American conservatism: an encyclopedia, page 750. Rothbard is described as a free-market economist, an ethicist and a historian.
• John F. Welsh (2008). Lexington Books/(Rowman & Littlefield). After multiculturalism: the politics of race and the dialectics of liberty, page 62. Rothbard is described as not "merely" an academic economist but also an interdisciplinary scholar and historian. His exemplary historian work is listed as Conceived in Liberty, a four-volume history of the American Revolution.
• Sheldon L. Richman (2001). Ideas on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, volume 51, page 59. "Rothbard (1926-1995), economist, philosopher, historian, and essayist par excellence..."
• His history books are: The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, Columbia University Press, 1962; America's Great Depression, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1973; Conceived in Liberty, (4 vol.), Arlington House Publishers 1975–1979; An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, (2 vol.), Edward Elgar Pub, 1995. An editor pointed out his books: [53] Rothbard's book on the Great Depression has been cited by 499 authors.[54] Panic of 1819 which several observers judge as one of his major works.[55] Rothbard's Panic of 1819 has been cited by 106 authors.[56]
  Thoughts? CM-DC talk 19:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Given the length of that list and the titles of his books, he has a claim to be described as a historian of some description. It really doesn't matter whether everyone on the list knew him or not: that's a lot of published sources. I'm not looking at the article talk page to understand why this should be such a big issue (doubtless a timesink) but it is not as if someone is suggesting that he be described as the greatest historian that ever lived or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are reviews of his books at JSTOR. Eg: JSTOR 2116455 is the Journal of Economic History, whose reviewer (Harris Prochansky) concludes: "The historian of business fluctuations in the United States and the economist hoping to find material aiding them in their quest for the causes of the crippling and demoralizing panics, recessions and depressions that have periodically occurred in the United States would find the volume disappointing in this regard. Since the author avowedly centers his attention on reactions and policies, he cannot be criticized on this score. His work is stimulating, instructive, and lucid."
• JSTOR 1817172 is Harry Shaffer in The American Economic Review: "The bulk of the book is devoted to a very detailed account of contemplated, proposed, scrutinized, rationalized, tested, instituted, rejected, legislated, and repealed remedies for the panic. State by state, territory by territory (and where necessary county by county and city by city), the reader is given the opportunity to listen to the arguments and debates in newspaper editorials, in letters to the editor, in monographs, in petitions, in gubernatorial messages, in proposed bills, and in speeches before legislative assemblies". If that sort of research and presentation of something that happened in 1819 does not qualify someone to be described as a historian then I've got degrees in the wrong subject. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The first does not support calling MR an historian. The second is your OR statement based on self-reference to your judgment. To determine RS we need to evaluate the publishers and their editorial standards and biases. This would be a simple task for any of those who advocate using these as RS. The timesink comes from ignoring policy and replacing it with personal opinion or google metrics. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Does this have to do with this edit?[57] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Close. It has to do with the previous edit, the removal of categories which are well understood to be true by any topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I'm on record as saying that I dislike this almost unique system of discussion that the regular AE contributors have created, which include the bizarre "involved" and "uninvolved" sections that were placed here. However, since they are here, what are you doing in this bit? I really cannot fathom the protocol that you and your opposites have created. In any event, the first source is the Journal of Economic history and the second should be common sense. The pedantry that surrounds this topic is incredible: can we not all let it drop and actually get on with improving this encyclopaedia? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to you, that is why I write in this section. There's really no need to restate what you're on record as having said. Maybe there is some other noticeboard where it would be useful to discuss and seek resolution your meta-issues.

I don't yet have an opinion on RS or not, but when I do I will post it in the "involved" section. I didn't create the sections -- OP did, so I'll just follow OP's format here.

• WRT your #1, you'll have to show why the cited reference is RS for the assertion that MR is an "historian". The name of the publication is not, by itself sufficient. We need to know the publisher, editorial policy, author, and text which would supports calling Rothbard an "historian". It should be easy to do if such documentation exists.
• WRT your #2, "it's common sense" doesn't pass muster for RS per WP policy. On WP that is called OR and we can't use it if it is disputed. That's not my opinion, that's policy. I've cited the relevant policies elsewhere here and on the article talk page to Binksternet, who googled this list of names but has refused to provide any of the information we'd need to call them RS. So far, nobody has demonstrated why these are RS for the assertion being made. That's pretty easy to do if in fact they are RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Small Note: The Involved/Uninvolved was brought over because of this kind of inundation of comments/criticism against anyone who disagreed with certain editors, leading to "chaotic" discussions. Sometimes the sectioning actually helps keep them from overloading the discussion with their commentary. CM-DC talk 01:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

Well, excuse me, all, but I think most people who are active across multiple Austrian Economics articles might benefit from a dose of common sense. The engagement subculture, the WP:3LA (sic) and the concomitant frequent need to resort to drama boards etc is tiresome. This guy has written about stuff from two centuries ago, has been referenced as a historian (a fairly harmless term unless they are in fact a futurist) and has been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals that include "history" in the title: these things, as a minimum, would allow use of the word. I've still not looked at the talk page but if this is such as sticking point then can you not finagle something like "has written of historical events", "examined economic history" or whatever? There are so, so many ways round this issue. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

At first sight I am also wondering why it is considered so important whether he called an historian or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico and Steeletrap have been trying to reduce the respectability of Rothbard ever since they first touched the biography. Denying his historian credentials is part of that initiative. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• For reliable sources, we would want evidence that historians view him as a historian. From what I saw of the proposed sources, they seem to come primarily or entirely (some sources lack publishers and other details) from those very close to him, including his associates and followers. There's been a long history of bias on their part, so I would hold out for an independent source that is credible in the field of history. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Seem to come primarily or entirely"? If you do not know who is more closely connected and who is not, how can you make this comment? This response of yours was made in ignorance of the connections of former University of Louisville professor John F. Welsh, former The Freeman editor Sheldon Richman, legal scholar Bruce Frohnen, conservative scholar ‎Jeffrey O. Nelson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte history professor Daniel S. Dupre, University of Toledo professor emeritus Ronald Lora, University of Toledo History Department Chair William Henry Longton, writer Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden, economist Mark Skousen, writer Vincent Gaddis, and CATO editor Ronald Hamowy. The CATO folks were particularly unhappy with Rothbard but they describe him fairly as "a libertarian economist, political philosopher, historian, and activist" in their Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, page 441. Hamowy was the editor of that encyclopedia but CATO writer Brian Doherty drafted the biography of Rothbard. Neither is associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute co-founded by Rothbard. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disproof by single example: We've discussed Skousen previously, and he's not actually a historian, so his opinion on this matter is questionable. He's also not unbiased about Rothbard, which presents its own problems.

The root cause of your problem is that you combined a shotgun approach with an attempt to avoid doing your homework. It's really not really my job to go through your many low-quality citations in search of one that's valid. You need to pick out one or two that can pass muster. If you won't choose a good representative, I'll choose one for you -- Skousen -- and you probably won't like the result. MilesMoney (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Original poster: Now not every ref has to be used, but there are more than enough independent ones to merit use. And the idea that every tenured professor who happens to share some views with Rothbard or his associates, or sometimes publish with one of their groups, means they are not reliable as a source for a factoid or an opinion is total POV deletionism, IMHO. CM-DC talk 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please identify one that is independent? Please include the name of the publisher. MilesMoney (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, started putting non Ludwig von Mises in bold and removed one I found was self-published. CM-DC talk 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• This list was generated by an editor's quick search engine adventure, but then its promoters have failed, or in one case refused, to provide editorial, publisher, and other information that would be required to verify the asserted text and evaluate whether any of these is RS. Until they do so there is no basis to accept anything on this list as RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• See my response to MilesMoney. Your push to impeach this list because of insufficient citation information shows that you have no better argument. That's pretty weak. You are perfectly free to select one or more of the sources and describe how its stance does not support our use of the word "historian" even though it says so in the cited text. I suggest you start with the CATO Institute's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Enjoy. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeating response to @Binksternet: from article talk page: It's not sufficient to use a search engine to come up with a list and insist that they prove your point. WP requires us to verify information from WP:RS according to policy. You are under no obligation to do so, but the burden in this matter is clearly on you. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. If you choose not to provide the information, your assertion is rejected. If you choose to deny policy as cited you should pursue this discussion. It is nobody's job but your own to prove your case here. The second sentence of your post above is a WP:PA You should ensure that you do not misrepresent other editors' positions nor engage in personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is quite sufficient to list a score of sources to prove one's point. If you, personally, do not think the proof is adequate then you have adopted a position not shared by the majority of observers here. You ask me to read WP:SOURCE even though that policy is about sources as used within articles rather than sources presented in talk page arguments. Similarly BURDEN is about sources used within articles, not on talk page debates. Frankly, a talk page debate can be and often is more informal, with references to "the Raimondo book" or "the NYT obit" usually being quite enough to alert participants to the proper source. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You haven't established that they're sources, which for the purpose of WP article content means sources which comport with the policies which I linked. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think in order to say someone is an historian, we need to show that that is the the mainstream opinion, which has not been shown in this case. Certainly, Rothbard wrote about history, but so do many journalists. TFD (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course Rothbard is a historian. The cited sources list him as one, and several of these go into more detail about Rothbard's significant works of history including Conceived in Liberty (about the American Revolution in the late 18th century), The Panic of 1819, and America's Great Depression. These works establish his historian credentials. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there standards for use of these words? I would think that several reliable, independent, mainstream (academic)historians are required. Non-historians lack expertise in determining who fits into the discipline. Co-workers who hew to fringe "revisionist" methodologies also must be looked upon suspiciously. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[Note:Put back removed comment per: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors which the individual who removed it is very well aware with since I have to remind the individual frequently.

Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? Whatever it is, it makes it necessary to keep bringing issues here and makes it difficult to take their opinions seriously on things like book cover blurbs above. User:Carolmooredc (who did temporary business as a test as CM-DC), 16:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Deletions of posts are in my opinion an extreme measure. The post removed was an accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms, and does not seem to be a personal attack in the appropriate sense of that term here on WP (ad hominem and not concerning information relevant to editing). I have hesitated from reverting. But my understanding of WP:NPA is that it is not intended to apply to cases where an editor is criticized for edits or rationales. If there is a consistent pattern of inconsistent rationales that would seem a relevant point to make.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/7984944/Mike-Edwards-hay-bale-death-celebrities-in-freak-killings.html

This column would appear to be a sensationalist treatment of celebrity deaths. How reliable is it in terms of categorizing the deaths as "unusual", thus supporting this edit to List of unusual deaths? Given that it includes such mundane instances as falling off a roof, hanging oneself with a belt, a ruptured appendix, and falling when a safety harness broke, I would have to say that the inclusion in the list was based on the fame of the deceased more than any actual determination that the deaths were "unusual".—Kww(talk) 00:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond basic criteria, I don't see how you can divide sources into reliable and unreliable on the question of whether a death is "unusual". What kind of expertise or fact-checking would a source be expected to have? Maybe that's a reason for us not to have a bullet-point list article on the topic. But, so long as we have one, an unusual death is surely any death that someone thinks is unusual (?). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I could at least countenance using sources that made an effort to do statistical analysis and historical research, but no, "it's unusual because someone thinks it is" doesn't pass my threshold of being reliably sourced information.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so we restrict ourselves to sources that have carried our a statistical analysis and historical research and, presumably, we end up deleting the article as unsourced. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that to be an undesirable outcome, but the fact that there are no reliable sources for membership in the list is not considered to be a valid argument for deletion of the list as a whole. It can only be accomplished the tedious and slow way: item by item, source by source.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Daily Telegraph is a respected news organization and is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. The real issue here is the topic: whether a death is unusual is a subjective determination, and different sources are likely to have different opinions on which deaths are considered unusual. I would suggest that a way to handle this is with tightening the inclusion criteria, such as requiring multiple reliable sources for each item, or at least for the items are that contested. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That effort is underway as well. It hasn't been warmly embraced by people who desire to expand the article, and it still leaves us with the problem of sources like this. I agree that The Daily Telegraph is a well-respected source, but sources aren't necessarily considered reliable for all things. I would suggest that the opinions of the celebrity desk photo editor on what constitutes an "unusual" death fall outside of what we would consider the Telegraph to be a reliable source for. At best they represent an opinion, and thus could only source a statement like "the celebrity desk photo editor of The Daily Telegraph believes ...".—Kww(talk) 01:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, after looking at the 7 AfDs and the current deletion review, I'm not sure RSN can help out here. The issues seem larger than just one source or type of source. Have you tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:Requests for mediation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that we are in a position where we can't deal with the whole issue at once, because few are willing to recognize that it's both possible and probable that this list can never be repaired. The only way that I think will work is to handle it one source and one line item at a time, getting consensus that this particular photo desk editor or that particular music reviewer or that particular columnist cannot be considered a sufficiently reliable source to classify a death as "unusual". Sooner or later a set of precedents will develop that will allow us to dispose of whole classes of sources (like "celebrity photo desks", "gossip columns", "pseudo news columns devoted to calling things 'weird'", etc.). Who knows, I may get a surprise and find that there are two or three items that actually belong on the list.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Virology

I added content about two Human coronaviruses as the source of the common cold to the Common cold article. I cited a study from the Journal of Virology that mentions this fact and cites two articles as the source. The J.Virol. article is about dentritic cells in HCoV infection and not about the epidemiological study it mentions that says HCoV's cause 30% of common colds.

Specifically, it says, “Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30% of common colds, with only occasional spreading to the lower respiratory tract. Airway epithelial cells represent the primary target of infection.” The authors then cite an article from the Archives of Pediatrics, and Journal of Hospital Infection which report on two studies in neonatal intensive care units regarding the transmission of these human coronaviruses. Here’s a link to the full article that mentions this: http://jvi.asm.org/content/86/14/7577.long

I added this to the Common cold article:[58]. But Doc James reverted claiming that it is based on primary sources and can't be used. [59]. The fact that two human coronaviruses OC43 and 229E are among the many viruses that cause the common cold is well documented in the literature to the point of common knowledge. This fact is often mentioned as background information in journal articles reporting studies on the HCoV's. It seems perfectly reasonable to use this source for the edits. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The individual studies are "primary" - when a later writer refers to earlier studies published in a peer-reviewed journal per WP:MEDRS, the argument that the secondary source is still "primary" fails. [60] has even made it into a RS medical textbook from Oxford. (academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher) Collect (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The textbook linked to above says Coronaviruses are an "important cause", but Collect is right in that WP:MEDRS does state that "Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources", and this seems to apply to "Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30% of common colds". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta

We haven't had one external comment yet at my post above in case anyone has a moment! We did an RFC earlier which is linked in that post if anyone's curious. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky on Operation Menu

User:LudicrousTripe is deleting material sourced to Pawns of War and Sideshow and replacing it with a supposed quotation from a primary source mentioned in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (a work only tangentially related to the article). While Chomsky's opinions on some topics may be notable, my understanding is that as a linguist and polemicist he lacks historical training and therefore shouldn't be used to establish historical facts over academic historians. However, LudicrousTripe assures me that Chomsky is a reliable source for factual claims and insists that my only motive for disagreement must be a personal dislike of Chomsky. Should Chomsky be used to establish the authenticity and historical significance of this quote, and should it replace Pawns of War and Sideshow?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a sliding scale with some sources more reliable than others. Noam Chomsky's area of expertise is linguistics, not history. Given that the Vietnam War happened over 40 years ago, surely there are better sources available from actual historians. On a side note, even if Chomsky's area of expertise were history, we should not use the word "criminal" in Wikipedia's voice until there is consensus among historians for using this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:A Quest For Knowledge I am not using the word "criminal" in Wikipedia's voice, the word criminal was used as a direct quote from the Cambodian governments response to the attacks.

Your tone is, as usual, it seems, judging by your talk page, unnecessarily combative. Quite disappointing, as it makes any interaction with you extremely unpleasant. Anyway, let's get this over with.

There are few points I want to make.

1) It was not I who wanted to replace the stuff; it was Balgill1000. My reversion was admittedly trying to cement that replacement, which brings me to my next point.

2) Despite appearances, I do not want to "replace" anything; it appeared to me from your reversion of this Balgill1000 person, and its edit summary, that you had tried to replace Chomsky–Herman with other stuff on the basis that you did not think C–E are RS. I say "appeared" because I've just checked Balgill1000's original edit and it was he/she who had wanted to use C–E as a replacement. Your edit summary led me to my bad conclusion, though I do not seek to put the blame on your for my mistake. My errors are my own. Anyway, just a simple mistake on my part that I wanted to clarify. I am strongly in favour of not replacing/deleting alternative views, even ones I don't like; Wikipedia should be a place were all views are aired and the reader can come to their own conclusion.

3) I did not "insist" that your motive for disagreement "must" be a personal dislike of C–E; it was a potential conclusion to be based on a simple point of logic. Let me explain things: I made a conditional statement: if you couldn't point me to where C–E have been ruled out as RS on topics that are to do with US foreign policy, then I could assume that it was nothing more than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. After all, if you have no objective basis that rules them out as RS to which you can point me, the only possible conclusion is that you have a merely subjective basis for not regarding them as RS. Just a simple point of logic. The mere existence of this discussion on this noticeboard tells me there is no Wikipedia policy or whatever that excludes C–E as RS, hence my suspicion about a lurking WP:IDON'TLIKEIT appears to have been validated.

To be honest with the admins or whoever deals with this noticeboard, dealing with this clearly and deeply unhappy individual is just so unenjoyable, I am minded to let him just get on and do what he wants with the article. Actually, I'm not minded, I am certain: just let him get on with it. I am not going to make any further posts here. Thank you. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky's been brought to this noticeboard many times, and the response has always been exactly the same as the one User:A Quest For Knowledge provided above; therefore, I could not point to a single "Wikipedia policy" that states "Chomsky has been ruled out as RS". I truly thought it would be more informative to discuss this particular matter here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky's writings on recent U.S. foreign policy had been published by academic publishers. There is no reason to believe that a book by him published by Pantheon Books in 1988 is less reliable than a book by a journalist, William Shawcross, published by Washington Square Press in 1979.

The difference in the facts presented by the two sources is that Shawcross said Sihanouk was silent about U.S. bombing, while Chomsky says Sihanouk's government condemned the bombings on 26 March 1969 and Sihanouk furthered condemned the bombings in a press conference two days later.

I would give more credence to Chomsky's version, because it was written later. If Chomsky is wrong then the onus is on TheTimesAreAChanging to provide evidence of that. If he thinks only sources published by the academic press are acceptable then he cannot defend using Shawcross.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, when evaluating sources, the main issue is the publisher, because it indicates the degree of fact-checking. Academic publishers for example have independent peer-review while reputable publishers do not publish non-fiction books that are likely to contain substantial errors. Also, they will "withdraw" books that are found to contain substantial errors or plagiarism. The main issue with Chomsky's writings is however not whether he gets his facts right, but whether or not he makes the correct conclusions. But that is a separate issue from reliability. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction between Shawcross and Chomsky, nor do I even doubt the legitimacy of the quote. The cherry-picked quote has not been demonstrated to have any historical significance, and User:Balgill1000's edit was sloppy. Shawcross is a widely-cited expert on Cambodia, whereas Chomsky has no such expertise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between Shawcross who said Sihanouk said nothing about the bombings and Chomsky saying he protested them. Kenton Clymer (United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000, Routledge, 2013), confirms that Sihanouk indeed condemned the bombings in a press conference, but that Kissinger had interpreted his earlier statements as an invitation to bomb his country and ignored his later complaints.[61] It could be that Shawcross was relying on the misleading statements of pro-war politicians, either directly from other sources based on their accounts, and was unaware of the press conference.

Shawcross btw is a journalist, not an academic. Note the brief mention of him by Ben Kiernan in "The Cambodian Genocide" (Routledge, 2008), p. 292:[62] "Shawcross, author of Sideshow, a good study of the pre-1975 U.S. intervention and wartime destruction of Cambodia, hung the label of "genocide' on the Khmer Rouge's opponents.... He warned of "2 million dead by Christmas. Fortunately, he was very wrong."

People who write books are not oracles, and even the most reliable sources will have errors. Saying that something must be right because the writer is an expert is an appeal to authority. If you doubt facts in reliable sources, then the best approach is to compare them with other sources.

TFD (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Even in Kiernan's recounting, Shawcross didn't continue to stand by his predictions regarding the Vietnamese invasion after they were discredited. Since Kiernan is a former Khmer Rouge supporter, neither comes out looking very prescient. Sihanouk talked out of both sides of his mouth, but I'd have absolutely no problem with using Clymer's book in that section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Shawcross is the standard account of the US bombing of Cambodia. Kiernan is reliable for the history and politics of the KR, except of course the early stuff that he recanted. Using Clymer seems to be the solution here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@LudicrousTripe: Actually, you did use the word "criminal" in Wikipedia's voice[63]:

On 26 March 1969, one week after the bombings began, the Cambodian government publicly condemned the almost daily bombing by U.S. aircraft, alleging that these attacks were directed against peaceful Cambodian farmers and demanding that these criminal attacks be stopped immediately and indefinitely.

There are no quotation marks surrounding this text at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LudicrousTripe User:A Quest For Knowledge I will add the appropriate quotations marks to the correction I am making so it will be clear it is not someones opinion or Wikipedia's opinion, but the direct quotation of the Cambodian government. Balgill1000 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesTheyAreAChanging, you need to distinguish between facts and opinions. Facts, unlike opinions, are either true or false, and are independent of opinions. I do not know why you think Kiernan is a former KR supporter, but the fact is his article was published in an academic book and does not appear to support Pol Pot. If you have a source that says when Sianouk condemned the bombing out of one side of his mouth, the other side of his mouth said nothing, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)