Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Raja Shivachhatrapati by Babasaheb Purandare in the article Shivaji (Indian history bio)

The following book is the source for no less than 29 footnotes in the article Shivaji (the founder of the Maratha Empire in 17th century India). I'm not easily able to specify exactly what is being cited, because it's huge portions of the article, and the claimed source doesn't seem readily available online.

Babasaheb Purandare (August 2003). Raja Shivachhatrapati (Marathi: राजा शिवछत्रपती) (15 ed.). Pune: Purandare Prakashan.

This one is a little sticky since we don't have a clear online version of this book, and from what I understand of the footnote they're citing the edition in the Marathi language. That said, I'd like to address Purandare as a non-RS based on critical mention of him in books by reliable academics. It is my contention that Purandare is a "pop historian" and historical novelist, who should not be considered an authoritative source on Indian history. This is an important issue to Shivaji both since the book is cited so heavily there, and due to serious concerns about the author's POV. The following are critical comments about Purandare's work, particularly that covering Shivaji, and indications of the Reliability of persons making said comments:

• He, further, finds the noted historian Babasaheb Purandare's treatment of history as steeped in encomium and idol-worship and in the tradition of such chroniclers of Maratha history as Sabhasad. Chitragupta, and Chitnees.
  • El. Es Deśapāṇḍe (2005). Narhar Kurundkar. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-81-260-2039-3.
  • (note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)
• Still one will say that Babasaheb Purandare should not be on the committee. The reasons for that lie not in the fact that Purandare is a Brahmin, but because Purandare's presentation of Shivaji is through and through communal.
  • Ram Puniyani (2010). Communal Threat to Secular Democracy. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-81-7835-861-1.
  • Gyan is not a great publisher, but assuming they're quoting Puniyani accurately, he appears to be a reputable human rights advocate
• Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate... and blames the popular Brahmin writer Babsaheb Purandare for fostering these misconceptions through his books, plays, novels, and films...
  • Matthew N. Schmalz; Peter Gottschalk (6 May 2011). Engaging South Asian Religions: Boundaries, Appropriations, and Resistances. SUNY Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3323-3.
• In consideration of B. M. Purandare's work, writer [Laine] says that fictional enrichment is the speciality of Babasaheb Purandare . And pointed out the aim of Babasaheb Purandare is, "veneration of the hero Shivaji through the retelling of his epic...
  • Anant V. Darwatkar (2005). Shivaji Maharaja: Maratha Chhatrapati In Bharat-varsha : Shivaji : Hindu king in Islamic India" by J.W. Laine/2003 : false and fluid one. Shree Shambhu Prerana Pakashan.
  • This one's a bit sticky, because the publication is one criticising author James Laine (widely hated by some Marathas for "busting their bubble" for "defaming" Shivaji in his historical presentations), but the gist is that Laine called Purandare a hack. James Laine, for what it's worth, is a professor of Religion at MacAlester college, so in a scuffle betwen Laine way over in the UK with a Phd and a popular novelist who happens to live in the home region of the subject of his works, I'd assume Laine is both the more professional and the more neutral party.

This is just an introductory stab, but are folks so far agreeing that Purandare is a novelist, not a historian, and should not be the go-to source (29 footnotes!) for a high-profile article, particularly when this topic is covered exhaustively by any number of PhD authors? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why does the Times of India refer to him as "noted history scholar Babasaheb Purandare"? [1]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because ToI isn't any kind of authority on academic credentials. Equally importantly, along the lines of "show, don't tell", they don't bother to give any kind of information whatsoever as to what makes him a "noted history scholar". Phd? Books published by universities? Respected international lecturer? Nope, he's just a guy who really, really, really likes Shivaji and has written a lot of popular books. If you have any evidence that anyone outside of India takes him seriously as an author academic historian, please do provide it. Best as I can tell, the main people who hold him in such veneration are other people who really, really, really like Shivaji. I'm sure Purandare writes some great vivid accounts and makes history come alive and all that, but a cracking good read does not an RS make. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. A news source mention in many articles is not a qualification in itself. And I do not find a biography showing any actual credentials. As far as I can see there is no reference to him in any formal manner like this: [2]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left neutrally-phrased notifications of this RSN post at Talk:Babasaheb Purandare, Talk:Shivaji, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India, and on the talk pages of all registered users (barring those blocked/banned) from the last two months of edits on Shivaji and as far back as April 2012 on Talk:Shivaji. I'd really like to get a strong consensus on this, so as to be able to remove those 29 flawed footnotes without getting into an edit war. I've already removed 20 or so sources that were clearly non-RS, including 16 individual citations to a costume-drama TV serial (!), and Purandare is the most significant remaining shaky source. Shivaji is #72 on the list of Most popular India-related pages on WP, with over 100,000 hits per month, so this is an article worth cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The page has a large number of references, but I'm a little concerned that this is the only one in Marathi, and the topic is clearly of interest to Marathi speakers. I suggest that the article could be improved by (a) moving the source from the references into the 'Depiction in popular culture' section; (b) considering whether there are other Marathi sources that could be used and (c) adding Marathi-language further reading (or viewing) to the 'Depiction in popular culture'. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no objections to Purandare's book being listed in "Depictions". So far as using Marathi sources, while on technical merits I'd have no objections against using Marathi sources by qualified academic historians, we have both the issue that only a limited number of editors at en.wiki would be able to read/verify Marathi sources, and also that I would imagine that the most serious historical works on Shivaji are either available in English translation, or are written in English or Hindi so as to reach a wider academic audience. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of popular works on Shivaji in Marathi, and academic works on him, by Marathi, other Indian, and non-Indian academics, in English. All things being equal, it would be best to have Marathi sources and further reading on mr.wiki and English ones on en.wiki where practical. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly encourage editors to read WP:HISTRS and consider this author (and his publisher) in the context of that advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it is only the advice of one or more editors in the form of an essay and not considered guidline.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I encourage reading of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) in conjunction with WP:CRYSTAL, because taken together they remove the need consult with non peer-review sources completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why many of us wrote HISTRS was that we kept answering the same kind of questions in the same kinds of way on RS/N :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. MV has provided a decent analysis, which my own ferreting around supports. The man is a "historian" only in the loosest sense and he is a communal writer. Please bear in mind that "communal" in the Indian sense does not mean "collegial" etc - it means sectarian, caste-ist. As with James Tod and Rajasthan, he is much admired for his dubious scholarship in the state most associated with his subject matter (Maharashtra) but has little support throughout the other 99% of the world. Stick him in "Popular culture" as a regional folk-lorist and sectarian who holds non-mainstream, sometimes actually fringe, views.

BTW, one of the problems with Marathi history articles is the propensity for socking, especially by Mrpontiac1 and Dewan357. Bearing in mind the constraints of WP:NOENG, any Marathi-language sources will require careful review by experienced editors and the likelihood of edit warring is considerable. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matthew, I have friends who have B.M. Purandare's books. Let me have a look at them and get back to the group. As I wrote sometime before, BM should be regarded as popular historian because that is how he described himself in a meeting in UK 24 years ago.

Lokmanya Tilak, the early Indian Nationalist leader was the first to popularize Shivaji, the legend. He could have chosen Bajirao I, the actual builder of the Maratha empire who also happened to belong to the same brahmin sub-caste as Tilak. However, Shivaji had a broader appeal across the Marathi castes and beyond. BM has continued this tradition of building up Shivaji, the National hero of Marathi People and of Hindu people. Anyhow, before get carried away let me stop and get back to the group shortly. By Jonathansammy (couldn't get the digital signature)

Matthew V, After doing some research, Here are my comments on using Bm Purandare as a reliable reference: 1. BM is a novel writer whose stories are based mostly on the life and times of Shivaji. 2. He relies on published research on Shivaji and more importantly, stories transmitted orally over generations by Marathi families about Shivaji to help write his stories. I am sure the second point would disqualify him as RS. In my opinion, BM definitely has a place in an article on Shivaji but only in a section titled "Shivaji in contemporary arts and literature". Thanks Jonathansammy (once again the website is not allowing me to place my digital signature)

Thanks for looking into it Jonathan. I think we're pretty much on the same page here: he's a successful popular writer, and while he may be channeling the mythos in the popular culture, he's not an actual "go to the Delhi archives and read Persian records" actual academic kind of historian. Definitely agree he should be listed in the "Literature" section as a very Notable writer on the subject, but not actually used as a source. I'll wait until the end of this week just to see if anyone else has objections, but failing that I'll remove the Purandare cites in the body of the article and replace them with academics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The decreasing references on page Shivaji led to this discussion here. The page is ranked #212 and not #72 as mentioned incorrectly. Not to mention weasel words like "It is my contention", "my own ferreting around supports", etc.

There are many incorrect assertions on the discussions that I would like to address here:

1. "(note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)"- by which rule or is it hearsay? Sahitya Academy publishes many things and to say such a thing as a random observation means that people do not know much really.
2. About Ram Punyani - his academic credentials are not stellar, he is mainly into some Human rights org. Rather one should avoid such references other than any need of human rights or Hindu terrorism that his views are about.
3. The academic credential of Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate is mentioned in the link as well which is not more than one webpage. How he is mentioned in a book published by "SUNY series in Hindu Studies" is surprising considering his one web page academic credential is suspect. All in all a very poor citation.
4. Anant V. Darwatkar - how academic is he? Is he a political writer? Not clear here - again a very poor choice to mention.
5. About Laine author, a critique link, the Author and Oxford Publishing come out terribly as far as credential go. Examples in the article are "shoddy polemics", "re-examine its commissioning policy", "as no evidence has been adduced or offered", "Laine is an anti-Hindu hypocrite", "Laine exposes his agenda", "lacked a modern sense of identity", "Hindus of the era cannot be ceded to have had a sense of 'Hindu' identity.", "it did not once mention Shivaji's famed ambition to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi", "strange omission", "most notable omission is of the poet Bhushan", "juvenile", "subscribes to the secularist school of historiography that decrees that Hindus must forget the evil done to them, a phenomenon Dr. Koenraad Elst calls negationism.", and so on and on. Meaning another motivated author who omits as per his views. Not to mention controversy around the book he wrote that was banned and then the ban was lifted etc - which does not add to his credentials in any way.

As such this discussion does not deserve to continue.111.91.75.146 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By "doesn't deserve to continue", are you claiming that we should consider Purandare as an RS? If that's the case, you've proved absolutely nothing of the sort. We've found a few mentions of Purandare online, generally negative, and though you've made some cogent criticisms or the anti-Purandare sourcing, you've given nothing whatsoever supporting Purandare. We don't necessarily need negative evidence against Purandare, though it helps, but the thus-far lack of positive reporting on Purandare's historical accuracy is not encouraging. I'll note that the article Shivaji previously cited a serial drama sixteen times, so I think it's totally legitimate to take a hard look at its sourcing.

As far as the criticism of Laine you cite, given how astute you've been in picking apart the cites given here I find it quite inconsistent that you cite a Hindutva organisation as making Laine and Oxford University Press "come out terribly as far as credentials go." I doubt neutral editors would consider a sectarian politico-religious outfit as a serious critic of books published by one of the planet's most prestigious universities. Yet more inconsistent, you knock Puniyani for being just a human rights advocate, but the author of the review, Dr. Sandhya Jain, is listed as a "Social Development Consultant and Columnist" (not a historian) and is an editorialist for the conservative Pioneer newspaper.

Thus far, you have minor counter-criticisms, and your counter-criticisms are generally from less-reliable sources than the criticisms presented in the first place. Again, as far as anyone here can tell, Purandare is a writer of "popular history", not a historian, and thus appears to have no validity as an RS on the topic of Shivaji, particularly since we have so many other authors available, and he should be removed from the footnotes but remain as an important author of the "Legacy" section. If you have any evidence that Purandare is authoritative, please present it, but such should be positive review from serious academics, not accolades from the reading public and politicians in Shivaji's home state. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his writings qualify as reliable sources for historical facts. From what I can gather, he is a popular historian and dramatist and does not publish in peer reviewed journals or journals with academic credentials. I don't, for example, see any article by him on JSTOR. References in published works to Purandare allude to his role in pushing the "cult of Shivaji" rather than to his scholarship (fanatical follower of Shivaji. Purandare can and should probably be quoted and referred to in an article or section about the cult of Shivaji in Maharashtra, but not for historical facts. --regentspark (comment) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with one single drive-by objection which was not followed up on, and several experienced editors concurring that Purandare is not a WP:RS for historical topics. Accordingly, I have removed all 28 Purandare cites in Shivaji. Thanks for everyone's participation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt: GAN vetting

The article on jazz-guitarist Ralph Patt cites

1. Death Record (one of several websites providing the USA's Social-Security death registry on-line) for the date/location of birth and death (2010). (For $1500 USD, you can buy the SS database and verify it yourself.)
2. a death notice in a Yahoo newsgroup for jazz-guitarists for the cause of death (kidney cancer) and as a secondary source for the death date. It is also cited as a secondary source for Patt's having authored an on-line book for musicians. It is used a few times also as a supplementary (secondary) source for a few facts with RSes.

Reader Drmies has commented that these seem unlikely to be challenged, and their use is limited, but suggested that I ask for second opinions here.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Patt's website published his Vanilla book, which contains the chord progressions for four hundred jazz standards, from "After you've gone" to "Zing! went the strings". Its title refers to "Just play the vanilla changes", Lester Young's advice to aspiring pianists. It was updated in 2008.
Having been diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2007, Ralph Oliver Patt died at the age of 80 on 6 October 2010 in Canby, Oregon.

A death record can be used to establish date of death if you can indisputably link the person to the subject of the article. That is a bit problematic here since you are taking both date of birth and date of death from that source. Your linkage is then based on the name, year of birth, and location (near Portland), all of which are, in turn, linked to the subject of the article by other sources. I have no position on the issue. You should cite the Oregon death record database as your source, with the weblink you have added as a convenience link. The Yahoo-groups posting is user-generated content, and we have no way of even verifying who that user is. It is not an RS; anybody can join any group and post there. Churn and change (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Two days earlier, editor Drmies discussed these issues on his talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have other sources which mention his social security number so you can tie the death record to him directly? That would help. The linkage via name, year of birth, and location (near Portland) is, I think passable, but if somebody disputes it, I will have to say the objection is reasonable. For the Yahoo newsgroup, neutrality is not the issue here; there is the problem of accuracy. People frequently post what they heard from others there. There isn't a single obituary for the subject? Can you find out the exact place where he died? If possible the name of the local newspaper? I can see if an archive of their articles is accessible. Churn and change (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A new reference notes a memorial scholarship to a jazz music summer-camp in Oregon, after he died of cancer in 2010. This is not Billboard, but it is signed and it appears to be a regular non-laughable Oregon periodical.

I've Googled a few times, and didn't find anything. But it appears that more Patt information is indexed by Google every time I check. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably use that resource for reason of death. Newspaper archives are typically not indexed by Google. The idea is if one knows the place of death and date of death, then one can expect an obituary in the local rag the next day or a few days later. Just by looking at a few archived issues, one should be able to hit something. For a GA-nominated article standards are high, whatever policy and guidelines say. Churn and change (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There was at least one other site (for genealogists) that dumped the SS data.

I shall look some more for Oregon newspapers. High beam didn't have anything. Update: Alas The Oregonian and its link to a database of Pacific (and USA) obituaries had nothing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles source

Hello everyone, I'd like to confirm with you that Pollack's Beatles song analyses are a reliable source: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml. I need some backup on this, because I want to use it in a featured article and there's an editor who's not yet convinced it's legit. Details are here on the archive page. Who's with me? Thanks, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your earlier discussion, seems like the only objection, a mild one, was to the website, not to Pollack's analyses? Since the Pollack analyses are hosted elsewhere (the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup), is this an issue? I notice http:///www.icce.rug.nl has only some stuff on the C++ programming language, so the site's music credibility can be questioned. Pollack, once an instructor of music and composition at Yale, is a subject expert, and this is self-published information from an expert. If editors agree, such information can be used, and in this case, best I can make out, there seems to be general agreement his Beatle notes are credible. From WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the website, why use it when a better one is available? Churn and change (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

While Pollack may meet the SPS qualifications as a reliable source, it is hardly difficut to find Beatles song commentary in other equally reliable sources. The question is why would we specifically want Pollack's commentary from these particular places.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive replies!

@Churn and change, you are of course right about rec.music.beatles -- it just hadn't occured to me, my apologies. Would you source directly from the newsgroup or from their web mirror http://www.recmusicbeatles.com?

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, good question! I want to quote Pollack specifically for his statements on Paul's singing and range in Hey Jude; the analysis Pollack gives would make a good addition to the Paul McCartney article section about his vocal abilities, in my opinion. As to the source for Pollack's analyses, I will be happy to follow Churn and change's advice and take rec.music.beatles instead.

Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think directly linking to Google groups, example, is better. No reason not to. Churn and change (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the "Details are here . . ." link Georgepauljohnringo provides, the source is used for attributed statements such as "Pollack, the musicologist, sees Beatle's xyz song as such-and-such." I am not sure whether there is an "official" site holding the notes, but the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup seems the best option. It is true the soundscape site is used in the FA article on Hey Jude but the citations for that article are in bad shape (one "Notes" entry does not point to anything in "References" and many "References" entries are orphaned); its major contributors all have long since stopped editing the article. Churn and change (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I feel WP:BOLD enough to take this back to the PaulMcCartney FA now :-) I'll try to change the Pollack quotes in the "Hey Jude" FA as well so they point to the more reliable rec.music.beatles newsgroup. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I take that one back. Churn and change, what about the caveat that Pollack's work in the relevant field has not been previously published by reliable third-party publications? At least, I can't find such publications of Pollack's work pre-Beatles. Don't you think my original argument is more watertight; namely that Pollack's work has been legitimised by subsequent references from reliable sources (Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for Pollack reference, and Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for Pollack reference)? Let me know what you think, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, being an instructor at Yale's school of music and composition does, I think, fulfill the spirit of the criterion, though not its exact wording. Even an adjunct lecturer would have had some earlier publications. Later notability cannot stamp an earlier publication as credible. The science paper a Nobel laureate published in an undergrad-level magazine (say psi chi) isn't necessarily a reliable source. In this case you might argue we are talking of the same piece of work being quoted by Womack and Reising. However this work seems to have taken decades to finish, and it would be difficult to establish their quotes are from the years before the sentences you cite. Churn and change (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller blog

Yay, another ridiculous question I'm forced to ask! Is anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller's blog, atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com, sufficiently reliable that it can be included in any article? While one would presume that it verifiably represents her own personal feelings, I argue that it falls so far short of WP:RS that it should not be used in articles on other subjects on which Ms. Geller might happen to express an opinion - for instance, Srebrenica massacre, where it is currently being inserted in spite of talkpage consensus not to include it. I have asked that users interested in including her opinion produce reliable sources to show that it belongs in the article, but no luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant question regarding reliable sources, Pamela Geller and the Srebrenica Massacre article is this: "Can a person's blog be used to show what that person's opinion is?". The answer is yes. Fairview360

Absolutely not reliable for anything other than her opinion. And only third party coverage of her opinion would indicate that her opinion might be worthy of inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current usage for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If her opinion is notable enough WP:RS should cite her on those matters.Her blog should be used only as primary source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with TheRedPenOfDoom and Shrike. Geller's blog opinions should only be used on Wikipedia as far as they are mentioned in reliable third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not really a matter of whether or not its "reliable" - its a matter of WP:UNDUE space being given to a fringe viewpoint by bringing it up at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source for facts, or as a convenience link for sources she copies. Can be used to cite her own opinions, where editorial consensus is they are notable. Churn and change (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<-I guess its use in Ron Coleman (legal scholar) to support the statement "Other reported blogger clients include Pamela Geller"[3] is probably a BLP violation and needs replacing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

removed until we have third party or reciprical sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller is certainly Notable, but strictly an opinion writer. She does not have a history of even-handed treatment of facts, but certainly often includes facts not reported on widely in other sources. Is her blog GENERALLY a WP:RS? Obviously no. Can it be referred to in appropriate ways in Articles as opinion? Obviously yes. As to whether any INDIVIDUAL (that is the sticking point for me in responding) inclusion passes WP:RS or WP:UNDUE is a separate issue, and needs separate posting, as per WP:RS Noticeboard guidelines. Looking over your reversions, I would generally agree they are individually justified, but am not going to endorse a blanket ban on Geller references, though they should only be used with extreme caution. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are very few blanket bans on sources. Even the current community consensus that Huffington Post is not reliable for facts is slowly changing as the publication changes. But I would dispute her being "notable" for our definition on Wikipedia. She is certainly controversial, but does that make her blog notable enough to ignore the current polciy against blog sites being used? Anyone can write a blog. Anyone can create an internet site. But we simple don't use self published blogs of this nature WP:BLOGS.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what wikipedia envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly approved. What is going on here? Fairview360

Quoting Geller at Srebrenica massacre is undue emphasis on a minor viewpoint. If Geller's viewpoint was important, another commentator in a reliable source would have discussed it. If you want to bring Geller's opinion into the article you should use third party comments, not Geller's blog. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source, The Guardian, HAS discussed Geller's viewpoint on Serbian war crimes. Perhaps Binksternet could read the reliable sources in question and then offer his opinion. Fairview360

Geller's status as a historian or political analyst or pretty much anything is WAY on the fringe. The only time her opinions should even be considered for inclusion on any article would be if there were significant third party commentary on Geller's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While editors such as Fairview360 and The Red Pen of Doom both agree that Geller's views are WAY on the fringe and perhaps both Fairvew and The Red Pen wish we lived in a world where people with such views were not given mainstream credibility and notability, with Geller, that is not the case. Reliable sources have stated that she is notable. In fact, the Guardian specifically refers to how counter-intuitive that may be: This strange performance might suggest that Geller is a figure consigned to the margins of the widening and increasingly heated debate about the role of Muslims in America. Far from it. The flamboyant New Yorker, who appears on her own website pictured in a tight fitting Superman uniform, has emerged as a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america The fact is reliable sources are stating that Pamela Geller is notable. Hence, wikieditors and administrators need to acknowledge that. Fairview360

In the Srebrenica Massacre article and the talkpage, two reliable sources have been provided showing that Pamela Geller is notable, including an article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america where she is described as having "aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals." The Southern Poverty Law Center states "Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller Meanwhile the Daily News New York http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-25/local/28647400_1_islamic-center-anti-islamic-pamela-geller considers both the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pamela Geller are notable. Hence, significant third party commentary has been provided by The Guardian, The Daily News New York and the Southern Poverty Law Center. So, on what grounds, does Roscelese continue to post on wikipedia that there are no reliable sources demonstrating that Pamela Geller is notable. Roscelese knows of these sources. He has been presented with them repeatedly. Still he ignores them, ignores the actual response of the editors here, and posts on the Srebrenica Massacre article that there is consensus supporting his position that Geller is not notable and that her blog can never be used not even to show her own opinions. There is no consensus supporting Roscelese and yet he succeeds in claiming that all the editors here agree with his position thereby getting the administrator Ckatz to lock the article into deleting the reference to Pamela Geller. There remains the question why Roscelese would put so much effort into getting an example of opposition to the description of genocide deleted from a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. (?) Does it not make sense that wikieditors would contribute examples of opposition to the description of genocide by notable people to a section titled Opposition to the description genocide?Fairview360

No, those independent sources do not say anything about Geller's blog posts about Srebrenica. You cannot use them to synthesize a position that Geller's opinion on Srebrenica has been noticed. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, half of the examples given in the said section of the Srebrenica Massacre article would need be deleted. If understood correctly, Binksternet is affirming that a) Geller is a notable person, b) she does oppose the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, c) her opinion does provide an example of a notable person opposing the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, but it does not belong in the section. If one visits the genocide denial article, one will see multiple examples given of genocide denial by notable people. In the writing on gencodie denial in general, several opinions are offered from notable people. But there is no reliable source stating that that specific opinion is notable. How can wikieditors refer to the opinions of notable people if they can do so only when a reliable source states that that particular opinion is notable to that particular topic? If wikipedia were to hold to such a standard, the opinions of George Orwell writing about the mechanism of denial would be deleted from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial because no third party stated that Orwell's specific opinion given was notable in relation to the specific topic. Fairview360

George Orwell's viewpoint on nationalism and atrocities has been widely discussed in biographies and scholarly works. Your example falls down on that point. Geller's viewpoint has not been discussed. Sorry, but pointing to other parts of the article will not help Geller be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the New York Times also considers Pamela Geller to be notable: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Fairview360

But not on Srebrenica massacre--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What have we learned here? If the New York Times article says nothing about the article topic then it cannot be used. Stop trying to prop up a synthesis of several sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do all editors agree that a) a person's blog can be used as a reliable reference to show that person's opinion (and for that purpose only) and b) that Geller is a notable person? Then we can move onto the question of synthesis. Fairview360

Gellar meets minimum notability requirements for an article about her in the encyclopedia. That does not mean her opinion on any topic that she happens to discuss on her self published blog is notable for inclusion in that particular topic's article. Seems like a fairly open and shut case. Is there anyone here supporting Fairview's position other than Fairview? Dlv999 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article specifically refers to Geller "aligning herself with Serbian war criminals", specifically refers to her having "vigorously defended Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died while on trial at The Hague for war crimes." Those war crimes include the Srebrenica Massacre, the topic of the article in question. It is as if a reliable source says that someone's opinion on Nazi war crimes is notable but because the source does not explicitly mention Auschwitz, it can not be included in an article about Auschwitz. This kind of overly legalistic hairsplitting is a disservice to wikipedia. It benefits the reader to see the various contemporary sources of opposition to describing the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide. Reliable sources have shown that Pamela Geller is a notable person. Reliable sources have asserted that her opinions relevant to this article are notable. Her own blog leaves no doubt that what The Guardian considers notable -- her support of Serbian war criminals, her defense of Slobodan Milosevic and denial of Serbian war crimes -- includes denying the Srebrenica Massacre. In an article with 23,627 words, Pamela Geller's opinions were described for less than one half of one percent of the article and yet the stewards of wikipedia insist that the entry should be deleted, that it is not relevant, that it is not noteworthy, that it was being given undue weight. Fairview360

• Point of order It is clear that discussion is no longer related to the ORIGINAL filing, which was a request for GENERAL guidelines on using Geller material. While unusual for WP:RS noticeboard filings, it nevertheless generated good GENERAL comments.(and no, it is not necessary to inform other editors; WP:RS is to get outside opinions) SPECIFIC determination if a specific Geller column can be in a specific article should be restated, if that is what Roscelese wanted, together with diffs and narrative on the individual case. Fairview might note that WP:UNDUE concerns might not be addressed in a WP:RS discussion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairview360 agrees that the original question here was whether reliable sources were being used appropriately at the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 agrees that the only question here should be related to WP:RSN, not WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, just WP:RSN. Fairview360 agrees that the editors here should give a clear up or down indication whether reliable sources are being used appropriately and move all other commentary/discussion to the appropriate forum. Lastly, yes, the effort here is geared towards outside opinions. Meanwhile, it helps if those outside opinions can be based on relevant material which often comes from those most familiar with the content in question. Fairview360

Gatestone Institute and Taybeh

Is this piece by an unknown journalist in a think tank a reliable source for the views of Christian residents of a Palestinian town towards Muslims in neighboring villages? nableezy - 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What are the arguments of editors who believe in the credibility of an institute whose front page, as of this moment, features "The Qatari takeover of France" (not humorously, not as a reference to popularity of some cuisine, but as a serious legal proposition)? Churn and change (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source?

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile some editors are stating that the British tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. In fact the article on Jimmy Savile currently quotes the fact that The Sun was one of the very few British media organisations which made an effort to report on his questionable activities while he was alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile ""In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne." Some editors on this article which is about a very fast moving current news story feel that The Sun should not be used as a source and there have been some efforts to remove information sourced to that newspaper. I feel this should proceed on a better basis than the personal feelings of one or two active editors on that page and would like to know what the wider community thinks. Thank you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

general note it is unrealible with questionable news articles in teh past, but with any soure there is not a source that is completely unrelaible and no soruce 100% reliable each is determined on wha tthe article it is getting used on and in what context the source is getitng used forAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If that particular The Sun wrote "Today's issue is printed on the cheapest yellow newsprint available." I'd still want corroborating independent sources. Some other newspapers of fine repute are burdened in that they share a similar name, but most of these distinguish their names somehow, such as the Vancouver Sun or the Chicago Sun-Times. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source at all - that said if the info is accurate it should easily be found at other locations (may sources).Moxy (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the point really - the Sun is a downmarket tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism, and is generally considered a less-than-ideal source. But, as always, such questions can only be answered if it is made clear what the Sun is being cited for - and given the current media interest in the developing story, it would seem likely that better sources could be found for the most significant details. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to cover every last detail immediately, and anything of enduring significance that the Sun prints which other, more trustworthy, sources confirm would be better cited to the latter. That the Sun had the courage to print the story on Haut de la Garenne while other media outlets shied away is to their credit, but it doesn't materially affect their general reliability as a source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This story involves living individuals, as well as Savile himself, and we need to consider WP:BLP policy carefully in as much as such individuals are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very fast-moving story, but look at WP:RECENT. We shouldn't aim to cover every twist and turn. The notable developments will be in all the papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

for Biographical articles I cannot ever see any reason why you would want to use The Sun. Ever. There is never going to be anything in there worth reporting on that isnt better covered in some source with mountains more credibility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty sensible approach. a13ean (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; we are not into "scoops." Sun is one of those publications the BLP policy was written for. Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources"The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." As a tabloid they are sensationlists and rely heavily on rumor. I wouldn't call it RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case, though, the Sun is being cited not for rumours, but for an incident in its own history. What's more, the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item. We should at least be prepared to mention the Sun's assertion with inline attribution. It would be wrong of us to censor the Sun out of the history. Andrew Dalby 09:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's about The Sun's history shouldn't we be looking for a secondary source that isn't The Sun? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And even if "the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item." we can wait for books or other sources to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-tabloids-bbc-allegations in the Guardian. Then I think per WP:PST the Sun source can go in alongside it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good find. Notice, in support of my risky generalization just above, that this is a blog piece (but it's good for us to cite, I'm sure) -- meanwhile, in the Guardian newspaper's report of Savile's link to the Jersey scandal, the Sun is not mentioned. Andrew Dalby 15:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. If I had a choice between trusting a compulsive liar locked in a straitjacket in a padded cell scrawling his inane ramblings about how the lizard people secretly run the world through an extensive mind control programme on the wall of said cell with his own faeces and trusting what is written in The Sun, I'd flip a coin because they truly are about equivalent in reliability. It's about as far away from a reliable source as you can possibly get. It's a tabloid rag filled with sensationalistic bullshit and made-up nonsense. It has about as justifiable role in an encyclopedia as Jimmy Savile does in the dormitory of a girl's boarding school. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll put you down for a "maybe." Zad68 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with Tom's point here - in general the Redtop tabloids are chasing readers rather than 'the truth' as their general principle. I strongly dislike the way everyone (inc. Tom) appears to be taking JS's guilt as fact, but I'm also a believer in 'innocent until proven guilty'. --AlisonW (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Auction/Classified sites as sources - legit or no?

I deleted a number of citations for the Wheeler Dealers article citing the WP:Advert rules since the sites were of auction sites and classified ads. An anonymous editor insists they are valid and has put them back in twice from the links provided. I've looked over the pages for citations and I find no justification for the valid usage of these links in any article. So I have to ask if my reasoning is right or did I miss something that says such links are valid?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, anon's logic seems to be badly cited material (sourced to a primary source) is better than totally uncited material. Do you have better citations? If not, one option is to remove the material. Practically, for start-class articles, unless there are BLP or COPYVIO issues, it is better to leave lower-quality and primary-source citations in, helping future editors research the issue. Churn and change (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue I see other than the advert violation is that much of the source for the text will be the actual episodes themselves, which in a sense,so I don't see the use of keeping in this material that is ambiguous at best (note many of the links don't cite Wheeler Dealers specifically and could be a blatant Wikipedia:OR issue as well).--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed to confirm that the documentary film 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' by Peter Joseph helped inspire the 'Zeitgeist Movement' founded by Peter Joseph

I have been asked to provide sources to confirm that the documentary film Zeitgeist: The Movie by Peter Joseph helped inspire The Zeitgeist Movement founded by him. I have provided the two sources. Firstly I cited a Huffington Post blog (already treated as WP:RS for much else in the article) which states that "The movement's founder, Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film sensation, Zeitgeist, and it's 2008 successor, Zeitgeist: Addendum. While many people may find it hard to digest the idea of a world without currency, Joseph's argument that our economic system is the source of our greatest social problems was supported with valuable evidence", and goes on to explain in depth how Joseph's ideas have been developed by the movement. This citation was objected to on rather vague grounds [4]. I have subsequently cited a second source - TZM's own FAQ, which states: [5]

"While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

While it is clear that we shouldn't use TZM material for claims about third parties, or for other controversial material, it seems perfectly reasonable to cite them for something that should be blindingly-obvious anyway - that Joseph's films have helped inspire the movement. Can I ask for confirmation here that either or both sources can be cited for the connection between the two? And If it is agred that TZM cannot be cited for this, can I ask whether it will be appropriate (as I assume it would be) to remove other material from the article which is cited to their own websites etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post blogs are not RS and cannot be used to reference facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that edit summary was vague seems to be innacurate: "source was checked, and did not contain the cited material. the only reference to the movie was "Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film". A different source is requested for this false claim.)"--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The official webpage can be used to makes claims about the subject as long as the are directly supportive of the material.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Huffington Post isn't RS, the article is going to need substantial trimming - it is cited multiple times, and is arguably the best source we have in terms of a broad outlook on TZM... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably is, but what is needed is to check the author and make sure the blog posts are being made by a reputable journalist and that the reference is attributed to both the author (if credentialed) and the publication, such as - "According to Huffington Post journalist "X"....."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for this discussion to better improve wikipedia, Amadscientist. May I point out that if AndyTheGrump had control over the article in question this is what he would change it to: [6] AndyTheGrump provided the following edit description: "Since nobody else gives a fuck about sourcing for this article..." Is there a way to block vandals from further disruptions? Is there a policy that prohibits moderators from vandalizing? Thank you once again for your input regarding this article. Zgoutreach (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the blog on Huffington Post. I see no evidence of expertise on the part of Travis Donovan to justify weighting their opinion in the slightest. I see no reason to believe that an op-ed blog by a non-expert was subject to editorial conditions that make is useable for political fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive editor at HP. Exactly what field would he be required to hold for use here? This is less about politics and more about a social movement based on a film in my opinion, but I would like to hear more from Fifelfoo as he may have a better point to make. The author isn't making any contentious claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is a Blog post (an op-ed) I'd expect him to hold a suitable position to comment on social movements: past social movement expert activist, social movement think tanker, sociologist, anthropologist, historian of relevant field, established social critique in news magazines. His editorial position (a journalistic skill) relates to products, not to social movements. If this were a news item my opinion would be different, it would be a journalist noting news in an apparently edited forum, but it is a blog post and an op-ed. Why should we care (WEIGHT) what a product editor thinks? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is heavily-reliant on two Hebrew-language sources, for which no translations are given for the relevant sections, as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources would seem to suggest (or require for direct quotations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Non English sources are not a violation of RS unless there are other sources in English of the same quality. I do not believe Wikipedia requires a translation persay, although it is recommended.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That is true per the letter of the policy. But don't you wonder why Hebrew (and Russian) sources are required for an English film made and released in America by an American director? That applies to the Huffington Post too; why is it that more established newspapers and magazines haven't covered it (after all, one Pulitzer doesn't a paper make)? Why is it that we need an article this long if higher-quality sources are just ignoring it? Churn and change (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly....I am not that interested to wonder, but perhaps it is because of an international angle. Isn't the movement widespread? I often wonder why HP is used so extensively, but as long as it has the required criteria, why not. I wouldsay a lot of these publications like HP are rather partisan and that always gives me pause.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence, and is the crux of my issue with HP. Churn and change (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't the movement widespread?" If you believe TZM, yes. Objectively, what little evidence there is suggests that if it is spread wide, it is also spread very thinly - hence the almost complete lack of coverage in mainstream sources, and the reliance of the article on blogs and non-English sources for material giving any in-depth coverage. With regard to the Hebrew-language sources, I suspect that it was early accusations of antisemitism (unfounded, as far as I am aware) that initially led to interest in the movement from at least one of these sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Other Reliable Sources questions for this page

(note that this subheading was added after much of the material below was posted - hence the confusion over exactly what it was that was being discussed) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for wikipedia: HollywoodToday.net covers the Zeitgeist Movement Festival with articles here, here, and here. These sources were removed by "AndyTheGrump" with the edit summary: "revert unencyclopeadic puffery sourced to TZM" as seen on the page comparison here. Thank you for any input, since i'm not sure if HollywoodToday.net is reliable or not. Keep up the great work. Zgoutreach (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, and for information about HollywoodToday.net it can be found here About Us. That page includes the full list of dozens of editors, demographics and achievements "...Hollywood Today stories make the front page of Google News and often rank #1 in the entertainment section there, above stories from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Today headlines are read by more than 58 million readers through Google News...") Zgoutreach (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well...yes and no. The site appears to be a notable news source for Hollywood news [7] with what appears to be an appropriate level of editorial oversite....but as for the author of the HT Zeitgeist article itself, Bruce Lyons, I have my doubts to their being a journalist and this may actually be a film review. Harder to define in that context.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the material for the section 'Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival' added by Zgoutreach and deleted by me was sourced to HollywoodToday.net is simply false, regardless of the validity of that particular source - it was almost entirely sourced to TZMs own websites, as is self-evident from the diff: [8]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue for me is the authorship as Mr. Lyons is a screenwriter and not a journalist from what I am finding. This may weaken the source quite a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the much appreciated feedback, the first article is indeed by Bruce Lyons, the other articles are by Casey Kehoe, & Geoffrey Maingart respectively. The articles cover the August 5th, 2012 Media Festival, however and do not review a film. Is there a way to find out if these articles can be referenced, in order to state that a Medial Festival has taken place? (since all edits to state there was a media festival have been immediately reverted due to improper sourcing). Furthermore an Oct. 9th, 2012 article has been written here could this also be sourced if relevant to the wikipedia article? Thank you. Zgoutreach (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would handle Lyons as a review and attribute his claims to both him and the publication. It could be argued he has expertise in the subject. I have not looked at the other articles but check the authorship as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say no on Casey Kehoe as being non notable as an author. Kehoe is a cameraman.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What is Bruce Lyons supposed to have 'expertise' on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Film production would be a reasonable expertise.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And what has 'expertise in film production' got to do with our article on The Zeitgeist Movement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement holds annual film and media productions/festivals. (and as you stated, the movement is also inspired by films) Zgoutreach (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was asking Amadscientist the question. Our article is about a controversial political movement. It isn't about film festivals, and it certainly isn't about 'film production'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Expertise in producing a film does not translate into expertise on the subject of the film. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said it is a weak source, but it also has an author with some expertise on film prduction in a number of fields. Indeed, as Zgoutreach points out we are speaking specifically about a movement as inspired by the film. This could be used with consensus as attributed to the author and publication. (sorry so late on this. Went out to dinner) This is very much like OWS and we do not require OWS experts to reference, nor do we require Zeitgeist Movement "experts". There are a number of different subjects mixed here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "The movement was originally inspired by Peter Joseph's films Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008)." This is not a spontaneous movement. It has it's origins in a film production.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about films, it is about a political movement. How hard is that to understand? Bruce Lyons has no apparent expertise in political movements. Neither is he writing for a publication which has any regular coverage of political movements. It is ridiculous to suggest that he can have any sort of 'expertise' on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage Grump. As I said, the claim it is being used to support does not require experts on the movement. A film expert can make this claim and it is reasonable to use. Whether it can be used in the article is a matter of local consensus. The political movement is pretty well known as having been inspired by the film.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which claim is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The one the thread is about. It is repeated 4 posts up.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see - you have obviously not noticed that Zgoutreach changed the subject entirely - he asked whether hollywoodtoday.net was RS for a section he had introduced into the article on the 'Zeitgeist Movement Festival' - which, as I have already pointed out, is in fact mostly sourced to TZM themselves. And then he asked whether another article by Bruce Lyons could be used to source who-know-what - at which point you seemed to be indicating that because he was a film producer, he was some sort of expert. Extremely confusing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "it could be argued", and it can. Also you have called this a "political movement". Where is the source for this claim? I did a quick search and I don't think this can be called a political movement. [9] They do not refer to themselves in this manner. It may, in fact be OR to call them such. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sky is blue. TZM's objective is to fundamentally change the global political and economic system. TZM is a political Movement.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll trust that you know more about the movement than I do.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is clear that there was a mutual misunderstanding here, caused initially by Zgoutreach's introduction of another sourcing question entirely, that renders this section of the discussion useless for determining the validity of HollywoodToday.net and of other material by Bruce Lyons to the article. If this is to be determined here, it will need a new thread, with a clear indication of what is being cited for what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As for what is being cited for what: I request the article to simple state that an annual Zeitgeist Medial Festival has taken place, and state the date, and location(s). All past attempts to include this have been deleted due to a claim of improper sourcing. If the hollywoodtoday.net article by Lyons in question is acceptable to state the date and location of the festival then I'll include it, if not, I will not include it. Thank you once again for your help in this matter. And sorry if this has distracted from answers to your original question, Andy Zgoutreach (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given your earlier false claim that the section you added was sourced only to hollywoodtoday.net article (which it self-evidently wasn't, as the diff shows [10]), can you make clear what exactly it is you wish to cite hollywoodtoday.net for - please provide the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I never claimed HollywoodToday.net was the only source delted from the article, agreed I also used additional sourcing which was likewise removed by you. Where did I make a false claim or state it was the ONLY source deleted?

As for the proposed text: "The 2nd Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival was held during the weekend of August 5th 2012 with the main event being held in Los Angeles, CA." I'm also up for other ways of wording it, if you like it worded differently I'm sure yours would be fine too. Thank you very much all, for all your consideration. Zgoutreach (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify which HollywoodToday.net article you are citing this to? You seem to have linked to three different articles above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The information would be referenced to the following HollywoodToday.net aricle by Bruce Lyons. The information can also be found on other HollywoodToday.net articles here, and here. In addition, the official website of the Zeitgeist Media Festival contains the information here. I have not searched for other sources yet, as I trust one of these may do. Thank you very much for any outside input.Zgoutreach (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you start searching for sources - the article you link is a long fawning (two part) interview with Peter Joseph, rather than any sort of objective journalism (see the long list of TZM links at the end of this HollywoodToday.net article [11] for evidence of their lack of journalistic standards). It looks to be little more than a blog anyway. And why do you think we would consider using TZM as a source on their own Festival? Nobody has given the slightest indication that this would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Andy, we already know you disapprove of these sources, that is why we are here in the first place to get another opinion. Please allow other input. Thank you Zgoutreach (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Andy, your clear vandalism to this article here, and again here, (where you deleted the entirety of the article, and replaced it with a vulgar rant), makes your non-NPOV towards this wikipedia article clear. Your continued reverting of changes has brought us here to look to outside opinion. I'm not convinced you should be allowed to further disrupt the editing of this article due to your history of vandalism on this page. AndyTheGrump, I ask that you please allow outside input at least to your citation concerns. Thank you kindly for your co-operation, Zgoutreach (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concerns over my behaviour, raise them elsewhere (though you will discover that the issue of that edit has already been raised, and dealt with - notably by topic-banning the individual most responsible for escalating the problem in the first place). And as for NPOV, I'm not the one trying to fill the article with poorly-sourced hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefuly others can help decide if it is "poorly-sourced" or not. Perhaps Amadscientist, or another respectable user would be so kind! :) (I've made the proposed text and references in bold above.) Thanks, Zgoutreach (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This one mention is not enough to establish notability for this festival. Amazing to see how little coverage it got in mainstream news sources. Compare with any ordinary minor local arts festival anywhere. Honestly. Choose a small town in any English speaking country. Google the town's name with "festival". See how the local press proudly covers the event(s). See how that's missing in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

From browsing the zeitgeist article: the Z media festival is also mentioned a couple of times in the RT television interview, [12], which is a reliable source. Furthermore, towards the end of the interview, the TV screen is full of screen shots from the website of the Z media festival. best wishes, WinterWithFools (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of screenshots. Are you suggesting that a screenshot on a valid reliable source itself becomes valid in some way? That is an odd proposition to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the RT TV piece, it dates from September 2011. It cannot be a RS for the 2012 festival. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

iSahitya as a RS?

I'm writing because I want to get another opinion on this source: [13] The article appears to be well-written, but I'm not sure that it's usable as a reliable source. It's written by an admin, but if the site itself isn't a RS then I know that it won't be reliable regardless of who writes it. It would really go a long way towards helping out with an AfD for author Rashmi Singh, so I wanted to get a second opinion on it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The author/interviewer is a senior mechanical-engineering undergrad. The piece starts with sentences like "The Fallen Love, another fiction work released in March 2012." Yes, that is a full sentence in the original. The main site is shot with errors in article usage, parallel construction and the like ("we are growing company . . "). This is no RS for an article on an English-language novelist. Churn and change (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Carpet News TV and The Showbiz 411

I was considering using video interviews conducted by Red Carpet News TV (http://www.redcarpetnewstv.com/) and its corresponding Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/RedCarpetNewsTV) and The Showbiz 411 youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/itn) on the Downton Abbey topic. I don't have any particular statements in mind -- I haven't even listened to these interviews yet and don't even know if there's anything useful -- but I'd like to know if they're RS beforehand.

The interviews by Red Carpet News TV are done by the site's staff members. Credentials at the site's about page say that founder Russell Nelson "is the UK correspondent for international film publication KinoPark magazine." I can't turn anything up on that, but as far as I can tell, it's Russian. I have no idea if [www.kinopark.kz/ KinoPark Multiplex Cinemas] is related as I cannot read Russian. I really didn't get anywhere on that. It appears he did work for Leicester Square TV (as claimed). He did camera work for Black Swan Press Conference, interviewed Ewen Bremner at the Perfect Sense premiere, a search turns up potentially more. Leicester Square TV, according to their very brief about us, is a part of PrimeTime International Ltd. The connection is also suggested by the PrimeTime logo linking to http://www.primetimeinternational.co.uk/ in the upper right of the site. I'm not entirely sure if this helps establish anything for the site, but there's something to consider.

The Showbiz 411 channel links to the Entertainment portion of ITN. That section in turn links to the ShowBiz 411 twitter feed, which links to the Youtube channel. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should waste your time. These sites are unlikely to reveal anything useful. However, if you do find something on them you think is essential for our article, then come back here with a more specific query. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Kalmyk & Yakut

I have questions about two seprate sources, and whether they fall under reliable sources. The first is the lone reference given for the article Yakut American.

• ЯКУТЫ РУССКОЙ АМЕРИКИ

The linked content appears to speak about the history of Russians in North America, but only mentions the word "Sakha" once. Is this a reliable source?

The second is one of two references in the article Kalmyk American.

• Kalmyk American Society

The linked content appears to be an organization that may are may not be notable in its own right, and used to verify that the subject exists. Is it a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliablity of any source is dependent on the text it is being used to support. Can you include the text. [14] wouldn't count for notability as it's a WP:SPS, but that's a different question. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Yakut American article, the text being "verified" is:

Yakut first appeared in North America in the 19 century. They were mostly fishermen, hunters, carpenters. They now live mostly in Alaska, Oregon, and California. There are also some Yakut Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta as well as the Yukon territory

Not knowing how to read Russian, I am not sure if it is a reliable source. The text appears to only cover the ethnicities history in the Americas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer your question but there is some useful information on Kalmyks here. That book is from Rutgers University Press and is effectively a New Jersey State Government publication. You will find facts there. However, for things like controversies about the group, you will have to look elsewhere. This link also is an RS: an article from a member of the Mongolia Academy of Sciences. It is hosted at Indiana University. Churn and change (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner

I am hoping, and yes, IF, only if it happens, may I please use this source as a record for the article 2012, about this Felix Baumgartner diving into the earth with his own suit to break the sound barrier, an example source here from the Huffington Post, and here if possible whenever he does the performance, I hope to report this stunt for the record hopefully notably if requested.--GoShow (............................) 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it goes ahead it will be notable enough to include. It will be reported in all the major news media. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now this is just sensationalist reporting, and should not be included, unless there are established newspapers reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been reported everywhere, as a possible event. And not in always in a sensationalist way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. If there are established newspapers reporting it, we should cite those sources. On WP we should use the best-quality sources available, and, in this case, I see the New York Times reporting it. The example source, Huffington Post, should not be used. Churn and change (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant other sources Drmies such as a Daily Newspaper or a book of records though, administrator.--GoShow (............................) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RS for Filler (animal food)

1. I came directly here without first posting on the Filler (animal food) talk page, because that page seems inactive. Is 1800Petmeds an RS for the article? Specifically, the following paragraph from this website: "Various ingredients that provide little to no nutritional value, but are added in for dietary fiber. Common fillers found in pet food include corn bran, rice bran, oat hulls, cereal by-products, feathers, soybean hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, rice hulls, wheat mill run, citrus pulp, modified corn starch, weeds, and straw. Many foods also have corn, corn gluten, brewers rice, wheat gluten, soybean meal and rice protein. These ingredients are often used as plant-based sources of protein–cheaper sources of protein when compared to meat or fish. They are often given the name "filler" because they are used by pet food companies (instead of meat or fish) to "fill" up the bag of food with cheaper protein. The term filler is a misnomer, however, if filler is defined as a non-nutritive fiber source, because some of them do provide value. It is usually best to look for a pet food that is free of any fillers or cheaper sources of protein."

2. More generally, I'm having a hard time finding RS for the article. I tried (a) the website of the American Veterinary Association, (b) a general Google search, and (c) a search on Google Scholar, all without success. Admittedly I spent only about one hour in total on this and I may have found reliable sources if I would have spent more time, but I was hoping somebody here (a Veterinarian perhaps?) might have suggestions that may save me time. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And there may not actually be good sources for this content, so merger or deletion would be the only option. Articles on pet food should cover the contents of pet food. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Their website says: "Expert Ratings are created by a panel of experienced veterinarians, including renowned, board-certified Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialists." The one bio on their site is credible. The company is legit, though may not meet NPOV per what I see on the site. If you had invested in them in early 2000, your money would have gone up ten-fold by now. So, despite that large "Controversies" section in the Wikipedia article, they do have credibility; stock investors bolt at even a whiff of quackery. I realize Wikipedia guidelines say nothing of checking the stock market to vet a company but it nonetheless works well. As to the quoted material, seems straightforward and noncontroversial; is there a concrete objection to its accuracy? Again, no such objection is needed to object to the RS status itself, but still asking . . . Churn and change (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Judith, it seems merger and deletion were discussed on the article talk page and apparently the decision was to keep, among other reasons because this is an article on all animals and not only pets. (However, that discussion is more than 5 years old.) And thank you Churn for the feedback. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion went stale a long time ago, and the article's problems haven't been solved since then. My concern with this source is that a manufacturer has a vested interest in presenting a particular view of what to put in pet food. And the result is a mess. The reader has no way of deciding whether vegetable elements in pet food are useless and cynically added bulk, or necessary fibre. It must surely be very different for cat food and dog food, yet the article does not even go into that. Why do we think that this is a notable topic in its own right, separate from the content of pet food in general? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking the same question. It's a bit like having an article on Inert ingredients. You'll find lots of mentions, but very few sources treating the subject comprehensively. Furthermore, the line between "supplements" and "fillers" is very murky. Plus I agree that the source is not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to visit my local public library sometime next week in an attempt to find further information in books on Veterinary Medicine. Judging by the comments here, it seems this may be an even more complex issue than I originally anticipated. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

trowelandsword.org.au

Is this source [15] reliable for this contested statement "The ACL states it has three main functions: Supporting politicians who uphold Christian values, lobbying and thirdly informing, educating and activating Christians." on the article, Australian Christian Lobby. The source has been contested several times by a user, recently on the grounds that the source is biased and too promotional (as you can see, at the bottom of the article is says **For more information on the Australian Christian Lobby, or to become a supporter, head to ..." Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S appears to be much more of a "newsletter of puff piece opinions and promotions " without any fact checking and not "journalism" or peer review of any kind. But is there any reason to doubt that the T&S is misquoting the ACL's purposes? Why wouldnt you use the ACL's own website as a source for their functions? Are there other sources that describe the functions of the ACL differently? If so the article should present them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S certainly wouldn't be my first choice of reference for anything, but I have no reason to believe they are misquoting the ACL, so I was just going to let it slide. A third editor is the only one that has a problem with it. They have now removed it at least four times, firstly giving no reason at all, then citing NPOV (without being any more specific than that), and now by saying the reference shouldn't be used because the source is biased and promotional. It's getting a bit frustrating, hence getting another opinion here. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson at John Harvard statue

I created the page John Harvard statue yesterday and over night another editor deleted over a third of the article including sources because they do not believe the sources are fully fact checking the material. This mostly revolves around The Harvard Crimson articles stating that traditions associated with the statue (the entire section was removed). Is the Harvard Crimson a reliable source in this instance? I have included the now deleted section below that is a large part of the material that the other editor feels is not cited well enough below:

"The John Harvard Statue has two main traditions, one for tourists and one for students. Tourists, when touring the university and taking pictures with the statue, touch John Harvard's left foot for good luck. Students, on the other hand, have developed a tradition of urinating on the statue late at night. When asked about this tradition by The Harvard Crimson, a senior who lived in the Quincy House dormitory confessed, "Well, I peed on him last weekend." In 2002, Harvard chemistry tutor Stephen J. Haggarty, FM, took swabs of the statue and incubated them. He found that despite the statue's use as a pissoir, the bacteria living on it are benign and "are the kinds of species you might find on the metal railings outside University Hall".

The John Harvard statue is also a magnet for vandalism. According to Harvard's Manager of Administrative Operations the statue is vandalized roughly once a week, even more during football season." --Found5dollar (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Woops! the refs did not show up here. here is a dif of the deleted section. [16] --Found5dollar (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, is reliable, but what they report isn't necessarily encyclopedic. This seems a classic case of what not to include from a student-run newspaper of a major university. That last sentence should probably be it. I notice the objections on the talk page to the edits aren't to the source but to their being campus legends; I would also add notability to the list. Also, the official newspaper of the University is the Harvard Gazette. Churn and change (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the Gazette and the Crimson can be regarded as WP:RS on events at Harvard, though care must be exercised due to the sometimes spotty editorial supervision to be expected at any student newspaper. Would not necessarily agree that spore testing of the statue is WP:NOTABLE or WP:UNDUE, though student traditions reported in the Crimson could be included. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich

Can someone with JSTOR (or other) access to Slavic Review, check what should be the main source of that article, specifically JSTOR 2501227? The wiki article is very short, but my impression is that a lot of misrepresentation went in. Some of the weird stuff was removed already, but some vague and misleading statements persist. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Link sent. Next time, ask at WP:RX. Churn and change (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh article

Source - http://www.desiblitz.com/content/special-tribute-to-jagjit-singh

Article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagjit_Singh

Content -

Jagjit Singh an eminent Indian Ghazal Singer, lyricist and musician sadly passed away on 10th October 2011, aged 70.

.

I would like to use this link within the wiki for Jagjit Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Rama (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)

See also User talk:Jeff G.#Jagjit_Singh.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"ATV China's mystery files" and other sources at Hidden character stone

I've already removed text sourced to two travel guides. Quite a bit of this is sourced to a tv series called ATV China's mystery files but I can't find much about it. There is also a fringe web site [17] which is used quite a bit. This[]http://www.dongtaiwang.com/dm/UGgC/o5.FRPeRgPuVaN.pBz/arjf/11/05/03/402546.html[ seems to be a news aggregator and I'm pretty sure is copyvio. I can't find out who the author "Kim Zhishen" is or what the original source (the "New Aspect Times") is. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are loads of Chinese-language reports about this—way more than what you raised above—but none of the sources are sound enough to establish a credible archeological explanation for this phenomenon. Lots of Chinese government sites claim that a bunch of nationally recognized archeologists and geologists have investigated and found no evidence of human involvement[18]. I can't find information on any independent investigations (that is, from parties with no possible political or commercial motivation).

The real story here is not that these are these anomalous writings. It's the fight over their meaning. Whatever their origin, these characters do exist in a park in Guizhou, and there is a heavily politicized battle around them. The officially sanctioned story is that the stone has five characters endorsing the Communist Party, and the dissident version is that it's six characters foretelling the party's demise (pretty clear from all the video footage and images—even the ones on government sites—that the dissidents have it right). This is becoming a holy site for Communist Party members to make pilgrimages and restore their oaths[19]. For dissidents, it's proof that the party lacks the mandate of heaven (or something). That's what the article should focus on. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, but I think it needs someone who can read the Chinese sources to do it. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources (aside from citation 11) are either dissident political pundits or government controlled news websites, yet the article topic is about a supposed natural/archaeological formation. IMO you can't really find more unreliable sources than that. Citation 11 contains no information about the hidden stone, yet it is invoked as WP:SYN to make one side's POV stronger. My suggestion is just erase the entire article into a stub about a popular Communist shrine and hope somebody can find an actual archaeological/geological research source that can prove that this is a real natural/archaeological site in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

House of Commons formal/long-form title

This edit cites a blogpost that mentions a long-form name for the House of Lords and this broken link as evidence for the inclusion of the long-form name "The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled" as the heading for the infobox for the UK House of Commons. Are either reliable sources for the claim that this is an implicitly official long-form name that we should include in this way? N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The blog posting is not a reliable source for the issue... the blogger does appear to be a professional historian (I think it is this David Silbey, but I don't think his specialty is the British Parliament. Does the broken link refer to (this page? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pathologist's reports

Would it be possible to clarify the status of pathologist's reports, as per the recent discussion here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "status" of primary sources (such as a pathologist's report) depends on the context in which you are using them. Could you give us more details... what article? What section? What sentence? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked the discussion? The point at contention seems to be whether the second shot was to the back of Codling's head or was (as the police report currently suggests) to his face. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a NPOV dispute than a reliability dispute... a typical case of two sources saying different things... We usually resolve such disputes by the disagreement (without saying which is "correct"). Something like: "According to the pathologists report the second shot was to the back of Codling's head, while according to the police report the shot was to his face." Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a big problem. But the pathologist's report is not in the public domain and so cannot be supported with a ref. That's why I came here to ask. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If the pathologist's report hasn't been published, it cannot be used as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Some participants in the discussion seem to be confusing "public domain" - which is a copyright status, and "published" - reproduced in some or other form and made available to the public. Roger (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of those participants is me. The informant, who says she is a family member, has access to the report, but says that it has not been published. I was hoping to ascertian whether such reports were ever published. Perhaps we could then move on to the question of copyright status. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, it can't be cited as a source (as for whether pathologist's reports are ever published, I don't know).. Copyright status is irrelevant - we'd be citing it, not reproducing it. 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the basis for our conclusion, that a pathologist's reports are not published, or at least that this one has not been, is the Talk Page contribution of the anon ip who claims to be related to the victim. Again, this is why I raised the question here. I had a suspicion that someone else might have already faced this question with another article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We have dealt with similar questions before... Sounds like someone needs to do some research, and find out whether the report has been published, or not. (Published in this case means: "made available to the public". If it is on file somewhere, and a member of the public can either view the original or obtain a copy - regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape it takes to view or obtain it - then it qualifies as being "published". If it is in a sealed file, and members of the public can not access it, then it has not been "published"). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be no other way. Good luck to any editor who volunteers to research this matter "regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape" is involved... although a quick email to the office of the local (or perhaps this particular) pathologist might save some effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a primary source?

I requested a paper at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#JSTOR paper, namely JSTOR 3614249. I used it as a source for the statement regarding the prime 3511 that "another proof of it being a Wieferich prime was published in 1965 by Guy" (see Wieferich prime#History and search status). Another user at Resource Exchange said the paper were a primary source. I am a bit confused. I guess the paper received a peer-review and I thought this would make it a non-primary source. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people have the mistaken idea that we are not allowed to use primary sources. This is not true. We can use them... we just have to use them appropriately.

I don't think it matters whether it is primary or not... Because even if it is primary, you are using it appropriately. You are making a descriptive statement about the source (that it contains a proof). In that exact context, not only is the source reliable, it is the most reliable source possible (for a statement about what is said in a document, you can not get more reliable than the document itself). Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I often formulate statements that way because that makes clear that I took a statement from a source and the article simply repeats what the source states, without claiming that the statement is correct or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am being consistent with Blueboar, but adding to it, by saying that whether academic peer reviewed articles are primary is not always clear in each case. In many cases they are a bit primary and a bit secondary. Unfortunately the world of publications does not always sit in nice categories for us on this point. In 99% of cases I think it is easier to discuss articles in terms of other reliability factors than primary/secondary/tertiary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't good for the encyclopaedia. Of what encyclopaedic value is, "Robert Conquest says the NKVD organised a special network in the population (Great Purge, Pelican rev ed 1971, 381) or "Janos Kendai says a plumbers little sister could be admitted to a better school (Do it yourself, 1981)"? The value to secondary sources is that they make reliable contextualised analytical, evaluative and normative claims about encyclopaedic objects. Conquest doesn't just tell us what the NKVD did, he tells us why it was important and what that meant. Kendai doesn't just tell us about plumber's sisters, but about a network of social corruption in late socialist Hungary replacing the formal market of labour and goods. Please do read more secondary sources, it'll make you encyclopaedic work of a greater value—you'll be able to make encyclopaedic claims that things are correct or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there becomes a concern that by stringing primary sources together in particular ways, or placing them in particular contexts, editors are creating WP:SYN problems by implying connections, conclusions etc that have not specifically been been made by reliable sources. Yes that primary source establishes "published in 1965 by Guy" - but how and why Guy's 65 publication is important (or not) would need be made through and because some other source had talked about Guy's proof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go against the grain and say that this source could be absolutely fine if the statement is non-controversial. However, per Fifelfoo and others, it tells you that a proof was produced; it gives you no indication about what significance finding the proof had. Make sure that what you write is consistent with what historians of mathematics are saying, and then you can use the primary sources to supplement the secondary ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive

I am ready to use the primary and secondary sources as it is shown on current events of Wikipedia, as well, on my sandbox edits, to use on the 2012 article archives as it is shown WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources. The new source.

• Felix Baumgartner breaks the world human ascent by balloon record before space diving out of the Red Bull Stratos helium-filled balloon over Roswell, New Mexico. (CNN)
• NYDaily News:Red Bull Stratos
• "Felix Baumgartner's jump from space's edge watched by millions". The Associated Press. 15 October 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2012.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Please sign your posts. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is an introduction to the Black Book of Communism a reliable source for the estimates of Communist mass killings?

In his introduction to the Black Book of Communism, Courtous presents the following "rough approximation" of the toll of Communism:

U. S. S. R.: 20 million deaths

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power:

about 10,000 deaths.

Ronald Aronson it his article "Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus" (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245.) expresses the following opinion on that:

"But most of these problems (problems with the BB proper -PS) pale in significance compared with the book's opening and closing chapters, which caused enormous controversy and even occasioned a break among The Black Book's authors.

Commenting on the above figures, Aronson continues:

Courtois's figures for the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Latin America go far beyond the estimates of the authors themselves, as does Courtois's final body count."

In connection to that, my question is:

Can the introduction to the Black Book be used as the source for facts about the death toll of Communism?

Concretely, is the introduction to the BB a reliable source for this general claim:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by the users who have been previously involved in this dispute on the article's talk page

• No, Courtois' introduction is not reliable since the authors of the book condemned him for misrepresenting the numbers in the book. This is succinctly summarized in Jon Wiener's How We Forgot the Cold War, published this month:

  Of course the book received both praise and criticism. Notable among the critics were two important contributors to the volume who publicly rejected its thesis: Nicolas Werth, who wrote the key chapter on the Soviet Union, and Jean-Louis Margolin, who wrote the other key chapter, on China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. After seeing the introduction, the two "consulted a lawyer to see if they could withdraw their respective contributions from the book. They were advised they could not."

  So Werth and Margolin took their criticism to Le Monde, writing that Courtois was obsessed with reaching a total of one hundred million victims despite the best evidence showing a lower total. Werth also insisted Nazism and communism were qualitatively different. . . . The book was especially controversial in France because it was published during the 1997 trial of Nazi collaborator Maurice Papon for crimes against humanity for his role in the deportation of Jews from Bourdeaux to Hitler's death camps. Papon's lawyers introduced the book as evidence for the defense. (Wiener, Jon. How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America. University of California Press. pp. 37-38)

  Wiener also notes that J. Arch Getty rejected the attribution of famine deaths to mass killing, and still other reviewers "objected to the way The Black Book lumped together vastly different societies on the grounds that their leaders claimed to be Marxists-Leninists" (p. 38). On p. 39, Wiener says that "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted (p. 39; see also p. 37). Wiener's next paragraph mentions that the book "nonetheless received an enthusiastic reception in the United States," but the fact that at least two of the co-authors publicly denounced Courtois and his introduction, and sought to legally distance themselves from the book is most salient feature of the uproar. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBoC has been discussed here before - it is published by a major university press, and has been used in many other references as a source itself. The query really at hand is whether the estimates given as a range, and which are curently inthe body of an article appropriately referenced, should be presented as estimates in the lede of the article, or whether the estimate should be described as "tens of millions" or just as "millions" per some editors prior edits. A fair reading of multiple sources indicates that the numbers do, indeed, range as estimates from a low of about 60 million to a high of well over 100 million. Consensus in the past reached the "65 to 100 million" as a valid compromise, and the validity of the BBoC was not the issue, just the validity of individual numbers. Aronson's book review, is, moreover a book review. Not an article on death tolls. The "Holocaust denial" subtext injected above is not valid in discussions on this noticeboard IMO, and at best muddies the waters utterly. See reviews from Canadian Journal of History [20], other reviews at [21], [22], [23]. All strikingly positive in their reviews. The BBoC was written by former Communists and left-wing intellectuals, who would not be expected to over criticise the communist regimes mentioned, but who still came up with large numbers of deaths. Try on the order of a hundred positive references per Highbeam. Of course we could use The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective By: Robert Gellately; Ben Kieman; Cambridge University Press 2003. The Soviet persecutionof kulaks inthe 1930s took millions of lives etc. the exceptional and paroxysmal nature of Ezhovshina: executed during these two years (1937–38) were more than 85 percent of all people sentenced to the “supreme measure of punishment” by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000. which is just a small fraction of the deaths noted in the 2003 book. China Under Communism by Alan Lawrance, Routledge, 1998: Less publicized at the time was the fact that in certain regions there was famine, now reckoned to have accounted for 20 million deaths, leading to sporadic outbursts of cannibalism during a single 3 year period (the "Great Leap Forward" etc. Others, for example Jacques Guillermaz, diplomat and historian, suggest five million in 1949 a single year. The Lesser Evil: Moral Approaches to Genocide Practices By: Helmut Dubiel; Gabriel Motzkin, publisher Frank Cass, 2003, has The phenomenon is partly connected to China's huge population (around 700 million at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1966). Taking 58 million unnatural deaths as an average estimate would put the death toll over three decades, from 1946 to 1978, at 8 per cent of the total Chinese population. This figure is not much different from the one recently established for the three decades of the Lenin-Stalin period. (Margolin). So the real issue is not the BBoC as a reliable source - it is. It is whether we ought to minimize estimates below the lowest reliably sourced estimates of deaths. I fear that is not the topic for this noticeboard, however. Collect (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you provide sources for things like "supreme measure of punishment" by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000" – we're dealing with the question of whether the introduction by Courtois is a reliable source for 100 million victims. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The number isn't used as a fact but as an upper estimate. While Courtois may have his critics, he is not alone. Benjamin Valentino cites other authors like Matthew White estimating 81 million and Todd Culberston estimating 100 million. Valentino concludes that these estimates be considered at the high end of the plausible range of deaths attributable to communist regimes[24], and that is the way it is used in the article. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• We should not use the estimate of one author and claim that that is the generally accepted range. We need a secondary source that explains the ranges used by various authors and how widely accepted the various ranges are. Adding up Courtois' numbers btw I get 95,360,000, not 100 million (20+65+1+2+2+1+0.15+1.7+1.5+0.01=95.36). TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A reason to say "65 to 95 million" then. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this book certainly qualify as RS. According to WP:RS, there are three components to consider: (a) the creator of the work, (b) the publisher, and (c) the piece of work itself. Speaking about (a), this is written by mainstream researchers. For example, Stéphane Courtois, who contributed a couple of chapters of the book and introduction, is a French historian, expert in communism history and research director at French National Centre for Scientific Research, (according to page about him), not a fringe writer. Speaking about (b), it was published by Harvard University Press. Speaking about (c), I suggest to actually read the book, and not only the introduction, but at least some chapters from the book. After reading the book and being familiar with the subject, I think this is actually the best secondary source on the general subject of communist repression. There are better sources on specific countries like Russia, but not on the communist repression in general. If there are better books on this general subject, please tell what they are, and I would like to look at them. Every notable book on political subjects has a lot of critics and supporters, but this does not invalidate the source.

As about the numbers of victims, no one knows them exactly for many reasons, as explained in this and other books. There are only rough estimates, such as this one. But discussion about the numbers belongs to talk page of the article, not here. P.S. Speaking about numbers for the Soviet Union, 20-25 million of "killed" (including people killed by man-made hunger) is an estimate provided, for example, by the Soviet Politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev in his book "Sumerki" ("Twilight"), and I saw much higher numbers in other books. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, following your logic, Courtois' introduction is reliable because it was published in Harvard. However, the major contributor of this book is Nicolas Werth, whose chapter on the USSR was highly commended. This chapter is arguably the major factor that forced us to treat the BB with due respect (and, probably, the main reason for re-publishing the BB by Harvard). And this author publicly disagreed with Courtois' dishonest play with figures, and with his attempt to equate Communism and Nazism. In connection to that, I do not understand why did you decide that the opinion of Courtois has greater weight than that of Werth. By the way, Aronson's opinion was published by Wesleyan University, and it by no means has lower weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Werth's review is specifically titled Review Article and cpvers four separate and distinct books. Thus it is a "book review" as the term is generally used. Book reviews are not "peer reviewed" and generally are, indeed, given "lower weight" as a result of them being "book reviews." Werth, in fact, devotes only a very small part to criticising Courtois, and that only for the numbers (specifically Werth has no problem with 65 million Chinese deaths) - he mainly has praise for the BBoC, even though Werth says that, as a devoted Communist himself, hoping for a "Soviet Solidarity movement" as late as 1987. If we were to use Werth as the "source", we would still have a "lower bound" of 65 million! His major criticism is on Le Siecle des Communismes actually being the exact opposite of the BBoC - to the extent that it sought to excuse the problems rather than admitting them. Weth ens by questioning whether the vast number of deaths under Stalin and Mao were related to communism or to the "brutal tyrant"s in his words. The WP article at hand simply ascribes the killings to the time of the regimes in power, avoiding that issue. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Aljazeera regarding Syria Civil War RS

Under Talk:Syrian civil war#Aljazeera Neutrality there are a debate over the neutrality of the news channel on the Syrian Civil War context. Several sources, including Bloomberg,CBS andThe Guardian compromises the credibility towards the Qatar Emir influence over the channel. The Director-general is Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani which is a member of the Qatari royal family with no background in journalism. Jewish News One As for the reason(if needed), the $10 billions Iran-Iraq-Syria “pipelineistan” is a competitor of the Qatari-proposed “pipelineistan”.321 Energy"Asian Times" Furthermore, on the Telaviv Notes Volume 6, Number 17 September 10, 2012, present the news channel as a tool of the Qatar government which is ruled by Qatar foreign policy.Telaviv Notes The matter I am bringing is not a question if Al Jazeera is a trustful source in its whole entity, however, Al Jazeera fail under Qatar influence, which publicly declares support for the opposition.

Al Jazeera is a mainstream news source and normally highly reliable. Please come back if you have a specific enquiry, giving us the reference and statement it is meant to support. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page history and it's unclear what article the original poster is referring to. There's not any reason to blanket distrust AJ's reporting any more than we would distrust the WSJ's reporting simply based on who owns it. Absent any specific concern there's not much we can do here. a13ean (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera's coverage of Syria has been criticized by a number of outlets for being abjectly partisan (eg foreignpolicy.com). A former Beirut based correspondent resigned over what he called its biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria ([25]). That alone doesnt disqualify the source, but in my view al-Jazeera (at least the Arabic outlet, and to a lesser extent AJE), in its coverage of both Syria and Bahrain, has come very close to being an arm of the Qatari Foreign Ministry and not much better than a propaganda outlet. The same is true, to an even greater extent, of al-Arabiya. And I say this as somebody who, personally, opposes the al-Assad regime. But on Wikipedia, I suppose it remains a nominally reliable source. nableezy - 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Only Al ajzeera Arabic has a slant towards pro Qatari positions because they are in fact Qataris themselves. Al Jazeera English however just reports on whatever CNN or the AFP would report on if they were in Al jazeera's position. Keep in mind that Al jazeera is supposed to be an Arab news channel, so its going to seem like an "arm of qatar" no matter what because Qatar is an arab country. So I would be carefully when using the Pro-assad nasserist Al akbar, which almost always sides with Hezabollah's opinions.Sopher99 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not using al-Akhbar as a source for anything other than one of al-Jazeera's reporters having resigned due to what he called their biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria. Being an Arab(ic) news channel does not mean that it is required to parrot whatever its host state's foreign policy establishment would like to be the "news". Or at least, it shouldnt mean that, though I admit the record for Arab(ic) news organizations is a bit weak in that regard. nableezy - 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

All that is critique of the Al ajzeera Arabic channel, not English. Furthermore the thoughts of the owner doesn't decide reliability, its the conduct and checking of the new reporters and writers that counts. Sopher99 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In the 2000s, the network was praised by the Index on Censorship for circumventing censorship and contributing to the free exchange of information in the Arab world, and by the Webby Awards, who nominated it as one of the five best news web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic and The Smoking Gun. It was also voted by brandchannel.com readers as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. In 2011 Salon.com noted Al Jazeera's coverage of the 2011 Egyptian protests as superior to that of the American news media, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also opined that the network's news coverage was more informative, and less opinion-driven than American journalism Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And since you love extensively quoting sources

The challenge is coming from Qatar, one of the smallest countries in the world, an upstart desert kingdom on the Persian Gulf, and from a tiny TV network with a big mouth. It's called Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, and it's the first 24-hour television news network in the Arab world. It is also the first Arab news organization that is independent and uncensored.

Al-Jazeera has more than 50 correspondents working in 31 countries throughout the world. Like most television networks, it broadcasts sports, the weather and cultural programming. But what makes Al-Jazeera must-see TV for Arabs is its emphasis on news, investigative reports and documentaries, plus a wide range of talk shows that discuss subjects that, in most Arab media, are strictly taboo. According to Jian Al Jacuby, an Iraqi journalist who works in the newsroom, for Arabs, Al-Jazeera is revolutionary.

"It's the first time maybe in Arab world you are hearing and looking for a news bulletin. It's news. In all Arab countries, there's no news on their television," he says, noting that in other Arab countries, media is controlled by the government.

Al-Jazeera offers journalists unprecedented freedom to report the news the way they see it, without government censorship. Since going on the air almost five years ago, that reporting has earned Al-Jazeera a reputation for groundbreaking journalism from an Arab perspective. The network has also made its mark by broadcasting interviews and speeches with the most controversial figures in the Arab world.

"Arab people, for a long time, they just wanted somebody to listen to them. That's what importance of Al-Jazeera: to let people talk," says Al Jacuby.

Al-Jazeera broadcasts from a nondescript building in Doha, Qatar, a country few people had ever heard of before the emir of Qatar, Sheikhh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, created the network.

The goal, he says, was "to provide knowledge and new ideas to the Arab world. It needed to be an independent network that is not controlled by the state."

Al-Jazeera may not be controlled by the emir, but his government bankrolls it with a $30 million annual subsidy. Sheikhh Hamad is known as a reformer and a political maverick. When he took power almost six years ago, he began implementing democratic change immediately. One of his first acts was to abolish the Ministry of Information. "I wanted to move my country towards free speech because it is the right path, and it would benefit my country," he says.

His country already benefits from an abundance of natural resources tha have made the people of Qatar some of the richest on the planet. Doha is in the process of being transformed from the capital of a sleepy, traditional Gulf sheikdom into a modern city, but one where Qatari women still walk covered from head to toe, and camel racing is one of the most popular national sports.

The enormous reserves of oil and natural gas gives Qatar power beyond its size and population. But it is Al Jazeera that makes the tiny sheikdom a household name in the region, the most powerful voice in the Arab world.

Al Jazeera is carried by satellite to an estimated 35 million people in the Middle East. Over the last decade, satellite dishes have sprouted like mushrooms on rooftops from Cairo to Casablanca, the West Bank and beyond, including some places where you wouldn't think it was possible, like Bedouin tents in southern Jordan. It's part of an information revolution that allows Al-Jazeera to bypass government censors and broadcast directly into people's homes throughout the Arab world.

Every Tuesday night, millions of families in the region sit down to watch "The Opposite Direction," the most popular and controversial talk show in the Middle East. It's hosted by Faisal Al-Qasim, a Syrian who talks about everything from sex, religion and corruption to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The show can sometimes get heated.

For example, Al-Qasim did one show on polygamy, which gives Muslim men the right to have more than one wife. One woman said that the practice is an anachronism that should be abolished. Another woman thought abolishing it was outrageous. Finally, she'd had enough and got up to leave in the middle of the show.

"Al-Jazeera is definitely very dangerous as far as the Arab governments are concerned," he says. "Because al-Jazeera is dissecting, let us say, issues and problems, which have been covered under the carpet for ages. We Arabs have so much dirt buried under the carpet, so Al-Jazeera is revealing all that dirt, politically, culturally, socially, religiously, all that."

According to Al-Qasim, until Al-Jazeera went on the air, if Arabs wanted credible news from their own world, they had to listen to Western news reports. Not anymore: "Now we Arabs, we see things and we report them. Things have changed. Things have changed. For the first time, the Arab media has the upper hand, particularly Al-Jazeera. They have the upper hand in reporting what's happening in Palestine."

Al-Jazeera's coverage of that last issue has pulled in millions of viewers throughout the Middle East, who, for the first time, have been watching the uprising, the Intifada, live.

Correspondent Walid Al-Omary says credibility is the reason. "The credibility of Al-Jazeera is very high in the Palestinian people because they hear the facts that they didn't hear from any other media - Arab media," he says. "They trust us. We give them the facts. If Palestinian shoot Israelis, we will say that the Palestinian who started thithings. If it's Israelis, we will say they're the Israelis."

Al-Omary works out of Al-Jazeera's bureau in the West Bank town of Ramallah, but he also covers both sides of the conflict, often putting him in the middle of things, which in this part of the world is the wrong place to be.

Al-Omary knows from personal experience. He's been wounded by Israeli rubber bullets. He's reported from the middle of some of the worst fighting, within target range of Israeli gunships retaliating for the deaths of two Israeli soldiers murdered by a Palestinian mob.

"To be objective in this area is not easy because we live here,” he says. “We are part of the people of here. And this situation is, belong to us also, and we have our opinions."

On air, he refers to Palestinians who are killed in this fighting as martyrs. When it is pointed out that the Israelis would call them terrorists, he says: "This is a problem for the Israelis. It's a point of view."

What does he call Israelis who are killed by Palestinians? "We call it that: the Israeli is killed by Palestinians."

Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Intifada is credited with igniting pro-Palestinian demonstrations all over the Middle East. But when the network broadcast opinions from Arabs calling on their leaders to do more for the Palestinians, Arab governments reacted angrily, especially the Egyptians, who accused Al-Jazeera of trying to incite violence.

Mohamad Abdul Monem, a former spokesman for the president of Egypt, believes that Al-Jazeera is subversive and that it's deliberately trying to destabilize Arab governments. But he also says that al Jazeera is not a threat to the Egyptian government, only a nuisance.

"They are undermining us. They are undermining Egypt, undermining Saudi Arabia, undermining all the Arab countries. They are separating the Arab world. It's no good," he says.

What has Al-Jazeera done that has upset so many people? "I think people are not used...to hear things which they don't like, especially the top people, including me," says Sheik Hamad Bin Jasim Al-Thani, Qatar's foreign minister. He receives most of the many complaints about Al-Jazeera.

Every single Arab country has complained to Qatar about Al-Jazeera. Some have even recalled their ambassadors and closed down its bureaus. The Palestinians briefly shut down the one in Ramallah a few weeks ago. But Qatar's foreign minister thinks Al-Jazeera is doing something good: "We are giving the people around us, in the Arab world, something which they need."

"Democracy started. Either the leaders like it or they don't like it. Either you open the door or they break the door. It's a matter of time, in my opinion."

Despite all the criticism from Arab governments, Al-Jazeera strongly denies it has a political agenda. The network says that all it's trying to do is report the news.

Are they afraid of you, the Arab governments? Says Al-Qasim: "They are not afraid of Al-Jazeera. They are terrfied by Al-Jazeera and the programs broadcast by Al-Jazeera, because they think that free media means democracy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/10/10/60minutes/main314278.shtml

Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment The guidelines of WP:RS are not the same as saying a news source is completely without bias. There may be a slant in some of the networks' coverage, in fact, I am almost sure of it, HOWEVER, it, like Fox or NBC or the Daily Mail or ...... still clearly is what WP considers Notable and WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, please be specific in what are concerned that it might not be an RS for... a13ean (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Follows below:

• On article description: "and soldiers were ordered to open fire on civilians"[26]

Sopher and Dafranca, please familiarize yourself with WP:COPYVIO and then remove the excessively long quotes from copyrighted sources. But Sopher, reports from a decade ago arent really going to change my mind on the network and its coverage of Syria today. But please see the last sentence of my first reply here, the one that says al-Jazeera is a nominally reliable source'. nableezy - 00:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A defector's claim to be used in Biography of a political figure

A defector to the current Iranian regime claimed the supreme leader of Iran likes vulgar jokes as a means to cure his depression and this claim has been reflected in Huffington post and the telegraph. The question is whether mentioning it in the biography of the leader is against WP:BLP.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)