Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gsonnenf (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 27 February 2014 (→‎Tea tree oil: Fix spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:
    Shortcuts
    • 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

    Current large scale clean-up efforts

    Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

    Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

    Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

    Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

    International University of Canada

    This university appears not to exist. It does have a website, allows emails to be sent to different departments, and has a couple phone numbers to contact the university. However, after several emails were sent during a weeks time none of the emails were ever responded to. I did call the United States phone number listed and it is a boggus number. The university is not identified when you call, only a machine answers and you are not able to leave a message. I have requested accreditation informations several times and no one responds. I can't find anyone who works at this university.

    Please add this university to your list of universities that are not accreditated.

    thanks

    This university does not even seem to exist. Check it in Google Maps: https://maps.google.com/. -- Mrliebeip (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Huffington Post

    The Huffington Post is notorious for fabrication, particularly in politics. They have often been criticized for their liberal bias and skewing. Essentially, they are a liberal equivalent of FOX News.

    XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Huff Po has received the Pulitzer - the first given to an only online news source- so like all sources, its reliability depends. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions remain opinions citable as such. For straight facts - about the same as other sources, but it does very little non-opinion-based reportage. Collect (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability depends? Never heard that before, only overall reliability levels..... which in this case is low based on its repeated criticisms for fraudulent claims in things like politics and science and medicine. They are also notorious for distorting information based on their own opinions/bias. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've never heard that "Reliability depends" before read policy. The very statement is made at least 3 times in WP:RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context", "The reliability of a source depends on context", " Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context", "News reports may be acceptable depending on the context". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, Huffington Post is not under any circumstance reliable due to repeated fraudulence and distorting information (and taking things out of context) with their own bias. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, it depends on the context. Not particularly reliable for science (most of the really unreliable articles are actually blog pieces), but newspapers publish about other things. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter what the context, they frequently misconstrue it. They often lie about celebs and other things, though have most often been criticized for fabricating politics, science, and medicine. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap. Those links do almost nothing to support your silly argument, which in any event doesn't distinguish between bloggers hosted on the site and its own editorial voice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be condescending- the argument is not "silly"..... I might not have provided links for celeb fraud, but they're still often criticized for lies. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that your claims aren't supported by your sources isn't "condescending". It's just accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The condescending part was calling my argument "silly". It would've been better to simply say it wasn't well-supported. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like I should already know the answers, but somehow I don't know what "OP" in this instance stands for and the phrasing used makes it hard to tell whether "adding voice to the opposition" is agreeing or disagreeing with my argument and the criticisms I linked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "OP" stands for "Original Poster" - the person who began the thread - in this instance XXSNUGGUMSXX. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot put a blanket ban on Huffington Post. There is too much high quality news published there. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    High quality? On the contrary, it has been repeatedly criticized for very LOW quality news and insisting on certain claims after being previously disproven as indicated in the links I provided. Besides, much of their staff are only bloggers. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you hit the nail on the head when you described it as similar to Fox News, which is also treated as a usually reliable - sometimes not, source. There are no completely, always reliable sources. None. Zero. (The first ten stone tablets were broken, everything put in writing since then has been gravely suspicious. :-) ) There are scales of reliability, and Huffington Post is generally considered on the right side, but there can be plenty of times when it can be wrong, and we need to look at each instance individually. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right side? If anything, they're known for being left (especially in politics)..... As for FOX News, they've been repeatedly criticized for fraudulent reports in politics (notably liberals such as President Obama) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Every source should be examined in context. Paid professional staffers doing political journalism? Reliable source. Celebrity blogger? Alternative medicine stories? Maybe not so much. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The staff isn't exactly professional, especially not their bloggers. As for political journalism, FOX News (which for example went so far as to say Obama lost the November 2012 election after he actually won) and Huffington Post (which probably would have done the same sort of thing if Mitt Romney had won) are among many sources that frequently distort political issues with their personal bias. As for looking at individual instances to determine overall reliability, the vast majority of reports I've seen from Huffington Post are fraudulent (therefore giving it overall low reliability), and I've read quite a number of their reports. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "No they aren't" isn't exactly a convincing rebuttal. And if you want to convince other editors that the Huffington Post is in general fraudulent, you are going to have to build a better and more specific case than your grab bag of links, which cover a number of different topic areas and range from relevant to not so much, like the last one, which is an opinion post agreeing with another opinion post that the HP is too snarky, which is probably true but utterly irrelevant to our concerns here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the clear consensus that this source is likely reliable in some instances and not reliable in others, like nearly every other source. XXSNUGGUMSXX, I respectfully suggest you move on unless you have new, significant evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How about these?:

    XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A random collection of dubious blogs proves nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe the following?:

    XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More of the same - except for the last one, which is good grounds for not using the Huff Post for medical claims. But then we wouldn't do that anyway, per WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm still quite unsure of is why a source would be used if it is known for bias. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's settled then, we'll remove all uses of Fox News throughout the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FOX News should definitely be not be used, though the question of "Why use a source that is known for bias?" hasn't been answered. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it up. There is nothing close to a consensus to blanket ban Huff Po and there is not going to be anytime in the foreseeable future so you should stop wasting your and everyone else's time. The Huff Po reliability, like all other sources used in Wikipedia, is subject to the contents and context. You may personally choose never to use it, and that is fine. You may not force others to not use it unless you specifically show that the particular situation Huff Po is not reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't so much force others not to use it as I would strongly discourage using it. What still has not been answered is, blanket ban or not, why would a source in general be used if known for bias?
    Because that is Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV): "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone; although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." As TRPoD said, you are not going to get consensus for a blanket ban of Huffington Post. If you have a question about the use of a specific Huffington Post article in a specific Wikipedia article, please provide the name of the Wikipedia article, the statement in the Wikipedia article that is being challenged, and a link to the specific Huffington Post article that is cited to support the statement. Otherwise, please let it rest. Dezastru (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    army.mil website bio used on a BLP

    Hi,

    On Malcolm_B._Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), extensive detail is referenced to this 'biography' on a US Military website.

    To what extent is that considered a 'reliable source'? How much information is it appropriate to take from that source? Although it seems to be 'official', the tone of the text on the website doesn't seem authoritative or professional, and I wonder if it is considered a PRIMARY source in this case?

    My own opinion is it's primary, and should therefore only be used to support very basic simple facts (such as he is "from Torrance, California"), and not for claims about his career and other details, unless those are supported by an appropriate independent reference (such as coverage in a newspaper).

    I also think that a lot of "operational details" that are currently included ([1]) don't belong in the BLP, but perhaps could be used in the articles about the units he was with.

    I am hesitant to make changes myself right now, as an administrator has told me to 'Buzz off' - and that he knows better [2] ; hence seeking advice here, particularly about the sourcing. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really see where you're coming from when you say that "the tone of the text on the website doesn't seem authoritative or professional" - it's a pretty straightforward list of postings. The tone seems pretty standard for an official bio.GabrielF (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The US Army website biography is reliable. Nothing there is controversial. The concerns expressed here seem trivial. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was not clear. Re 'tone', the format of that page made me wonder if - despite it being on an official URL - if it was created by the actual subject or a close associate. I was thinking of WP:PSTS, Primary sources are [..] often accounts written by people who are directly involved [..] primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care [..] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge
    Is it acceptable to include a list of all his assignments, using only that website as a reference, if there are no other sources mentioning them? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a list of assignments can be put into the biography based on army.mil's bio alone. If there were contradictory sources then we would question the army.mil website, with the likely result that the reader would be told that sources disagree about assignments. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. What about for the extensive list-of-awards? Should all those be included, if there is no other source?
    viz

    "include the Bronze Star medal (second award), Meritorious Service Medal (sixth award), Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (sixth award, one for Valor), Army Achievement Medal (second award), National Defense Service Medal with bronze star, Armed Forces Expeditionary and Service Medals, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals, Humanitarian Service Medal, NATO Medal, the Ranger Tab, Senior Parachutist Badge, Combat Infantryman's Badge, Expert Infantryman's Badge, Meritorious Unit Citation, Superior Unit Award, and the Department of the Army Staff Identification Badge. "

    If nobody else has independently written about this person receiving those awards, are they appropriate for inclusion in a BLP? I am not sure if it is a special case being Military - for example, if there was a BLP on a businessman, and we listed all his business certifications (for example, an NVQ in English, or the "Bob's Finance Course' award) based on his own website, that wouldn't be appropriate - right? But perhaps all those awards are 'important' enough for inclusion?
    Or - if no third-party (newspaper?) has reported him receiving them, perhaps they're not appropriate? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the army.mil biography should be accepted at face value unless other sources contradict it. Just about all of the US Army officer biographies use sources like this. All of the soldier's earned medals, awards and badges should be listed in the biography, based on any reliable sources such as the army.mil source. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying.
    I'd really like to hear a few more opinions about this (no offence intended). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that the army.mil bio is reliable for all the factual statements cited to it in the article. If anything, we should wonder about what an official army bio leaves out rather than what it includes. I think this is a clearcut application of WP:ABOUTSELF.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks; I'm now concerned about point 5 of your link, "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Thoughts? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a different question; more about notability than about reliability. I have no opinion for you about that one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but, your link to SPS says they can be used only in those circumstances - not relating to whether the article should exist. So my question is, whether it's appropriate to use "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" when it contravenes point 5 on the same page, "the article is not based primarily on such sources" - because, in this case, it really is. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a stretch. The army.mil website is by no means a self-published source with regard to any one soldier's biography. ABOUTSELF has no application here. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not a stretch at all.
    Assume I accept that it's a RS non-primary source,
    That means you'd accept that www.MYNAME.com is,
    And thus I can write my bio there and say I've been awarded the "Best Person of the Year" by Time mag - and that's OK? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a stretch to count a biography published on an organization's website as self-published with regard to members of the organization. And I agree that it's problematic that the article is based mostly on that one biography. If this were some random CEO, probably the article wouldn't survive an AfD. However, WP:SOLDIER, rightly or wrongly, confers notability on the guy automatically, whether there are independent sources or not, since he's a general. So he is going to have an article, and, given the huge number of objectively non-notable generals in the US army, it's going to happen regularly that there aren't many independent sources. It's quite a conundrum, but not one to be solved at this noticeboard. I still see no obstacle to using the army.mil bio for whatever it says about the guy, though. It's not like they're going to be wrong when they say he was in this or that unit or got this or that medal.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't an issue for this board, but we shouldn't generally consider awards notable unless reported in a secondary source. Andrew Dalby 11:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Alf, that's an essay though, not a policy or guideline. But I take your point; an AfD would probably fail - which is unfortunate, because I think that is the core of the problem. There's no policy or guideline to support a single-source SPS BLP, yet it's very hard to get any actually deleted because people refer to essays that have failed to get consensus as policy, and disregard N.

    I'm not sure what (if anything) I should do now; there's mixed opinions above. Should the medals and awards be removed from it, as non-neutral self-published, or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer your question directly, I'd say the medals and awards should be removed unless they have been reported in secondary sources. This is a difference between Wikipedia and a CV: you put them all in a CV, of course, but Wikipedia focuses on what is notable. But maybe others disagree? Andrew Dalby 11:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The decorations should not be removed from the article as non-neutral self-published, there is no reason to believe that the decorations listed in the bio are not what he has actually been awarded. Should every single decoration be listed, probably not, but that is an editorial decision. GB fan 11:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    silentlambs.org

    Is silentlambs.org a reliable source for use in the article Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. I was reverted when removing such a source, as another user claimed that since it already was used in the article, it was usable [3].

    It is used for support to the following claims (the reverted one listed first): "DNA evidence, medical reports, or information from forensic experts or police that proves sexual abuse is also accepted as a valid "second witness", however critics argue that, without mandatory reporting for all accusations of abuse regardless of the local laws, such evidence could remain undetected." (The claim does have a counterclaim, as JW officials have claimed they always report such cases to the authorities in areas where this is mandatory.)

    It is also used for the following claims/statements: "Critics claim that in many cases, members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been prevented from reporting child molestation to civil authorities" and "The Watch Tower Society maintains its existing policy, without an explicit requirement for elders to report all child abuse cases where such is not required by law."

    The website is also added in "External links". Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC) \[reply]

    The website does not appear to be one with "fact checking" and is not a general news site - thus is does not actually meet WP:RS. Incidents reported on it which are found in other sources should be cited to those sources, not to this one. The site itself links to reliable sources indirectly through the "press" page, and it would appear that uncontestable RS sources are called for in the article. As an EL, it fails, as it clearly promotes a strong POV. Collect (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I though so, but needed a confirmation from a neutral third part before reverting the revert. I've added this projectpage to my favorites, in case furter users would like to comment here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff you quoted is loaded with weasel words anyway, and is poor quality writing. The site could be used, but only primarily as an source for information about the organization itself. It would absolutely not be a reliable source for information on third parties, and would likely not be a reliable source for factual information regarding legal procedures, as it was used in your quotes. Gigs (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought so after rereading the EL policy. It is used in the article about the organization. I needed a third view for a general use of the source. Thank you for the useful additional information. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Idolator

    Is this website reliable? I've been planning to nominate Trouble (Natalia Kills album) in a near future and I do not know if I should keep mentions to Idolator or remove them completely. Prism △ 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is published by Spin Media; treat it like a moderately reliable blog. Briefly looking through the article, I see no problems with the way it has been used and cited. --Precision123 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The instances I've seen it included so far have been fair use. However, I should mention that publishers (in this case, Spin Media) are not the same as the writers. One writer I've frequently seen used from there is Sam Lansky, who seems to be a pretty honest writer. For all we know, however, another writer for the site could have very false writing. Of course, this would take further searching. Last I checked, blogs weren't considered reliable sources..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is LambGoat.com a reliable source?

    Lambgoat.com is a news website for mainly metal and hardcore bands, and has been used used on some articles as a reference for information. It posts news regularly although author names are hidden. I've looked for information about who runs the site and who's its authors are but I have found nothing. I personally believe that it is an unreliable source of information however I need the opinions of others. SilentDan297 talk 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the Staff page isn't too hard to find, but it doesn't really indicate any editorial control. I did a Google search on the phrase "lambgoat reports", and I turned up a few hits: [4] from Bloody Disgusting, [5] from Exclaim!, [6] from ChartAttack, [7] from Alternative Press, [8] from Nashville Scene. So other sites seem to consider them reliable. It's not overwhelming evidence or anything, but maybe they're reliable enough for simple claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that it may be reliable enough for some small, simple claims. The site actually looks like it is copying posts, news, etc., from other sources. So it may benefit you to just click the link on each post and go directly to the source. --Precision123 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did not think to search "lambgoat reports" nor did I realise there was a staff page. So it should be classed as reliable? I have no issue with that because it saves me from removing them and finding new reliable sources to replace them. SilentDan297 talk 21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another thing about this website that I've noticed is reviews, and as Precision123 said, it may be useful small and simple claims, but what about opinions? SilentDan297 talk 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They are certainly reliable for their own opinions, which includes reviews. Whether they are reliable for news is a judgment call. Not everything that The New York Times says is instantly reliable, and there are probably a few circumstances where even tabloid rags are reliable. Try to use the most reliable source available for each claim, and avoid the use of any questionable claims in a biography. I often use obscure sites for their reviews, but I don't source contentious claims from them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In general I steer away from citing opinions from obscure sites. I am not sure what kind position Lambgoat.com enjoys in the metal and hardcore music world, but it looks like it is somewhat relevant. So if you just want to quote a sentence, for example, as a review, it would probably not be problematic. --Precision123 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it should be placed onto the table of reliable sources on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCE article then? SilentDan297 talk 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Maaaaybe. I don't know if I would go that far. But you could bring it up on the associated talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    dorjeshugdenhistory.org reliable source?

    Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) now uses www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org as a source for claiming Shugden was a Dharma Protector.[9] I had removed it saying the website fails RS, but it's been replaced claiming it is a reliable source. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug. I'd say the article you quoted by Dreyfuss who is a professor at Williams College and a well regarded Tibetologist, is a much better source than the one the person who changed your edit used. That source www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org is a self published site written by someone who lists no academic or professional affiliation, The site appears to be to one written by a keen devotee simply trying to show the practice he believes in in the best light he can. Anyway, I think you're right in thinking that the site www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org is not a neutral academic source. So on that basis, my own view is that you would be justified in reverting the edit by TruthSayer.
    However while you are at it, I'm sure you are also familiar with several other very good secondary sources (Drefyus, Lopez, Bell, Kay, Watts, and so on) where they relate various independent accounts, as well as historical and contemporary research showing that many in the Gelug and particularly the Sakya tradition believed that Shugden is a harmful demon, ghost, worldly protector, spirit, etc. In light of those sources, as well as numerous well reported statements from the Dalai Lama, and many other notable Tibetan religious leaders which have appeared in the press, you might want to consider rewriting the opening to something more like: "Dorje Shugden is a controversial Tibetan deity or spirit. For over three hundred years while some in the Gelug, and a few in the Sakya tradition, of Tibetan Buddhism have worshipped Dorje Shugden as a Dharma protector, many others in all Tibetan Buddhist traditions consider Dorje Shugden to be either a worldly spirit or a malevolent oath breaking demon." - giving the proper references and citations to those sources of course. That might give a brief summary of the background of the "controversy" which the article is about, without getting too technical or bringing up unfamiliar names and terms in the opening paragraph.
    Chris Fynn (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for WP:RS are that these are reliable academic third party sources. How can the site http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org fulfill the criteria set up in WP:RS? The site is set up and the content is written by an anonymous source, it is not peer reviewed by any academic source and it is not known if there is any established academic researcher behind the site and how much valid its content is. If someone argues this ANONYMOUS site should be used than also any other anonymous site can be used. This is all self-created, anonymous content where not even the writer stands up with his name. What is reliable in this? I don’t see any argument to use this site. Established research papers as Dreyfus or von Brück etc should be of prior use for the acticle. Here is a list of academic research which can be used because it meets the criteria for WP:RS: http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/ Kt66 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you 3. TiredofShugden (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tea tree oil

    • Source. PMID 23099312. Pertinent extracts:

      Another home remedy, tea tree oil, also is not recommended because topical application often leads to local irritation and inflammation, allergic contact eczema, and allergic contact dermatitis as a result of eucalyptol and limonene content (Therapeutic Research Center, 2011). The National Pediculosis Association (1997-2009) also strongly recommends avoiding tea tree oil because pure tea tree oil is contraindicated in neonates, infants, and pregnant women because of a lack of information regarding safety and efficacy.

      [and]

      Avoid unproven remedies such as use of mayonnaise, petrolatum jelly, and tea tree oil.

    • Content. In the body: "A 2012 review of head lice treatment recommended against the use of tea tree oil for children because it could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions, because of contraindications, and because of a lack of knowledge about the oil's safety and effectiveness." In the lede: "Its use as a treatment for head lice in children has been recommended against." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd make the wording stronger in the lede. Something to the effect of "Despite being of no proven medical value and often causing allergic skin reactions, it is used as a treatment for head lice in children. The National Pediculosis Association strongly recommends not using tea tree oil for the treatment of pregnant women and young children because of safety concerns." That would be more in line with WP:WEIGHT. After all, the use of this substance as a treatment isn't exactly mainstream. Notable enough, but requiring an unambiguous statement saying that it's dangerous bollocks as far as the medical establishment is concerned. Just saying that it is used but not recommended gives undue weight to what is really a psuedo-scientific fringe treatment.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. One question that's arisen in Talk is whether PMID 23099312 is a good enough source to be usable. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just addressed that and a few of the other issues raised over on the talk page.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello, I see that Alex posted this here without notifying me. I understand that AlexBrn has misrepresented this as pseudo-science. I've done quite a bit of reviews on Pubmed articles, and every experiment where it has been used shows it is effective in killing lice. Where the medical community disagrees is whether enough evidence has been gathered to indicate it is as safe as current drugs. I think the issue here is Alex is operating on a belief it is pseudo science instead of looking for reviews on clinical trials. Luckly, I just got my VPN up, so i can get through the science direct paywall. Gsonnenf (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said over on the talk page, that's fine. But you need to bring the references. Until then, this meets all the standards standards for WP:MEDRS. Not that I reject what you say, but this sourced material can't be removed because you assert that the medical consensus is otherwise. You need to actually provide those references first.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not pseudoscience, but maybe more like this. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No that is Lindane in the XKCD comic. It is the current alternative when lice are resistant to Ivermectin. Side effects of Lindane include : "seizures and deaths have been reported to the FDA in patients who use too much Lindane or after a second treatment with Lindane."Gsonnenf (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion, that still wouldn't make Tea Tree Oil any more effective. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to irreversible lycanthropy, it wouldn't be evidence that the source provided is unreliable. That's not how either Wikipedia or science works. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the National Pediculosis Association also took a dim view of Lindane. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears eczema is a worse result than head lice per that article? I would fer shure have thought "seizures and deaths" were a teeny bit worse than head lice. AFAICT, the major issue is that there is insufficient money to be made to warrant full scale medical studies about "possible contraindications" of a home remedy but that, IMHO, is insufficient to label it as "pseudoscience" either. Collect (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if we had reliable sources stating that Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion and tea tree oil caused eczema. A reliable source will still say that tea tree oil should be avoided because it causes eczema. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to irreversible lycanthropy, and tea tree oil caused flatulence. It wouldn't be evidence that tea tree oil didn't case flatulence. Comparing tea tree oil to other treatments is utterly irrelevant because this article is about tea tree oil, not about other treatments. If tea tree oil is unsafe, it will still remain unsafe whether some other treatment is more or less safe. And if the medical consensus is that tea tree oil is unsafe, then that will remain the consensus even if the consensus is that some other treatment is even less safe. That is how both Wikpedia and science work. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any evidence that the National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments. Is it known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage? The fact that the article by Eisenhower and associates cites anything that the National Pediculosis Association says raises questions about the reliability of the article. (I have not read the Eisenhower article, so I don't know the context in which the statement was made.) Incidentally, a specific statement warning against the use of tea tree oil for treatment of head lice in children seems out of place in the lede of a general article on tea tree oil – but that discussion is not really appropriate for this noticeboard. Dezastru (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit [[10]], and describes them as "a non-profit health... agency... including scientific advisors". Unless there is something to make us question this standing, that's enough right there to make the organisation itself, including its website, RS. Unless of course you are arguing that the US Dept of Health is itself not MEDRS, which seems unlikely. It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage. I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field. The NPA is also regularly cited, favourably, in top tier medical and scientific journals and is a chosen partner of various research and public health programs. So the organisation clearly RS. You could have ascertained this yourself with a simple Google search, rather than relying on the erroneous information about the organsation being run out of a garage. And can you explain why citing the NPA raises questions about the reliability of the Eisenhower article, and by extension the reliability of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Mark Marathon (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit" [[11]]
    That's just a listing of non-profit organizations interested in helping people with health concerns – through support groups, advocacy for patient issues before government bodies and medical professional organizations, fundraising for medical research, education, etc. It's not a stamp of approval by HHS medical scientists on medical claims made by any of the organizations. Unless you are arguing that medical scientists at the US Department of Health and Human Services also endorse medical claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Farm Animal Rights Movement, and the North American Vegetarian Society, all of which are on that same list on HHS's website.
    "I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field."
    I'd be very interested in seeing these numerous publications in the related field that you are citing. Can you list them or point to a reliable source that lists them?
    "It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage."
    At least, that's what Deborah Altschuler of the National Pediculosis Association says. Ms. Altschuler started the group 15 years ago when her daughter was sent home from nursery school with lice and the message we don't have families like that here. Since then, she has been trying to de-stigmatize lice, and to get people to behave rationally when they find them. Her group sells a $14.95 comb, which she believes is the only thing that will stop an infestation: picking out the eggs, or nits, one by one. She warns that many pesticide shampoos are dangerous. And she says that if people are serious about nitpicking, they really don't need to go into housekeeping overdrive.
    New York Times, 1998 [12]
    A year after the American Academy of Pediatrics called on schools to end no-nits policies that keep children being treated for head lice out of classes, little has changed except the intensity of the debate, according to an article published yesterday in The American Journal of Nursing.... The academy recommends treatment with a cream rinse, sold commercially as Nix, which contains permethrin. The nursing journal article said those recommendations had been vigorously contested over the last year by members of the National Pediculosis Association, which opposes chemical treatments in favor of the use of special combs to find and remove nits.
    New York Times, 2003 [13]
    Many of us come naturally to advocacy in our role as parents. The activist in public health, however, can face a peculiar set of problems.... This is where the activist evolves into educator, support system and collector of personal accounts - sometimes appalling - of families and individuals who have suffered from unnecessary, unsuccessful or excessive chemical treatments. The activist must do what disinterested experts will not do: investigate the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge in Pediculosis and its management. The activist must also seek allies - often the school nurses, occasionally the press, and sometimes (in cases where a child has suffered grievous harm), the lawyers - when there is no mechanism in place to exchange insights, experience and research. With the exception of an occasional accolade for all the hard work that goes into being an activist, I generally find myself resenting the term....  It is the activist's particular challenge to educate the public in spite of the relative indifference to this issue on the part of the professional communities the public turns to for advice.
    Deborah Altschuler, president of the National Pediculosis Association, from the organization's website [14] Dezastru (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue I have with the NPA is their TTO source material is dated from 1999 and is a non-peer reviewed letter. There have been about 100 articles about Tea Tree Oil since the 1999 letter. Also the TTO page has a 2009 copyright date and has no date of last review as is common on most medical websites. They also don't list any of their staff or credentials on their website. They also appear to be pushing some sort of Nit Comb for people to buy. Also listing on Heathfinder.gov is no guarantee of medical competence. That index lists everything from social activists ( http://healthfinder.gov/FindServices/Organizations/Organization.aspx?code=HR2452 ) to weightloss gurus (http://www.tops.org/). The descriptions are pretty much taken off the website "about" page.
    Anyhow I've found a couple of PUBMED secondary source reviews of trials that I believe are as close to top tier in WP:MEDRS as we can get for Tea Tree Oil. I will also reiterate that MEDRS is need for the portion of the article that include medical treatment, including treatment of lice. Simple RS will not do for these sections. These articles are: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998411 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16243420.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gsonnenf's comments about the National Pediculosis Association. Dezastru (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say there are two separate issues here:
    • The National Pediculosois Society is an advocacy group and not a professional medical society. The fact that they have "scientific advisors" does not change that fact. So do all kinds of fringe organizations like the Fluoroquinolone Research Toxicity Foundation and various anti-psychiatry groups. Calling themselves the "National Pediculosis Society" is intended to give themselves a neutral, authoritative image, but their actual activities would be better described as the "National Society for Reducing the Use of Chemical Treatments of Skin Infections". They also appose the use of FDA approved, guideline-recommended treatments, and thus are not a mainstream group. The fact that they are listed on Healthcare.gov is not pertinent. The same website lists the National Alliance for Mental Illness, which receives 90% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry and is a poster child for industry sponsored "patient advocacy groups".
    • The fact that Tea Tree Oil is a natural substance does not guarantee that it is safe. Indeed, there are many highly toxic drugs used for chemotherapy (taxol, vincristine) that are natural products extracted from plants. If this was a synthetic drug produced by a pharmaceutical company, its minimal level of safety and efficacy testing and lack of FDA approval would prevent it from being discussed as a remedy for any disease at Wikipedia. If it was mentioned at all, it would be only to state that is no convincing evidence of its safety and efficacy. The same standard should apply here.
    I would suggest using a non-NPS source to point out the lack of safety and efficacy testing. If none can be found, I would not mention Tea Tree Oil in the article at all.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree with the comments of Formerly 98. However, it should be noted that the Wikipedia article being discussed is on tea tree oil, not on head lice. Dezastru (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I found something from the European Commission, if you dont' already have it. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_160.pdf

    Here's one from the American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/tea-tree-oil Formerly 98 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    * Hello, I agree with you about the NPA. Though I feel the information from the CPS.ca about toxicity data on Tea Tree Oil being unknown is a bit out of date (citations from 1999 and 2003, Tea Tree Oil has been more extensively studied in the last 10 year). Per WP:MEDRS, I'm currently using currently using the gold standard in the form of a 2006 ("A review of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil" ) and 2013 ("A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology") PUBMED secondary source review articles that establishes toxicity and safety data for Tea Tree Oil. Tea tree Oil specific material from other major tertiary sources with recent citations (EU Commission, NIH, Australian RDIC, ACS ) also help establish guidelines for safety. Any comments on these papers would be appreciated. I have the full articles available if anyone would like them.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hong Wontack, Kudara International

    The article Baekje currently cites this author in three places, and two of the external links were to his website until a moment ago. A whole bunch of other articles cite him as well.[15][16]d I get the impression he holds the (fringe) view that immigration to Japan from the Korean peninsula was on an absolute scale, and that they "created" Japanese culture. Admittedly I get this impression primarily from the title of the book, the statements it is being used to back up in the Wikipedia article, and this blog. But the latter also tells me that while he is (or was?) a professor in a university, his field is economics, not ancient history. His website also lists a large number of articles he has published through reputable academic publishers, but all of them are on economics and trade in modern Korea. Additionally, searching for the name of his publisher brought up apparently no official website, despite more than 4,000 hits.[17] Searching again for his publisher without his name brought up 135 hits.[18] Does it seem to anyone else like we are dealing with a self-publisher who goes through universities and scholarly journals when he can and through his own small publishing house when he can't? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For the majority who contribute to this noticeboard, who I believe are unable to read Asian languages, fully assessing this may be difficult, as Hong may have published material on the subject matter in languages other than English and "Kudara" may just be an English transliteration of the name of a publishing company that primarily publishes in a non-English language (so it could be difficult to search for information about the publisher). For example, one of his books, Relationship between Korea and Japan in Early Period: Paekche and Yamato Wa, was apparently published by the Pan Korea Book Corporation at one point,[19] but has also been published by ILSIMSA[20] I don't know whether ILSIMSA is an imprint of Pan Korea Book Corporation - or an English-language partner - vs an entirely separate publisher. Pan Korea Book Corporation currently does have a website, but it is mostly in Korean.[21]
    According to the CV on Hong's website, "He had worked exclusively on international economics (trade and growth) from 1958-80, and on both international economics and East Asian history from 1981-2005 (causing a deterioration in his publication performance in economics). He has been working exclusively on East Asian history since his retirement," which suggests that he devoted a fair amount of professional academic interest to history. He has also been published on the subject in the journal Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press).[22] It looks like several of his works on the history have been reviewed by specialists in related disciplines (archaeology, linguistics), although they all seem to note that he is writing from a non-mainstream perspective. He can probably be regarded as a reliable source, but the bigger issue may have to do with determining whether his views are of significant enough WP:WEIGHT to merit inclusion. (Incidentally, I wonder whether the "Joel" behind the faroutliers blog that you linked to is Joel Bradshaw of the University of Hawaii Press.[23]) Dezastru (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kudara" is the Japanese name for "Baekje", and I assure you it does not publish a significant body of work in Japanese; it also seems highly unlikely that they publish a significant body of work in Korean, given their name. If they had any corporate presence other than what Hong publishes in English, this would probably turn up on a rudimentary Google search. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be almost self-published. Looking at Hong Wontack's website, he publishes many of his own articles, and the publisher here (Kudara International) doesn't looked like it has published much more than Hong Wontack's own work.[24][25]. All in all, he does not seem to be the most authoritative on this area. Here is a published book review of his 2006 publication, if it helps.[26]. --Precision123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Sevan Nisanyan acceptable as a source for etymology

    [nisanyansozluk.com] is being used as a source in Tarkhan in a discussion about the meaning of the word.[27] His biography at tr.wiki[28] says he started by writing about computing, then travel books. He's written Etymological Dictionary of Contemporary Turkish and I presume it's the website version that is being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Turkish page about Sevan Nishanyan says "dil bilimcidir" which is translated as "linguist" by google translator: http://translate.google.de/#tr/en/dil%20bilimci. "www.nisanyansozluk.com" is also accepted as academic source in the Wiktionary with the template "wikt:Template:R:tr:Nishanyan. --91.56.242.218 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless there's some evidence of his expertise in historical linguistics or some academic response to his dictionary. (For full disclosure, I never trust Wiktionary.) Andrew Dalby 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On his homepage he writes that the credibility of his etymological dictionary and his credibility as a historical etymologist (or historical linguist) is recognized by the Turkish Language Association, though he has a strange background, he wrote his Etymological Dictionary in prison and studied History, Philosophy and Political Systems in the U.S. and knows about 12 languages. So yes, maybe reliable. --F3n7x (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one who created Nshanyan's template in Wiktionary. I do not know anything about his linguistic training, but I can tell from my experience that the dictionary is reliable. I deal a lot with Iranian and Armenian etymologies and often create entries for Turkish words borrowed from these languages. And whenever I check Nshanyan, his etymology agrees with my well-known and clearly academic sources. One critique I have, is that he does not give his sources. PS Here is an academic response to his dictionary. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not reliable. Anyone who takes a language course can publish a "dictionary" and call himself or herself a "linguist", which seems to be what is going on here.[29] Dezastru (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not a linguist and his "etymological" dictionary is not reliable. On the Nişanyan Sözlük (http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=kayak): kayak2 ~ İng kayak Eskimo kayığı ~ İnuit kayak "erkek aracı", erkeklere özgü kayık < kayık < İnuit ka "erkek"... I know Inuit and other Eskimo languages; but, not found "ka" (erkek = male) in Inuit and Yupik languages. --Kmoksy (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks almost reliable. Link: "7. Türk Dil Kurumu Yazım Kılavuzu'nda bulunan sözcükler Yazım Kılavuzu'na uygun olarak yazılmıştır." Here it says that the orthography of his dictionary was found to be adequate/reliable by TDK, the official regulatory body of the Turkish language. Sevan Nişanyan, of Armenian origin, is known to have a strong reputation in the linguistic field in Turkey. --Mrliebeip (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you fluent in Turkish? Did you translate the passage yourself? Does the line say that the Turkish Language Association has given its blessing on the accuracy of etymology in his dictionary, or just on the spelling of words in his dictionary – or does the line actually say that the words in the dictionary are spelled/written following the style recommended by the Turkish Language Institute? Dezastru (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did tranlate the passage on my own. My Turkish is fluent but sometimes I have to check foreign words like "Kılavuz". In this case the passage basically says that the words listed in his dictionary are based on the TDK's orthography. TDK maintains a close relationship with Nisanyan (link). The author of the academic response to Nisanyan (the link provided by user Vahagn Petrosyan above) lauded his efforts. Nisanyan's etymological dictionary is also frequently used as a source in Turkish academic circles like here: 1, or here: 2. -- Mrliebeip (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A statement that a work dealing with etymology follows a particular orthography system does not mean that the etymology content for the entries in the work is valid. Orthography deals with how words are written or spelled, not with the derivation of their meaning, which is what etymology involves. Dezastru (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to think yes, it's RS. It seems to be taken seriously by Turkish historical linguists. The review first cited above is a long discussion of particular entries, often reaching different conclusions, but that's quite normal in etymology :) and the fact that another scholar gave it a full academic analysis speaks in its favour. If it's all rubbish, a reviewer would just say so and move on.
    If it's RS that doesn't mean it's always right, but that it may be worth citing even in cases where opinions differ. Andrew Dalby 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible it is reliable. Much of the evidence being presented here has not been particularly persuasive, however. Do you honestly believe he "knows about 12 languages" (the implication being that he doesn't just know greetings and a few basic travel-related words, but rather has an in-depth knowledge of numerous languages)? Dezastru (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea :) I focused on what seemed most relevant. Andrew Dalby 00:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Made of Chalk

    I would appreciate some views on the validity of the website Made of Chalk, which has been used to support some assertions at Heart (band). It looks like a self published site, but it has a journalistic type form. The page in question is a review here. The statement being supported is "Throughout history Heart has been labeled as Hard Rock, Folk, Easy Listening, Heavy Metal, and Adult Contemporary, many times demonstrating two or more of these styles on the same album. Their album title Dog And Butterfly was a symbol of their sometimes contradictory styles, with the "Dog" side of the album focusing on hard rock tunes and the "Butterfly" side made up of acoustic folk music". The site has named reviewers, but does not seem to give any information about them, or about the site.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The site has an "about" page, which lists an editor and staff, but it also consistently describes them as "fans". The presence of an editor may push it into "borderline acceptable" territory. I'm usually pretty lenient when it comes to such sites; I would allow it for reviews, opinions, and analysis. I can understand why someone would object to its use, however. Also, Heart is a pretty big deal, and I would be surprised if you couldn't source this to a more reliable site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it seems likely that more well-known sources should be available if this is a widespread opinion about such a well-known and successful band. If not, you then have to address WP:DUE as well as WP:RS to include that material. If it passes the due weight hurdle then it may be best to simply attribute the information. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks, that seems a reasonable approach. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP info sourced from All Movie Guide

    Article on Eli Wallach. Is All Movie Guide[30] a reliable source for info about his life and career? NY Times seems to think so.[31] Does Wikipedia? Dezastru (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested comments from others at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Request_for_comments

    I have requested comments from others at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Request_for_comments because AcidSnow has blanked the '2005 unrest in Nowshera' section in the Persecution of Hindus article (one can see that at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=596664536&oldid=596650658), but I believe it was wrong to do so, as the references clearly say so (the references used were: "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". dawn.com. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014., "PCHR condemns the burning of Hindu Temple in Nowshera". Pak Tribune. Pak Tribune. July 01, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) and US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2006). The mob killed many Hindus in and around the temple. Church/temple destruction is also a form of 'persecution'. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Read WP:CANVAS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Kengor

    Source Paul Kengor. Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) Books (2010), pp. 226-227. The material is also provided on Ronald and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood. I prefer to use Kengor's book since it is more popular and presumably easier to verify.

    Article Hollywood blacklist Section and paragraph -- The blacklist begins. The paragraph will follow the one starting with "The other ten refused ..."

    Content The following is needed to make the discussion of the hearing more neutral. It currently leaves out important information.

    During the hearing, the committee presented evidence against members of the Hollywood Ten. This included communist party registration rolls, Daily Worker articles, New Masses bylines, party application forms, and membership card numbers. Lauren Bacall said that when the Committee for the First Amendment flew to Washington “We didn’t realize until much later that we were being used to some degree by the Unfriendly Ten. As a result, Bacall and her fellow committee members were involved in something “we knew nothing about.” Bogart angrily complained to Danny Kaye that members of the Committee for the First Amendment had “sold me out.” The California state legislature determined that the Committee for the First Amendment was a communist front. It was not, since most of its members were non-communist liberals who had been fooled by the communists. Members of the Committee for the First Amendment saw their reputation damaged and had to explain that they were not communists.

    Thanks for your time. LesLein (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bild

    I removed material from Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) and Thomas de Maizière that was cited to the German tabloid Bild.[32][33]. My rationale for deletion is:

    • Our Wikipedia article on Bild indicates that the source is not reliable: "Bild has been known to use controversial devices like sensational headlines and invented "news" to increase its readership."
    • When Bild came up on RSN in the past, all three editors who commented expressed significant concerns about its use:[34].
    • The cited report in Bild relies entirely on unnamed sources.

    Another editor restored the material noting that Reuters picked up the story. However, Reuters is not verifying or independently reporting on this - they're just repeating Bild's claim.[35]. I would appreciate comments on whether this material should be included from editors who are familiar with German media.GabrielF (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    While I generally agree that we should avoid tabloid sources such as Bild, I think there are circumstances in which doing so is warrated. So far, Bild seems to have a good track record when it comes to reporting on these surveillance disclosures. Its headlines may appear to be sensationalized, but I do not see any attempts to distort or misrepresent the facts. According to Der Spiegel, the German govt. has even confirmed that an exclusive report related to these disclosures by Bild is factually accurate. If I may briefly quote from Der Spiegel: "...a claim made by a mass-circulation newspaper that Germany's army knew about Prism in 2011 is, in fact, true..." -A1candidate (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If another source is able to provide independent confirmation, then there isn't an issue. However, I don't believe that we should accept Bild as a reliable source on the basis of one report. The National Enquirer broke the story that John Edwards had an affair. We would never accept a report in the Enquirer cited to unnamed sources on a similar matter.GabrielF (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The NSA's surveillance of Merkel's aides has been independently confirmed by Snowden himself. -A1candidate (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowden is not confirming the specific report in Bild. The quote from Snowden that you linked is: "The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to believe that she’s the only prominent German face who the National Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials." That is very different from the specific claim that Bild is making, namely that 300+ officials are being monitored including Thomas de Maizière specifically.GabrielF (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII

    Are any of the many online sources cited in this section of the article on Mary Faustina Kowalska reliable (by Wikipedia norms) for the statement, "After a failed attempt to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnation, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Holy Office included her works on a list he submitted to the newly elected Pope John XXIII in 1959"?

    Although this sounds somewhat like a conspiracy theory, I would not oppose it, if only it is judged to be based on a reliable source. I have discussed it here in the hope that someone (anyone other than the editor who has inserted the statement) would express an opinion. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have access to Prayer, Aspiration and Contemplation: Selections from the writings of John of St. Samson, O. Carm., mystic and charismatic, but the rest all appear to be self-published sources, mostly blog posts, making claims about third parties. They do not cite their sources. Daniel Klimek's [36] article "ON SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT - HISTORY SHOWS POPES VIEWS ON MYSTICS DIFFER" [37] might be useful if it indicated its sources; unfortunately, it doesn't. So, no, none of these meet Wikipedia reliable sources standards for that statement. This article [38] by John L. Allen from the National Catholic Reporter is reliable, but the Wikipedia article statement would need to be revised somewhat to reflect what the Allen article says. Dezastru (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The amount of information supporting the “failed attempt” statement is quite substantial, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. I’m confident that there are still many more sources of books, periodicals, information, etc. to be tapped. My next move is to contact all the sources in an effort to compile more verification. I’ll add additional references as they become available.AcuteInsight (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just got a tip that there is also a reference to Ottaviani's attempt to get Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnations in "Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII by Charles R. Gallagher, Society of Jesus New England [39]. It's $40, and I'm not buying another book just to have it rejected again. I'm going to try to order it through the library.AcuteInsight (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this unpublished paper by a PhD candidate a reliable source?

    This paper[40] is extensively used on our article on the Mosuo, an article that has suffered from NPOV problems. I don't find it cited in Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm inclined to remove it as well as other material fact tagged over a year ago, but would like other opinions first. I can't see a justification for using it. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that anything pre-PhD itself is reliable. Only after that point does it become suitably peer reviewed. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, I think your position is too broad here. It's at least plausible that this paper falls under the one exception to WP:SPS, namely that Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Blumenfield is an internationally recognized expert on the Na, her subsequent work has been both published and lauded by reliable third parties, and she says in the document that she's summarizing a planned book. I put more detail here. I'm not arguing that it is reliable, but I think it's not so easily dismissible as the average PDF on a grad student's web page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sitush is correct in that such a source needs some other reason to be seen as reliable, but the response at my talk page leaves me satisfied with leaving it in at the moment, although a comment on the talk page as well as attributing the statements seems appropriate. Thanks to both. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf "REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

    Is used as a source for a number of strong claims at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The query is as to whether it is a primary source and not a secondary one, and whether quotes taken from it are usable in the article where they might possibly be taken from a primary document out of full context. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The California Attorney General's report is primarily a secondary source in this context (although portions of it might be regarded as a primary source). The authors of the report collected and reviewed primary sources (evidence), which they are analyzing and interpreting. Primary sources would document the report authors' own involvement in the events in question (eg, video secretly recorded by the California Attorney General of ACORN workers engaging in conversations about prostitution). Secondary sources would be conclusions based on having reviewed primary sources (eg, a statement of the California Attorney General concluding that O'Keefe and Giles secretly recorded audio and video at ACORN offices). The portions that might be considered primary sources in certain contexts would be something like (p. 18), "On November 24, 2009, we interviewed Roach in our San Diego office.... We obtained from Roach a digital copy of the documents he recovered." Here the Attorney General's investigators describe their own involvement in collecting information. If someone wanted to write an analysis of investigations into the ACORN affair, this kind of statement would be considered a primary source.
    What are the statements in the Wikipedia article that there is a question about in terms of reliable sourcing? Dezastru (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Google translate or blog translate for article on Ukraine's Right Sector?

    There is a disagreement on Right Sector and Talk:Right Sector as to whether Right Sector leader, Dmytro Yarosh, should be quoted from a Ukrains’ka Pravda interview using one of two available sources:

    Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If quoting, definitely go with the Google-translated page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the original Pravda article, and here is the google translation of that article, instead of the comment. You'll have to scroll down to find the appropriate text. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Should never, ever, use a machine translation of a source. Risk of missing subtle nuances in the language and just plain errors in translations. You can also post to an appropriate Wikiproject asking for help with a translation or for a summary of the source if you aren't sure. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What about crimea.comments.ua: is this a reliable source? I can't tell if it's a comment, or article, or what. And why does the google translated text from it look similar to the google translated Pravda paragraph, but different in important ways? -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=597320206"