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

steve earle songs in films

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

Al-Arabiya and the Syrian civil war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed with above.

Moreover, regardless of the biases stated by their commentators, the news from Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and Breitbart.com are all reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown's personal website for bicycle related topics

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's probably because you don't know the topic very well, I'm guessing. Google "AASHTA" (example: [1]). As Always, Sheldon has The Answer. I honestly cannot think of a more widely cited source online for bike maintenance, and I speak as a long-term denizen of the Usenet cycling groups. His chain cleaning technique is known as the Sheldon Shake. And no, I am not close to the subject any more than any other cyclist who has used his website is close to the subject. I trusted Sheldon's advice and appreciated the amount of work he'd put into building his site, that's all. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some way above, we're told: While [Brown] may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage. At this point, it cannot be self-published, because a corpse is in no fit state to publish. Yes, it has editorial oversight (or "oversite"): This page tells us that "this site is being actively maintained, updated and expanded by his wife, Harriet Fell, and his close friend John Allen, co-author of most editions of Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics." This page is one in which we see Allen at work. (And who is Allen? This site explains.) Cycling for Dummies (a demographic perhaps not entirely unrepresented here) calls Brown a "great bicycle guru". The Urban Biking Handbook calls him an "authority on all things bicycle". Something titled 21 Nights in July: The Physics and Metaphysics of Cycling rather excitedly refers to him as a "bike mechanic and recently deceased genius". And he's cited in One Less Car, a book from an actual university press. And there's more of this kind of thing at Google Books. Yes he is a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. (And no I'm not related to him. Indeed, I first heard of him only a few months ago, years after his death.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Speech by UN Ambassodor- primary or secondary source?

Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [2] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [3].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Unless someone can demonstrate that this source is not authentic or is an inaccurate reproduction of this speech, I think that it's reliable as a primary source. Primary sources are allowed, although secondary sources are often preferred, especially when establishing weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my humble opinion, the source can only be used to verify the view of the source, and should be clearly attributed, and any content verified by that should be neutrally worded. I do not see it as a reliable source outside of what I have just stated. Secondary or tertiary reliable source(s) should be used for other content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Consumer Reports a reliable source?

In these two recent edits [4] [5] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage” [6]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source: Consumer Reports [7]

I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [8]. Puhlaa (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• There is no editorializing; the source found that ~65% of respondents that tried chiropractic said it helped; only ~50% of those who tried medication, yoga and pilates said it helped. Hence, the source concludes that "Chiropractic outperformed all other treatments and medication was equal to yoga and pilates." Moreover, the findings of the Consumer Reports survey are consistent with mainstream peer-reviewed research [9],[10] and [11], which also suggests chiropractors achieve high patient satisfaction. Further still, no sources have been presented that contradict these findings.Puhlaa (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A question... From the comments above it seems that there have been some editors who call the Consumer Reports a reliable source for a discussion of consumer opinion; No editor has yet called Consumer Reports an unreliable source. If Consumer Reports is thus considered reliable according to WP:RS, it seems from the comments that the next step is then to assess the quality of this specific survey published by Consumer Reports to decide if it is good enough for inclusion in the article? There have been some editors who have criticized the methodology of this particular survey, or the way the results are presented by the source. My question is, does Wikipedia provide guidelines or policy on how we are to critically evaluate the quality of this specific survey, or the way these authors have presented their data, so that we can assess for bias that could disqualify this specific report from inclusion in the article? If not, how do we determine if the criticisms of this specific CR report presented above are enough to warrant exclusion of the specific Consumer Reports survey? Puhlaa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Reports is clearly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If there are flaws in CR's methodology, have these alleged flaws been covered by other reliable sources? If not, I would think that in-text attribution ("According to Consumer Reports....") should be sufficient. Readers can accept/reject CR's findings based on the reputation of the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone disputes that CR is a widely-known, widely-read, generally-reliable source for their in-house evaluations of products and services; their own opinions on products and services are often worth including in our articles. I would be much less confident in asserting that they are a known, respected, or necessarily competent surveyor of consumer opinion. A voluntary survey involving a very small, self-selected fraction of CR's subscriber base just doesn't scream 'reliable' to me. (Organizations which do professional opinion polling don't report raw data for self-selected populations—they strive to avoid, to detect, and/or to compensate for over- or under-sampling of particular demographics.) The same survey that Puhlaa is pushing here also found that chiropractic treatment "helped a lot" for 41% of people who tried it to treat their allergy symptoms, and for 47% of people who tried it to treat their cold and flu—which strikes me as something of a red flag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, they are a reliable surce. The whole hair splitting about consumer test vs polling organization is a dodge. What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight and neutrality, not about the reliability of the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift, The text in question, sourced to Consumer Reports, has been in the article for years. The original edit that removed this longstanding text from the article [12] said "This is just opinion" in the edit summary. I restored the text [13]; my edit summary indicated that the information was sourced and should not be deleted. I brought the discussion here because I was quickly reverted [14] and the edit summary told me to "please read MEDRS". Here I have multiple editors confirming it is a reliable source, but some criticizing the methodology of the survey and some 'dodging' the subject (as you indicated). When you say "What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight...", are you suggesting that I should take this to the NPOV noticeboard instead? I don't want to appear to be forum shopping, I feel that I have endured enough 'subtle' personal attacks just for challenging this deletion of sourced material. The editor that reverted my restoration of the longstanding text said "please read MEDRS", so forgive me if I seem confused as to what to do next. I am open to clear advice please. Puhlaa (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A self-selected survey doesn't really show you anything. If you took the question "Is Barack Obama a good president?", and posted up a web survey, you'd get very different results depending on if you posted your link to the survey on The Drudge Report vs. The Huffington Post. We'd generally exclude such results altogether. To actually be putting in numbers, you need scientific, double-blind studies, with patients who got "real" chiropractic treatment, vs. a placebo (something that would seem like chiropractic treatment but actually is not), and evaluate how many of the "actual" group vs. control group evaluate their treatment as effective. I don't know if such a study has been done, but that's the type of thing you're looking for with MEDRS. An anonymous, self-selected web survey isn't even close. Consumer Reports is great, and reliable on a lot of things, but not on this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Only 2% of respondents used Chiropractic treatment to treat an allergy, 41% of whom found it effective which is only about 1% off all respondents. This source obviously fulfills our verifiability policy. I get the feeling that this is more of a WP:NPOV/WP:IDONTLIKEIT dispute than an actual verifiability issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, the findings of this Consumer Reports survey are consistent with multiple peer-reviewed sources in mainstream medical journals that have also found Chiropractic care to rate higher than other back pain treatments for patient satisfaction [15], [16], and [17]. The results are also consistent with another Consumer Reports survey done a couple years earlier [18]. Moreover, no source has been found that contradicts any of these findings. IMO, this is not a discussion of treatment efficacy that needs double-blind RCTs to answer, but one of satisfaction with care, which seems to be well suited to survey analysis.Puhlaa (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

{od}A list of outdated primary sources doesn't carry much weight. Per wp:MEDRS, we look for peer-reviewed, current, secondary sources (ideally systematic reviews) as the best choice for medical assertions. The Consumer Reports piece is neither peer-reviewed nor secondary. If no comparable MEDRS existed, it might be of interest, but that is not the case. We have Cochrane systematic reviews such as PMID 21248591, PMID 20393942, PMID20640863. How could we justify the use of lower-quality primary sources to challenge them? Just being a reliable source isn't the point. We want the best available reliable sources. This doesn't come close. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

LeadSong Dog, you may be mistaken about the topic of the text and thus the relevance of the sources. The very well-known secondary sources from Cochrane that you list are all discussing the efficacy of spinal manipulation compared to other treatments. No sources discussed here ever contradict the current scientific consensus that spinal manipulation only achieves equal outcomes to other back pain treatments; no longstanding text that was deleted challenges this scientific consensus either. As I tried to clearly state above, this discussion is about the deletion of text discussing patient satisfaction from a section of the article entitled "Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage". In the absence of any secondary sources on the topic of patient satisfaction and the absence of any sources at all that contradict the above stated list of primary sources from mainstream medical journals, I think that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS make plenty of room for inclusion of this material. If you are aware of any secondary sources that deal with patient satisfaction, then they would indeed be the preferred sources to use, as you suggest. I am fairly familiar with this literature and am not aware of any secondary sources that discuss patient satisfaction, or any source at all that suggests chiropractic patients are not actually more satisfied with their back treatment than other patients. In the discussions of treatment efficacy in the article, under the section "Effectiveness" the Cochrane reviews you list definitely get the most weight!Puhlaa (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So what evidence do we have that the methodology used by CR is valid, if there is no secondary review? In any case, the CR article does not support the statement as put. It makes no assertion about "the public", it speaks about "respondents" or "of those who used [treatment x]". The explanatory "Guide to the charts" section says: "The red bars represent the proportion of readers using a treatment for a condition who said it “helped a lot.”" It does not address "satisfaction" and certainly does not address whether anyone "considered" chiropractic to outperform. We use secondary sources to do that sort of interpretation for us. If no secondary source thought the survey worth commenting upon, who are we to infer it to be significant? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

LeadSOngDog, based on the comments above, I don't know that editors here agree with your sentiment that we need a secondary source, which discusses the consumer reports survey methodology, in order to call Consumer Reports reliable. I am also not aware that it is a general standard that things must be covered by secondary sources to be included? The WP:MEDRS standard, as far as I am aware, says that no lower-quality sources can be used to contradict higher-quality sources and higher-quality sources are preferred when available. Also, I have asked for clarification above, but it seems that there are no policies in place to guide the assessment of individual reports from sources that are generally considered reliable. As CR seems to be generally considered reliable here, it is odd that editors keep bringing-up specific challenges of the methodology of this specific report? In response to your criticism of the wording used, at the respective chiropractic talk page, the original longstanding text that was deleted has been modified to now read: "A 2011 consumer report survey of 45,000 readers found that chiropractic outperformed all other available back and neck pain treatments." The text: "chiropractic outperformed all other treatments" is a direct quote from the source, the rest of the text has been added in attempts to adequately attribute and qualify the source to appease editors who don't like the methodology of this specific survey. Finally, there is another consumer reports source that asked subscribers directly about patient satisfaction [[19]]. It, like every other source that exists on the topic, found high satisfaction for chiropractic patients relative to all other forms of therapy. Would you be more content if we only included this older (2009) survey, and not the newer (2011) survey that uses the words "outperformed"? [[[User:Puhlaa|Puhlaa]] (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, not terribly useful, for much the same reason: the sampling methodology is not even stated, let alone peer-reviewed. Wikipedia does not need to include everything that anyone ever publishes on a topic, we can wait for someone to produce a useful source on this aspect. To be explicit though, much of what Consumer Reports publishes is reliable for some purposes, but not everything for all purposes. These popularity surveys don't cut it for several reasons, from the methodology on. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ma'an News

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

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

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

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

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

It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC,^[20][21] the Guardian,^[22][23][24] al-Jazeera,^[25][26] and the New York Times.^[27][28][29] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quotes from WP:RS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I accidentally rediscovered this November entry still on this noticeboard's talk page: Recourse when partisans "converge" against source?. If these individuals would ask about specific information ref'd from the source in specific articles that would be fine. Obviously, that is not what they do. Haven't had a chance to see how many times it's been done since that November entry. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: Your accusation that I am creating "strawman racist arguments" is without any base in reality, and a personal attck. I never accused User:AnkhMorpork of "saying" that "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability.", I just observed that he treated them as that when he wrote

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

No matter how much you try to change the discussion, the fact is that he measured how true or false a report was by comparing it to israeli reports. This does not bode well for his ability to understand WP:NPOV. PerDaniel (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question reformulated to re-start constructive discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree and take issue with your argument. In all the sources you proffer, Ma'an is not used for anything `in which its reliability or neutrality is a concern. They are not used for a factual happenstance, i.e. the Israelis killed so and so or the Arabs killed so and so. They are merely used for quotes they claimed were given to them and the quotes are mostly uncontroversial. Their neutrality or reliability is not a great concern in these instances because the person being quoted can simply deny they made the statement and make Ma'am look ridiculous. On the other hand, in the instance of a factual happenstance, especially as it relates to the Arab-Israel conflict, their reliability and neutrality is a matter of concern because they can modify the "facts" to suit their POV. If no sources can be found that quote Ma'an for a controversial factual happenstance this would reinforce the majority position that they are generally unreliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and also recall the fact that ma'an apparently does not withdraw its false claims (contrary to a specific WP:RS criterion), nor distance itself from ludicrous "op-eds". As far as other media quoting ma'an, I would suggest the following compromise: agreed that established RS can be cited as quoting ma'an (presumably relying on independent checking by the RS themselves), but avoid sourcing information based on ma'an reports itself, similarly to the current status-quo with regard to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Tkuvho (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer:

• Sources don't have to be neutral in order to be reliable. Lots of sources have a bias. The Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias and the Washtington Times tends to have a conservative bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See Wikipedia:V#Neutrality.
• How would determine whether a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking if not by examining how it's perceived by other reliable sources?
• I disagree that saying someone was killed in a war is contentious and how do you explain the fact that is that it's been coroborated by another source?[30]
• I'm sorry, but I don't see a strong argument why this particular source is unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable I don't see any reason Ma'an News Agency would lie and if they erred I'm sure 14 Israeli newspapers would point out the error. And I don't see any proof reported by WP:RS that they have not corrected any important - as opposed to trivial - errors. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable As per

The Ma'an news agency, which is a fairly reliable source of news about both the Gaza Strip and the PA, has lost its server for the time being. The site offers an apology to its many readers and promises to come back soon.' The Jewish Press November 14th, 2012.

This is a patent bid to deny wikipedia sourcing to an organ which comprehensively covers one side of the conflict, whose version of events is notoriously underreported. Many other mainstream newspapers, and academic works one can check at Google Books, use it and attest that it provides fairly reliable information on the area. (2) Mainstream sources largely do not cover, out of disattention, neglect or indifference, much of what happens in that area, if it only concerns some Palestinian tragedy or injury. To endeavour to invalidate Ma'an is to try and deny wikipedia to reference anything that doesn't come from the major western and Israeli news sources. I.e. this is one more attempt to ensure that the systemic bias of Western reportage is maintained on wikipedia. The actual case, of the gaza fisherman, is ridiculous. They are shot at and have their boats impounded, while in their own legal waters, every other day, as dozens of googlable articles and books would underline. It ain't big news in the West or Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable enough. It doesn't need to be impeccable or unbiased (as if there is such a thing). What I'm not seeing is any reason to doubt that the information that the source is being suggested to support is inaccurate - quite the contrary. Formerip (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-formulation rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which extremist views? From an op-ed or a news report? How does publishing an op-ed, extremist or otherwise, impact the reliability of an outlet's news reports? What in WP:RS supports that view? As far as widely acknowledged as extremist, by who is that widely acknowledged? nableezy - 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given a reasoned opinion on when this source is likely to be reliable and when it isn't. If you're going to get belligerent about it, I'm not going to discuss it further - a big part of the reason I don't work in this area much. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Belligerent about it? Excuse me, but I am not being belligerent about it. You've given an opinion, I am asking for the reasons. And I am doing so politely. You wrote that publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist is why you feel that the source is not reliable. I am asking you to back that position up by both addressing the question on what position that they have published that is widely acknowledged as extremist, and further how WP:RS supports the idea that even if that were true that they would not be a reliable source. nableezy - 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Your usual method is applicable to usual sources. But this a highly unusual source which publishes vituperative racist slurs. Since you regard this as inconsequential, can you state what statements you would consider significant when assessing a source's general reliability. Ankh.Morpork 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

If you want to pose a question about PMW, whatever that is, please pose it. We consider sources independently of each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing off topic discussion

The truth on pigs? I tried to research the pig situation and came across an interesting CNN article here which seems to suggest that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged the pig problem. Namely, after making the pig claim, the article goes on to say that Barak called the attackers "hooligans." Does Barak know more than we do, or does CNN know less than we do? If anybody has any relevant information this would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) How is this sub-thread relevant to this board? Please explain, or move it to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be a question about reliability of a source. Tom Harrison Talk 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) If CNN got its information on pigs from ma'an, and if this information is as fantastic as it seems to be, then this is evidence that the fact of ma'an being cited by CNN does not support ma'an reliability, on the contrary. Tkuvho (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. A source can be reliable for statement X but not statement Y. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC) And from which policy do we derive this opinion? ► Belchfire-TALK 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC) @Belchfire: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explicitly states this: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I understand that User:A Quest For Knowledge feels that ma'an meets the requirements of WP:RS. However, the discussion above indicates that a number of editors disagree. It is not clear why it should be obvious that ma'an is more reliable than PMW, which is generally avoided in sourcing articles. User:WLRoss accepted the framework of this discussion, and made some substantive objections. I responded in detail above in what is hopefully a similarly substantive way. I would encourage you to participate in the substantive discussion rather than attempting to redefine the debate away from the issue being discussed, which is the reliability or otherwise of ma'an. ANI reports do not contribute to a substantive discussion. Tkuvho (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Have you read the instructions at the top of this page? I suggest that you do so. We rarely make blanket statements of reliability of a source. Everything depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I agree, and I am similarly not looking for a blanket statement. Nonetheless, PMW is generally avoided in sourcing wiki pages, and it remains to be determined whether ma'an should. If you feel there is a substantive difference between PMW and ma'an, please present evidence to this effect. But I can't see how one can resolve a substantive issue without addressing its substance. Given the kind of rhetoric User:Nableezy engaged in above, your choice of target of ANI report is surprising. Tkuvho (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) The top of this page isn't a Wikipedia policy. Again, what policy are you drawing on? ► Belchfire-TALK 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC) WP:V. WP:RECENT is also well worth considering in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, OK. That's about what I thought - you aren't basing that on any policy. This: ("We rarely make blanket statements of reliability of a source. Everything depends on context.") is a fictional construct that you've devised for the convenience of whatever argument you're trying to make. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I asked you a question at 20:22, 31 December 2012, could you please answer it? nableezy - 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)This thread is not about PMW. If you have a specific article, source and content regarding PMW that you would like to discuss, feel free to start a separate discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC) This thread is indeed about a specific article, namely Operation Pillar of Defense. This point was emphasized both in the original post by User:AnkhMorpork and in my response to it. Please re-read the original post. Tkuvho (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Please reread my comment. I said, if you have a specific article, source and content regarding PMW that you would like to discuss, feel free to start a separate discussion.(emphasis added). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Why not just collapse/hide this detour - either here or in a new section about whatever the topic is. CarolMooreDC 20:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Best source for reliability concerns

Regarding the following:

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

I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [31][32]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Examiner.com

Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [33]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Where on earth did you get the idea that's why they're blacklisted?Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely it is the blog-like nature that is the issue, not whether it criticizes WP? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Examiner is an WP:SPS and was being used to make claims about third-parties which is against WP:V. Specifically, its use violated conditions #2 and #3 of WP:SELFPUB. If there's a particular article that is usable as a source, that particular article can be white-listed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know it was black-listed, just that it is in use in a lot of our articles still. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion to black list the Examiner is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And the discussion on the spam-blacklist talk page that resulted in blacklisting is here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009#Examiner.com. I'll also add that examiner.com still appears in a lot of articles probably because pages on that site have been whitelisted many times, you'll see if you search MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for the string "examiner\.com", so any clean-up would have to account for the whitelisted entries. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Determination on reliability of Portuguese source needed

I need someone who reads Portuguese to assess the reliability of a Portuguese language source. The query relates to notability claims made at our article on Areopagus Lodge (which is being discussed at AfD). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've asked editors of our Language Reference Desk to comment on this discussion.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The questions are the usual ones that come up in AFD discussions when non-English sources are used... does the source actually support what is said in the article? Are there nuances of language that we should be aware of? Is is reliable? Self-published? Can we find out anything about the author? etc. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's an internal source. The gentlemen that run the site represent themselves as Masons writing on behalf of promulgating Free Masonry. (Both messrs. Leite and Nascimento are referred to on various other websites as associated with masonry.) The author, Jeronimo Borges, who is not listed as a principle of the website, may be either a retired professor or a religious professional according to Linkedin (most likely the first, given Iberian naming conventions), but I am not going to sign up there to read the profiles.
• The source's claims are consistent with and support the other sources. I can't speak for the host's or author's standing within Free Masonry but the site is awfully detailed and far too oconsistent to be considered a hoax, and given the consistency with the apparently more independent other sources I see no reason to doubt what is said. It would be the same as a website run by people calling themselves Jesuits giving details on a local Jesuit institution recognized in other sources as such. On its own it wouldn't be enough to establish an article, but it seems a reasonable ancillary resource. (The two other sources are a book, and what appears to be a public radio station.) It's neither ifndependent nor peer-reviewed, but, given that, there's no reason to view it as suspect for what it is. If there's any real problem here it's going to be one of notability of the topic, rather than reliability or the sources. And since there's no reason to doubt the claim this is the first Masonic mission in Brazil I would be well-inclined to retain the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input... your replies are thoughtful and appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to unwatch here, so if anyone has questions they can go on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reserve powers of the Crown"

Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick[35]: There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.

Article: Australian head of state dispute

Content:

Under the conventions of the Westminster system, the Governor-General's powers are almost always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown. The Governor-General may use the reserve powers of the Crown, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

Discussion: It is the contention of one editor that the article's wording, specifically the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is supported by the statement from Barwick. In fact, as Barwick notes, the Australian Governor-General (Sir John Kerr, in this famous instance) is given his express powers by the Constitution, which "leaves no room for any such notion (of reserve powers of the Crown)".

Several additional cites are provided, purporting to source the wording, but only one of these contains the phrase, and that is a low-level source aimed at schoolchildren, which sums up the entire subject of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs.

When pressed, Miesianical is unable to explain the direct contradiction of his opinion, nor provide any exact sources. The key point is that the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are directly assigned in the Constitution. They are not the reserve powers of the Queen. Defining them as "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely obfuscates the reality.--Pete (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring was not polite enough to alert me to his post above. He has misrepresented the situation. In fact, he contested the use of the two words "the Crown" in the phrase "the reserve powers of the Crown", deeming them to be inadmissable, as their use was "unsourced". Six sources using the prhase "reserve powers of the Crown" were then found; the location of the phrase within each either noted by page number in the footnote or easily disocverable by reading the linked article or web page. The sources meet WP:RS; they were each selected because they pertain directly to the governor-general of Australia.

The sentence Australian head of state dispute that contains the words "reserve powers of the Crown" always stated the governor-general may use the reserve powers; Pete/Skyring twice edited the sentence himself so it read "The governor-general may use the reserve powers". If he now contests whether or not the governor-general may use those powers, that is another matter altogether. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The source provided above does not support the wording in the article. In fact it rules it out entirely. I'd like your comments on this discrepancy. Please. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that there are dozens of high quality sources on this topic, I'd suggest that you consult them. Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube

I'm wondering is YouTube a reliable source? Like YouTube videos of interviews with recording artists? A lot of YouTube sources are being used in the Brandy Norwood article. I've tried to remove them because I think it's not reliable but Brandy's fans who keep reverting my edits say it is. — Oz 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links:

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.

This needs to be evaluated on an individual basis - and for an interview, the first question is whether it has been uploaded by the owners of the material. If it hasn't, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, and shouldn't be linked too at all. If it has been uploaded by the copyright owner, the normal requirements for reliable sourcing then apply to the video - YouTube isn't the 'source', those responsible for making it are, and this needs to be assessed accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Most YouTube videos are not reliable. It depends on who makes and uploads the video. For example:

• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and BBC News uploads the video via their official YouTube channel, it would be considered reliable generally speaking.
• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and someone else uploads the video, it would not be considered reliable since the user could have altered the video. It is also, most likely, a copyright violation.
• If an unreliable source conducts an interview with a person, it's unreliable regardless of who uploads the video.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the replies. One more thing, this YouTube video (which is being used as a source in the Brandy Norwood article) was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan. Can it still be used as a source? — Oz 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. I'm not sure I've heard of Brandy Norwood, but if she's a star, you may be able to find other sources to use instead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, that last one is not reliable for the exact reason you mentioned: "was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan." I wrote a cute essay: WP:VIDEOREF Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

SteveHoffman.tv

The site seems to be run by Steve Hoffman, a music engineer of some repute. An article from his website is currently being used at the article George Harrison (which will be nominated for FA status this week) to cite the following info:

On 12 November, the three living Beatles met for the last time for a luncheon at Harrison's hotel in New York, with McCartney flying in from London with his fiancee Heather Mills. The party laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired to leave the three ex-Beatles alone together for the last time.

While the info is definitely in the source cited, I am not certain that the source itself meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is in the format of a message board, for one thing, which raises some immediate flags. While I don't think Mr Hoffman simply invented facts that sounded nice, I am wary about citing his article if others doubt its reliability. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The top of that post says "British Mirror". I assume that that's a British newspaper? If so, why don't you just cite that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked, and I probably should have mentioned that I assumed it was a newspaper, too. I've checked, and can find no record of its existence, assuming Hoffman isn't referring to the Daily Mirror. If that is what he's referring to, their online archives don't seem to have it. After checking I assumed it was a name Hoffman gave to his original coverage of the music business (through his website, outside of a formal publication), but on second thought that doesn't seem too likely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's the Daily Mirror, which was officially published as The Mirror for a short time. The same report seems to have been published in several papers in the same stable (Trinity Mirror). See [36]. These are all basically reliable tabloids, but not excactly high quality sources (Birmingham Evening Mail; The People) . Paul B (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better source for the same article: [37]. Formerip (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the version from The People transmitted through HighBeam. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, Paul, I cross-posted and didn't see your link. Howeever, looking at your link, it's not the same article. Formerip (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, I've accidentally linked to the wrong HighBeam page. Still, the same report seems to have been published in several Trinity Mirror publications, Paul B (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, guys! Would you say any of those links/publications are high-quality enough for a Featured article? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In RS terms, the HighBeam/People link certainly cuts it. FA will also be looking at the quality of the content - you'll just have to see what people say about it when it goes up for review. Good luck. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The People is a daily newspaper, and absent of anything to contrary, we normally assume newspapers to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, guys! That's one of just a handful of sourcing issues left at the article, so I really appreciate the help. (I knew I should have signed up for one of those Highbeam accounts...) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Evanh2008: I maintain a "Reliable Sources Search Engine" that you may find useful in case you need more sources. A link to it is available on my user page, under "Tools I find useful". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would never trust the The People [38] (a Sunday paper, by the way) without a second source. Here are some recent examples: [39] [40] [41] [42] and a selection of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission on the grounds of accuracy [43] (the PCC is generally regarded as inadequate but not everyone wants to take on the People's lawyers in court) NebY (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

toshplumlee.info

Resolved

 – Now at AfD. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The "References" and "External links" section of William Robert Plumlee contains a link to http://toshplumlee.info/ , which appears to be a collection of primary source government documents obtained via the FOIA. Who is responsible for the website and gathering the information is not indicated, plus some of the documents appear to have comments "filling in" whatever information was redacted (e.g. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/fbi9o.PDF). Furthermore, the documents appear to be cherry-picked in that other primary source information on the subject can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). I believe this to be an unreliable source, however, I hope to obtain a second opinion on whether or not this could be removed from both sections of the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The external links are the least of its problems. This unsourced BLP should go to AfD. Trying to fix the link problem is like trying to put a band aid on someone missing their head. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at Afd. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Robert Plumlee. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like to send something to Afd until I can make sure that someone doesn't come back with the assertion that there are reliable sources. Location (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

pakistanarmy.gov.pk

Although a government website I am curious if this is in fact RS for use in the Kashmir conflict article, currently it is used to support this text "Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population" I cannot see it as a RS for issues relating to the Kashmir problem at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that if it was an official website for the Pakistan Army, it could be cited for the opinion of the army - though not necessarily for the opinion of 'Pakistan' on the issue. Pakistan is at least formally a parliamentary democracy, and the army doesn't get to decide opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a need to use the Army's website as a source for this rather than the many high quality books, journal articles, etc, on the topic? The Army's website is not a good source for anything other than the Army. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

humanevents.com reference in War on Women

• Source [44]
• Article War on Women
• Content

Pro-life activist Lila Rose says "a 'real War on Women' is being fought by Planned Parenthood" , citing the story of Tonya Reaves bleeding to death from a botched abortion performed at Planned Parenthood. Rose says Planned Parenthood hides medical emergencies by lying to women who call them for information by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic. Rose also says, “Planned Parenthood is engaged in numerous illegal, unethical and abusive activities that support the sexual trafficking of minors, sex and race based abortion, failing to report sexual abuse of underage girls, accounting fraud in California, and nine medical emergency 911 calls in the last year alone.”

• Author of source [45]

This has been discussed on the Talk page of this article. The issue is with source 1, which needs verification from this noticeboard that it is a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The first source could be used as a RS for the views of Rose, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE in the article in question. In general, mentioning unsupported allegations like this in articles is not very helpful. The second source is also an opinion column, and does not support the assertion that it was a "botched abortion". a13ean (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the word "botched" might be a tad aggressive, however I think the point of the reference was only to cooroborate the death.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a War on Women article at all is undue weight, and most people disagree that there is such a ridiculous thing. This edit would show the true war on women, and the fact that Planned Parenthood lied about the safety of abortion is supported by audio tape from actual calls to Planned Parenthood and an article from a reliable author, so it is not an “unsupported allegation.” What is an “unsupported allegation”, is the “War on Women”. It is helpful to the article because out of an incredibly bias article on Wikipedia, it would be one true fact to add some truth to the article, and it certainly relates to the topic of the War on Women, which is waged by Planned Parenthood. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of things, from molecules to musicians to mathematical proofs and even memes. Because the phrase "War on Women" has taken on a life of its own (like others including "War on Christmas" for example) we have a page for it here. Even though the title itself might seem to be pushing a POV, it's still our job to write as neutral an article as possible about it. How is it commonly used? Much in the way it's being described in the article. There are clearly arguments that could be made for the inclusion of something along the lines of the above, but your reasoning here is not among them. a13ean (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is supported by sources. Your job on this noticeboard is to verify the reliability of the source, not argue about what should be included in the article. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me for her views, but for gender based abortions see here Pretty sure sources are there for the rest also. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And he won the NPOV Barnstar of Merit. Sounds like the conclusion of RSN is that it's a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NPR reference in War On Women

• Source NPR
• Article War on Women
• Content In Arizona, legislators passed a bill protecting doctors from wrongful birth suits. Under the legislation, doctors who don't inform mothers about prenatal problems would not be liable for malpractice.

The issue at hand is the second reference. The statement as presented above implies that the NPR reference is making a statement that the Arizona legislation would prevent doctors (in Arizona) from being liable for malpractice. Not only does the source not say this, but it actually contradicts this supposition by saying The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts .  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you perhaps suggest an alternate wording which does not make use of the word malpractice or clarifies that case of Arizona's case verses other states? Removing the second line requires the reader to click through to see a definition for a not particularly common term. Some of the confusion perhaps arises from the fact that others, like myself, might assume that "intentional or grossly negligent acts" includes all malpractice (and would have made this law rather pointless), but a quick look at Medical malpractice reveals that this is not the case. a13ean (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't make any such suggestion with respect to this source, because this source says nothing about malpractice with respect to the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assement? Though if you can make a suggestion on how to fix this, I'm all ears.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What does this source have to do with the War on Women? Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that this is part of the "War on Women"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually no where. Good luck if you try to delete it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several state legislatures have passed or are considering legislation to prevent parents from suing doctors who fail to warn them of fetal problems, which are sometimes known as wrongful birth lawsuits. Some of the laws, such as one proposed in Arizona, make exceptions for "intentional or grossly negligent acts", while others do not.(Both refs here)

I've always been a big fan of sticking very closely to sources when the subject is controversial, although it sometimes makes for dull prose. a13ean (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll throw it in and see what happens.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research by synthesis

Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for this question. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, my fault - I suggested Futurist110 asked here, when I meant WP:ORN. Lack of sleep does funny things to my brain... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I get the same way. Also my typing goes to heck in a handbasket.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Guardian article titled "Israel's colonisation of Palestine..."

Here's another from the I/P morass, attempted blanket dismissal of the Guardian in order to discredit this [46] article, as per discussion at Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine source to support "President Carter thinks Israeli policies amount to colonization of Palestine." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I gather that it could therefore be integrated with other RS that represent the same POV, correct? The issue relates to a debate that has evolved from outright denial of sources maintaining such a position to a debate about majority POV in relation to including a country on a list. When an editor introduced this source it was immediately and summarily dismissed. The content dispute is slightly more involved, but I won't delve into that any further here.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Asking if it can be "integrated with other RS that represent the same POV" sets off alarm bells about synthesis. The best way to use this baord might be to ask, "Is X a reliable source to say Y." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Guardian article is a fine source for President Carter's views on the matter. Tom is right that other sources may or may not be good. They would need to be considered individually.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the concern about synthesis. Thanks for clarifying the best practice for posing questions here.

The issue at hand is one that concerns precedence of a certain characterization (colonial), and the subsequent criticism of that characterization. I think that the precedence of the characterization (by the UN, etc) itself should suffice, but one editor has been dismissing the UN source, too, while pointing at other sources criticizing the characterization, when his dismissal of this article occurred. Please excuse this paragraph if it is beyond the scope of this board. --Ubikwit (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the Guardian article is RS for the view of Jimmy Carter. Additionally, it would be fine for the article on colonialism to talk about Israel, provided the content conforms to NPOV. But, looking at the talk page discussion, it seems a helluvalot more complicated, and establishing that you have an RS doesn't necessarily validate the edit you are trying to make. I will comment over there. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Continental Kennel Club

Continental Kennel Club Currently being used in numerous articles a general source or to establish a type of dog as a 'purebred breed': American Mastiff, Sussex Spaniel, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog.

In 2000, the breed was recognized by the Continental Kennel Club as purebred. - American Mastiff

Although not recognised by any major kennel clubs, the Russian Spaniel is recognised by the Continental Kennel Club [...] - Russian Spaniel

There is an article here that explains some of their practices and why I have an issue with them as a reliable source (I found it as a citation in the Dog breeds article). You may have to ctrl-F 'continental' to find it. --TKK ^{bark !} 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PopDirt.com for biographical info on notables

Is the website PopDirt.com reliable for biographical material on notables? I couldn't find an "About" page on the site, but it looks like someone's entertainment or gossip blog. This PopDirt piece was being used to support the following passage in the Prince Azim article:

Prince Azim is known internationally, famous for throwing lavish parties. In the past, Azim has thrown parties with guest lists that have included Michael Jackson...

I also found other instances of that site being cited by Wikipedia, mostly in music-related articles. Here are six examples:

• Article: Heroes & Thieves
• Citation
• Passage: In December 2005, they completed half the album and experienced what Carlton described as a "whirlwind moment", during which they recorded five songs in two weeks. Carlton said on her website that Perry was "fantastic and genuine and really inspiring".

• Article: I Am Me
• Citation
• Passage: She also sang "Boyfriend" on the October 21 episode of The Tonight Show...

• Article: List of music videos set in London
• Citation
• Passage: Assertion that the video for "About You Now" was shot in London.

• Article: Exodus (Hikaru Utada album)
• Citation
• Passage: During an interview in the United States whilst promoting This Is the One in 2009, when asked about Exodus, Utada said that Exodus was "a very experimental album. I was like a mad scientist working away in an underground laboratory", going on to say "I had the time of my life but it was a very intense, introverted process".

• Article: Hook Me Up (song)
• Citation
• Passage: The duo promoted the track on Australian television, including Today...

• Article: Boyfriend (Ashlee Simpson song)
• Citation
• Passage: Simpson performed "Boyfriend" on Sessions@AOL on the Internet...

So is it reliable for this material? Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any indication this is more than an anonymous website - not a reliable source, certainly not for blp material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Obituaries and Sun Myung Moon

Sun Myung Moon passed away recently, and his obituaries in the New York Times, LA Times and The Washington Post all state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact, stating respectively:

Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954.

He had a son with her and another with Kim Myung-hee, who lived with Moon during the 1950s.

Meanwhile, his first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding.

These three were used to source the rather bland statement "Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954" to help explain the total number of children in the infobox, but several users at the page have reverted this, claiming that these sources are "heavily biased" or "rumors". Outside input would be appreciated. a13ean (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you asking at RSN?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An understandable question; were the subject still living I would have asked at BLP/N, and if people were primarily suggesting that this was POV or undue I would have taken it to NPOV/N. Surprisingly, it seems like people are contesting that this is unproven or rumors, so I brought it here. If you think there's a better place for this sort of thing in the future let me know; I don't have any particular attachment to RS/N, it just seemed like the best fit. a13ean (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of a New York Times obituary as a source

I wrote the following without having seen the above: There's a debate at Talk:Sun Myung Moon over whether Moon's article can include the sentence " Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954.". This has been cited to three obituaries but the only one that specifically states this is the New York Times[47] which says "he fathered a child in 1954". Another editor is calling this a media rumour and arguing that it can't be included unless a sentence saying "was later seduced or raped in Japan and did not come back to him until his next marriage" is included also. This claim is from the website of the True Parents Organization[48] which I don't see as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is the source (New York Times) who says it is a rumours. Read the citation above. And it is a Times hostile to the article subject (Sun Myung Moon) because of rivality with Washington Times (which he estabilished). It is about POV or NPOV, because position of the article subject (Moon) to this question should be part of the article. Otherwise is just a half-truth and therefore a POV. Question is, from where media get the information (most probably from tparents.org) and other sources with even less relevance. On the other hand it is exceptional information, so it is necessary to bring exceptional evidence, not just a sentence from the news, where is questionable, if this information was verified and where. Therefore it is not possible to present it as simple fact. If someone fathered a child, proove it or dont mention it at all. Honestly, looks like it is out of Reliable sources noticeboard scope and there is necessary to search consensus on the talk page.--DeeMusil (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DeeMusil: "Actually, it is the source (New York Times) who says it is a rumours"—I beg to differ. Taking "Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954" from the NYT source and de-constructing it we find two independent sentences joined by the grammatical conjunction and. The first concerns rumours, denied by the church and the second is a statement that "... he fathered a child in 1954" --Senra (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence presents it (or makes a "hint") as an conclusion of first sentence, which is a rumour. So please consider, from where they get the information then, when not a from rumours or source presented here as unreliable? Do they have a DNA test? Public statement of rev Moon? Or do they have something to prove it? No they don't have anything. NYT present this half-truth correctly as part of "rumours" in one sentence. Wikipedia should take media bias with special care and publish full story or nothing.--DeeMusil (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also read the NYTimes obit as supporting the article content that he fathered a child in 1954. If there were any question about how to parse that sentence, the fact that the same concept is echoed in two other obits from respected newspapers should resolve any lingering questions. Zad68 9:28 am, Today (UTC−5)

Sorry, but I think you're misreading this. It says he was dogged by rumors at the time, and that he fathered a child. I don't see a reason to excise the statement, and there's certainly a strong story out there that he was unfaithful to his first wife. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DeeMusil: I'm going to be bold here. I have explained why I do not think that "... he fathered a child in 1954" is a rumour. I accept that, because the two sentences are conjuncted, there might be an implication (and only an implication) that (as an example and badly paraphrasing the source) Sun Myung Moon's 1954 child was as a result of rumoured sexual relations with his disciples. This would clearly be WP:SYNTH. We would never be so bold to include this in an article without additional reliable sources to back it up. However, The New York Times is clearly WP:RS for the quotation "... [Sun Myung Moon] fathered a child in 1954" or for the derived statement In 1954, Sun Myung Moon had a child out of wedlock. We take a reliable source and quote it or paraphrase it's content and if possible, back up contentious statements with further reliable sources. We do not ask how a reliable source got its information; nor do we require them to tell us whether they used DNA tests or public statements to confirm their own information --Senra (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to remove this continue. It's hard not to believe that these are Moon supporters who don't like what the obituaries say. It's pretty obvious that the child he fathered in 1954 wasn't by the woman he married in 1960 who was 17 in 1960 Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that's not in question, as one of the obits (plus even the non-rs tparents.org) gives the woman's name. At any rate it's still being removed. a13ean (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the UK paper, "The Independent" a "tabloid journalism" source for BLP references?

The British paper known as "The Independent" used to be considered one of the United Kingdoms most respected newspapers. But time and a buyout, as well as a change in both format, style and coverage seems to have moved the paper into the realm of "Tabloid Journalism". This is not an issue in regards to the papers format size, but its coverage of news and events.

In researching this out I found a number of indicators that would seem to show the paper as just such a publication, especially over the last few years. Criticism of the publication, its coverage and headlines, and a perception of a lack of fact checking could lead one to speculate....but is that accurate. Is "The Independednt" a tabloid journalism source?

This is in regards to the article Paloma Faith and the source used for dating the subject's date of birth, which appears to be in dispute. We want to get this right....and since there was some recent news coverage involving this paper and its Wikipedia article in regards to the Leveson Inquiry, I felt it best to ask the community for a discussion to determine how to handle this source moving forward. (Disclaimer: I have removed a good deal of content in only the Paloma Faith article, over this being a "tabloid journalism" source, but have decided to bring this here. If the conclusion of the discussion is that it is not a "Tabloid Journalism" source, I will return everything removed. However the dispute over this figure's date of birth will still remain).--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone could reasonably conclude that a newsgathering organization as large and as established as The Independent is not generally considered a reliable source. "Tabloid journalism," in terms of content and not size/format, certainly fits something like the National Enquirer or Star, which are almost strictly celebrity/gossip. But The Independent covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc. One might compare it to the American newspaper the New York Post, which is known, in part, for celebrity gossip with its famous "Page Six," but which covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc., and could not be called an unreliable "tabloid." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I concluded as much with what I consider to be reasonable consideration. You need not use such wording that would imply an insult to the one bringing this here. You don't seem so sure yourself by your post. Is it possible then, that there is some inbetween? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2013 _{(Sorry for forgetting to sign that.)}

I am not always on top of things, but I am not aware of any guideline or policy that indicates "tabloid journalism" must be presumed to be non-reliable. The term may mean different things to different people. To my ear, "tabloid journalism" refers to a tendency to sensationalize the facts -- through content selection, headlines, photos, and writing style that emphasizes the news that is most likely to grab attention. It does not mean that the content is not factually accurate. Mainstream tabloid-format newspapers like the Independent and New York Post may sensationalize the facts but they are generally reliable, whereas fringe publications like the National Enquirer are not. --Orlady (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSOURCES

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Just for clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. We're on the same page there. I'm just saying that The Independent is not tabloid journalism. It's not News of the World or Star or The National Enquirer. It's a real newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what I am asking. Although they are all real newspapers in some form. Hate to bring this up, but the The National Enquirer has real news (even being the very first to write on certain issues). Just what is considered "Tabloid Journalism"? Sure, we may not consider some of the stuff news, but what concerns me about The Independent is whether or not the changes to the publication over the last decade or so has made it less "news worthy" in a traditional manner. I have seen an article where they refer to themselves as tabloid journalism in the same manner as other UK publications. The recent Leveson Inquiry has had them come out in defense of such journalism using the term "we". Is that an admission or just one journalists opinion. See this, where the article (which appears to have no by-line) states: "Long before Hackgate, tabloid journalists were surveyed as less popular than second-hand car salesmen. Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?"--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost. What are the grounds for suggesting the Independent has become tabloid journalism? Or that it's not still one of the UK's most respected newspapers? Nothing in our article suggests that, nothing in my experience suggests that. I don't read it that often, but I do get it's mini-publication the 'I'. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well....forgive me for not using our article as a reliable source Doug. especially after recent events. Although there is some indications of such there. My point is, I don't know if there is enough for me to go by on my own. So...I bring it to the community and allow for the discussion to decide. This is much like the "Huffington Post" discussions. See the archives.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, a problem here, perhaps just for me, is that I know the Independent is a proper newspaper, whereas the Daily Mail is not quite as much a proper newspaper. But how do I know this? Is it because the Mail was originally published in tabloid format, whereas the Independent was originally published in broadsheet format? Is it because Jimbo once questioned (perhaps rhetorically) whether we should use the Mail "for anything at all", never mind BLP information? Has this changed over time? If it does change, who tells us?

I think the comparison with the Daily Mail may bring out some nuances that a comparison with the National Enquirer (which I have never seen a paper copy of) may not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever works. As I am not in the UK and know little about the publication besides what I can glean from sources and what they claim about themselves, this may well be a useful direction to take.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You quote from an opinion piece written by a tabloid journalist writing freelance for The Independent—Wynne-Jones, Ros (22 July 2011). "Red-top redemption: Why tabloid journalism matters". The Independent. London. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) When Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Daily Mirror. I do not read his piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. But does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggests 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving her birth year as Y sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again as they come across 1985 as her birth year in the tabloids --Senra (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Both your opinion of the suggestion of "we" and your compromise to the DOB. I know an editor had brought the Ancestry.com question here a short while ago but there was some who believed it did have some limited use.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, care needs to be taken using any genealogy database as a source. I believe the key issue is knowing if we have the right name. In this case, I could find only one Paloma Faith Blomfield within Ancestry.co.uk (sorry, I incorrectly said Ancestry.com before) between 1976 and 1985 --Senra (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Independent seems to me a reliable source for someone's date of birth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Independent would still be considered one of the UK's more serious-minded national papers, and although it does appear to have gone a little more populist since the Lebedev acquisition, I'd still consider it a RS for pretty much anything. Barnabypage (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; the Independent's reporting is more or less as reliable as that of the Times, Telegraph, or Guardian. (I'm not sure I'd want to rank them). However, do bear in mind that small details about people's personal lives (birthdates, names of children, etc) are one of the things that newspapers are peculiarly talented at getting wrong, so if you have other sources contesting it, I'd treat it as slightly less cast-iron than the fact of "published by reliable journalists" usually suggests. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion to help determine the source as generally reliable and not to be seen in the same light as News of the World or the Daily Mail or The National Enquirer. And thank you to Andrew Gray for the last post that helps a great deal on the specific dispute over the DOB.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a need to define tabloid newspapers?

This does bring up a larger overall point: Wikipedia doesn't really define what a "tabloid publication" or "tabloid journalism" are, as far as I can see. That leaves it open to subjectivity. And there's a tricky side issue: TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid sitem yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer). It might not be a bad thing for us close the issue on The Independent, which I think is WP:SNOWBALL, and start a larger discussion about defining the term and even proscribing certain publications, at Talk:Biographies of living persons (since it's usually people and not, say, uranium or the Magna Carta that's the subject of tabloid journalism). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the reasoning for the board. There is no snowball by asking for clarification on a specific source. Either we think it is or we think it isn't a tabloid Journalism source. As I said I stopped to ask because I didn't know and began to doubt I was correct. The editor who added it made a small note about not knowing it had become such a source and they are in the UK I believe so that made me wonder. I think it is pretty clear that The Independent is to be treated in the same manner as the New York Post and consider it relaible for sourcing facts. But this is not the venue to discuss wording or changes to the BLP policy. That discussion, if needed would be best attempted at the village pump.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: because any source can be WP:RS for a specific statement. We might, for example, use the tabloid The Daily Mirror for the statement: The Daily Mirror says: "West Ham boss reveals he's keen to strengthen further ...". On the other hand, we might be more careful about selecting the same tabloid as a reliable source for the state of the US economy --Senra (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• My opinion is that we should discourage the use of the term "tabloid" as a signifier of unreliable journalism. In the last decade, three major daily newspapers in the UK (The Times, The Independent, and The Guardian) all switched from broadsheet format to smaller formats. You can question their journalism, but I doubt that any problems with those papers' journalism were caused by their format change. Occasionally on this noticeboard, people have assumed that any paper published in a tabloid format is focused on gossip and sensationalism. Some are, but many are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not, and never has been, about the size of the paper used. Wikipedia did not invent the term "Tabloid Journalism". I have noticed lately that the term Red top seems to be catching on. I do like that better.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the term "tabloid journalism" (meaning sensationalist/unreliable journalism) long predates Wikipedia. But it does have the effect of stigmatizing some legitimate newspapers that are published in non-broadsheet formats, at least in some people's minds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. My point is, the stigma is not something we as editors are resposible for. As I said there are other tems. This may well be something to suggest at the village pump. I can only show the other terms. I cannot force the community to accept them.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK people sometimes now say "red-top tabloids", to distinguish the populist papers from the others. Even that doesn't work well now when content is accesed online. My ow feeling is that all the broadsheets are becoming more populist. Even BBC News is.. We just have to make sure we distinguish between the news, the celebrity news, the serious commentary and the wild opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid is like porn. You know it when you see it. And sometimes tabloids can be considered reliable. Context is key.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem though....we don't always have access to really see them.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy & quackery

1. Source: Wahlberg, A (2007), "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of ‘dangerous practitioners’ in the United Kingdom", Social Science & Medicine 65 (11): 2307–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024
2. Article: Homeopathy
3. Content (in article lede): "Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery." Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely RSN discussion layout! I love it when the source/article/content are listed so clearly. Regarding the source, it's carried on PUBMED and MEDLINE-indexed, the direct link to the article is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17719708 ... looking at it now. Zad68 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "1994 Guardian Good Health Guide Fall–Winter 5/1 Some physicians condemn it [sc. homeopathy] as quackery; others..embrace it as the road to wellness". "Quackery". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) --Senra (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My response:

I have several reservations about the proposed edit using the provided source.

The journal is Social Sciences and Medicine, and the author does not appear to be in medicine--Wahlberg is affiliated with the London School of Economics and Political Science and not a medical department. The abstract of the article appears only to label mid-19th century homeopathy "quackery," and this attribution is to someone else (Roy Porter). The journal article itself appears not to be a review article that might be in a position to make this kind of characterization, but rather an original research paper ("By examining the ways in which regulatory authorities in the UK have come to address what is invariably described as a 'growing interest in CAM', I will show how..."). This makes for rather weak sourcing for the content suggested, especially for an article lead.

This suggested edit appears to be an attempt to get homeopathy labelled as "quackery" in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important points of the body of the article. If homeopathy is broadly and definitively considered "quackery" by the medical community, there should be significant coverage of that in the article, and the article should be carrying several strong sources supporting that content. Isn't there a stronger source in the article you can source this to? It would not surprise me to find that the proposed content is supported by strong sources, but you need to find those strong sources, the one provided here doesn't seem to be it. Zad68 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am a late-coming and fairly-disinterested participant in this debate (though I suppose technically I am involved), and am posting this query here to progress the deadlocked thread [49] on the Talk page. My personal suspicion too, is that the source is a bit weak. I have searched quite hard for a source to support the statement that the medical community thinks homeopathy is quackery but I can't find one (which rather upsets my rational-skeptical self). It seems to be that medics (unlike scientists and skeptics) are just a bit woolly about this kind of thing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha... My guess is that "quackery" is just rather too emotive a word for medicine folks to want to use in their publications. So the article should say what they do say. This nice, recent review article calls it "niche" and lacking in "scientific rigor." So that wording instead. Zad68 18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

adding: I'm a little stunned to find that the review article I linked to isn't used in the article already. Zad68 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, any statement of the form "The X community thinks Y" will never be correct, even if a usually-reliable publication says it. Communities don't think, after all. The real question is whether it is really a mortal wp:SYN to take a collection of statements by individuals as representative of the community from which they come. It is relatively straightforward to cite a number of statements to the effect that H is Q, but the technicality of wp:SYN may require an application of wp:IAR in this case. Full disclosure - I've been a long time editor on that article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli

Robert Agostinelli is an Italian-American financier.

I would like to know if this Forbes article [50] could be considered a reliable source for information regarding both the net worth of Agostinelli and also the value of fund managed by the company he co-founded, Rhone Group. User:Spacevezon^talk 21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not if supporting source data is entirely absent. A blog post is not the same thing as a magazine article. There is Forbes.com, which is a clearing house blog on which anyone can write or promote themselves, and then there is Forbes Magazine. The source you identify is the former; a blog posting without either an author or actual data.

See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html

I think you have it wrong. Anyone can post a comment, certainly, but the the page itself is part of The World's Billionaires which is explicitly credited to "Forbes staff." But we have more that that vague by-line to rely on: They explain the methodology they use, at [51], a page with the by-line of one of the two individual people on the staff with overall responsibility for editing the list--and the right sidebar names his colleague. At the end of the page are the names of their reporters and data sources. It explains why the numbers are approximate--it also explains that they are primarily based on Forbes research, and lists the specific factors they include and the individuals they consult. It is very clear that the magazine puts its reputation behind the data, and so do the individual editors. For this particular topic, of individual and family financial status, I therefore consider Forbes data--regardless of the format in which it is published--to be reliable unless contradicted by another RS, in which case both have to be cited. There are more exact sources, but they too need to be interpreted. I note the articles you cite also give the data as "about", and there will factors Forbes takes into account that do not show on government forms. The WSJ article discusses some of them, and I think that article a very good explanation of why we do not trust primary sources in this area, but the secondary sources, where they are interpreted by reliable experts. I consider the senior editor at Forbes responsible for this list an expert, and I think the rest of the world does also, for this is the most widely used source, as used by other known reliable sources that have the ability to judge.

More generally, not everything that calls itself a blog is a blog in the sense that anyone can write the contents, just as not everything published as a wiki is open content. Most newspaper and magazine blogs from reliable magazines and newspapers are simply the format they present their editorial content, a popular format because it encourages reader comments. I consider them as reliable as anything else they publish, and that is in fact our general practice. It caused some confusion in earlier years, when newspapers were still adopting this format. Of course, for anything a newspaper or magazine publishes in any format, it can be hard to distinguish true reporting from personal opinion of the columnist, but this particular set of data is exceptionally clear to be reliable financial reporting, If you want, you can even cite it as "Kerry Dolan, the Forbes editor responsible for their list of ob billionaires, reports the figure as ..." to emphasise the fact that it is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all.

Russia Today verus CNN

Is Russia Today banned as a reference source on Wikipedia? I note from the archive RT has been discussed a few times. Is there a clear rule? I have a clear perspective: that no media source is infallible; RT follows a distinctive, Western-ctitical perspective and is trusted by millions of people (whether it should be or not, after all, should people trust any media source?). Every media outlet has its political perspective, whether controlled by a Government or a Corporation.

I've encountered an editor who claims CNN is ok but Russia Today is not. He has (on principle, so we don't even need to discuss the particular article) deleted any statement that is sourced by reference to RT. This is on the Syrian Civil War page and is discussed on the Talk: Syrian Civil War page. By excluding Russia Today (which has journalists in Syria and whose correspondent was the most recent English speaking correspondent to interview the Syrian President), I think a serious distortion emerges. Obviously RT pursues a much more "Assad-tolerant" line than just about all major Western media outlets. As far as I am concerned, that's all the more reason it should not be excluded (as otherwise, how do we present balanced and rounded articles.)

Personally, I think it's a nonsense that I should have to raise this but Censorship and Discrimination and Politics predominate so often here on Wiki. If I get into an edit war, I'll be banned and the other editor will doubtless get away with his behaviour. I expect he will any way and raising this is futile but I'll give it a go. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer questions like this without the full context. RT is often a reliable source, but may not be on some occasions or may be appropriate only with attribution. What wording in the article is in dispute? Formerip (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a question of principle, not a particular article. Is RT banned in principle? The editor concerned is not having any regard to the article - simply the source. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't banned in principle. Formerip (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is arguing for its use in the Syrian civil war page, which we agreed to not use it there. Russia Today has commonly referred to one side as "terrorists", and the site itself is state-controlled to reflect Russia view on the Syrian conflict, which tends to be partisan and in favor of the Syrian government. The Site is not known for fact checking, so much so that three reliable sources at one point took time to condemn Russia day, directly or indirectly, which very rarely happens in common newsmedia.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/25/wikileaks-julian-assange-russian-tv

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow--the-world-2083869.html

Basically Russia today's lack of fact checking, ubiquitous use of weasel words, and slander of one particular side renders russia today ineliggible for use as a source on the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, my personal assessment of Russia Today is that they are very interested in discrediting the United States and will highlight derogatory stories about it, but any time I have checked their facts so far they have been accurate. If they say there was a vote, there was a vote. If they say there was an earthquake there was an earthquake. On the other hand there is definitely a slant.They are not to be trusted when it comes to portraying motivation. They are affiliated with the Putin government, I have read. I have a vague memory that Russia supports Assad but have not read anything RT has written about Syria. I would expect it to reflect Putin's foreign policy whatever it might be. I have not actually researched their editorial policies but given the slick production values I suspect that there is in fact editorial review. Whether this means that facts are checked is unclear to me. The objectively verifiable ones tend to be accurate is all I can say. In a nutshell, I'd consider them a weak source, possibly usuable about events in a remote location not covered by other media, but if so only with great caution. Al-Jazeera is much much better and should be used instread if available. If RT calls the Free Syrian Army terrorists, it's also a strong indication that they lack objectivity in this area at least. That's my take, anyway Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC and CNN really are slanted towards the Anglo-American viewpoint and freely smear Assad while only on occassion mentioning the evil and terroristic acts done by some the militants, many of the religious and/or ethnic terrorists or poor youth from the country out to join a gang and loot. While RT is not as good at hiding its propaganda agenda as BBC and CNN in particular, I would not totally rule it out, depending on the story; nor would I entirely rule in anything printed by BBC and CNN. CarolMooreDC 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can RT be "banned" on principle from a particular article

From the discussion above, I think it is established that there is no rule banning Russia Today on principle as a source on Wikipedia. Like any other source, an RT article must be assessed on its merits etc.

My next question is whether editors can ban RT as a source in respect of a particular article?

If RT is not a banned source generally, why should it be generally banned from any particular article? Each particular Russia Today article (or CNN article for that matter) needs to be assessed on its own merits is my view.

Is there any rule around this. The context here (as per the above, is that an editor, User:Sopher99, is claiming that Russia Today has been properly banned as a source (regarless of what the RT article says)) on Syrian Civil War. I think this is an abuse.

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not about banning or prohibiting, its about simply not using a source deemed unreliable for an area of context while we have plenty of other reliable sources that cover the information of the article at hand (BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian, ect) Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing in different words, Sopher. It's not appropriate to ban a particular source that is generally considered RS from use in a particular article.

For material that is uncontentious, RT can be used in the same way as any major news outlet, and it would be disruptive to replace cites in such cases with sources friendlier to an Anglo-Saxon POV.

Material that is contentious should be discussed on the talkpage and, if agreement can't be reached, brought to a venue such as this one (case by case). "It's RT so it can't be trusted" will never be a valid argument on its own although, since RT clearly does sometimes slant its coverage, it may be part of a valid argument with fuller reasoning. Formerip (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon POV". If you think this is about race or nationality you are clearly mistaken. What is an Anglo-Saxon POV? Biscuits and crumpets? Furthermore I can assure oyu the Syrian civil war is extremely contentious. Each article Russia Today creates, particularly on Syria, has a lack of fact checking and accuracy, and instead has a heavily anti-FSA/Opposition slant. For this reason it shouldn't be used. An Unreliable source is an Unreliable source, not reliable on Tuesdays and questionable on Wednesdays. Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to think that, but it's not WP practice. Per RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context". So, a source can quite easily be reliable one day for one citation and unreliable the next day for another. Formerip (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand just a little on this, because I have still not looked at the page and would prefer not to get sucked into it, if RT says there was a massacre at thus and such a village, for instance, my own inclination would be to see if anyone else has covered this. If, for example, the Guardian, Al-Jazeera and Andy Carvin all say there are unconfirmed reports of such a massacre, and RT claims to have had someone on the ground there, it might be ok to quote them for the details, with caution. They do seem to have an agenda in Syria and I am not certain whether it would extend to manufacturing news stories. If they say that the States is trying to overthrow Assad I would give this zero credence even though I would otherwise be inclined to believe such a thing if I saw it from a more credible source. Note, I consider Julian Assange a somewhat more credible source. He has his own agenda, of course, but it's a different agenda and doesn't really focus on Syria. Andy Carvin is extremely credible if you aren't following him, but he falls into a strange category for wikipedia purposes. The person who said that CNN has an agenda is also correct but their bias tends to be more subtle and to show more in what they leave out than in what they say.

To comment on your links above, a) I don't consider it a sign of whackiness to have given Assage a show. If anything he lends them credibility since he has been right about so much. b) ya, the Bilderberg thing is pretty silly. RT is not reliable on their own to prove that a conspiracy exists :) c) yes they do provide a venue for other voices, and that's a good thing. I wish they curated those voices better though. And yeah, you can't believe anything that say about events in Russia. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No source can be "banned" in principle from an article. It would be helpful if someone would come back with a particular instance of where in the article they would like to use RT. RT is in principle reliable for news. Where it conflicts with other agencies then both sides should be given. Remember WP:RECENT and don't try to cover all the twists and turns of the conflict. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of primary sources to state facts about group membership

At the risk of being overly cautious, I want to make sure that primary source publications by the Watch Tower Society will be ok to use in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses if it goes to WP:FAC. Relevant examples of primary source references from the lead section are as follows:

3. "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: Our History and Organization: Membership". Office of Public Information of Jehovah's Witnesses. "While other religious groups count their membership by occasional or annual attendance, this figure reflects only those who are actively involved in the public Bible educational work [of Jehovah's Witnesses]."

4. "Guided by God's Spirit". Awake!: 32. June 2008. Retrieved 2012-06-16.

5. "Statistics at Jehovah's Witnesses official website, 2010".

I checked WP:PSTS and WP:SELFSOURCE, and the only potential problem I can see is authorship. The WTS publications are authored by the group itself, rather than a notable individual speaking on behalf of the group. So, I'm asking the seasoned pros that patrol this page: Do you see any problems with using these primary sources in a featured article? Ignocrates (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are similar questions with all sorts of organisations, including political parties. First party sources may be the only available sources for membership figures but to ignore them entirely would mean no mention of membership figures in such articles - a nonsense. The source could be used, for example, to say that "XYZ claims a membership of 125,000" - that's proper and does not mean Wikipedia accepts or approves the figure - and clearly shows the source upfront. In my opinion, the same would apply equally if "a notable individual speaking on behalf of the group" was the source - why should a notable spokesperson be any more reliable on that issue than the organisation itself? Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Halfmarathonsearch.com™

The information is likely true, however, I have concerns regarding the reliability of a press release from a non-authoritative source:

1. Source: Blomgren, Nicole (September 20, 2012). "Half Marathons Reach a Milestone and Surpass the 2000 total mark in 2012". PR Hwy. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
2. Article: Half marathon and List of half marathon races
3. Content: "Most recently, 2012 research conducted by Nicole Blomgren, CEO of Fifty States Half Marathon Club and Halfmarathonsearch.com™, reported half marathons reaching a milestone, surpassing over 2000 half marathons in the United States in August 2012, recording a total of 2005 half marathons in the U.S. alone, with California leading the way in totals surpassing 250 half marathons in 2012."

Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

halfmarathonclub.com looks like an WP:SPS. Anybody can create a web site, that doesn't make it reliable. A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I don't see and could not find any evidence to say that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Moshe Friedman ongoing review and discussion but appreciate if The Vienna Review, a monthly newsletter is Wiki acceptable. If not can editors pls join in removing the source there. A service of the "Open Society Institute" should not be a wiki source. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

as with all sources, it depends. but the long running paper newspaper version has a publicly listed editorial board [52] of people who have outside bona fides as writers/editors [53] . It would need to be shown why any particular story would not be considered "reliably sourced" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Armenianism - do sources have to say an action was anti-Armenian?

See this edit [54] - the sources do not say it was the vandalism of the Armenian Christian Cemetery (and a Greek Orthodox Monastery was anti-Armenian, and indeed the editor actually wrote " According to media reports it seemed to be more of an anti-Christian act as the vandals also targeted the Greek orthodox monastery. They spray-painted phrases such as "Death to Christianity", "Jesus, son of a whore", "Happy Hanukkah"." Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't need to literally state that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery is an anti-Armenian act, because as I understand it is too obvious. It's intent may have been anti-Christian, but again, intent does not matter. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The source explicitly calls the attack "anti-Christian". Unless I missed it, I don't see anything in the source that says that it was an anti-Armenian attack. The source is reliable, but not in the manner that it's being used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery isn't an anti-Armenian act? --Երևանցի ^talk 22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What you just did is sort of what you are doing with the source, Yerevanci. This is a common mistake many editors make. We call it synthesis or analysis. See Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A vandalizm of an object belonging to a certain group is an act of discrimination against that group. What part of this is original research? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are making an assumption there that vandalism is always an act of discrimination, and that is certainly not true. It may have been in this instance, but you simply cannot make that judgement yourself, that is what we need the sources for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply absurd. It's almost impossible to find sources that literally state that anti-Armenian acts are such. For instance, a sentence in the same article (" In a telephone interview on May 24, 1995, broadcaster with Radio Free Europe, Estonia service in Prague, stated that in February and March 1995, there have been several bomb attacks on Armenian-owned kiosks in the capital city Tallinn. The editor added that the identity of the perpetrator(s) of these acts remains unknown.[83]") and this has been in the article for years and nobody had a problem with it and there's no word in the source that describes it as "anti-Armenian". I'm not saying it was clearly an anti-Armenian act, but the Armenian cemetery was its target and it needs to be mentioned in the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something that many editors have a hard time dealing with. You have to write in a disinterested manner. We all have our own biases and point of view, but we simply cannot write the article using the narrative voice of the encycolpedia to present, as fact, what are questionable claims gleaned, assumed or taken for granted, from the sources. We can't "Read between the lines". Having something in an article for years does not guarantee it is not innacurate. Making such claims without full reference support is not within the policy, guidelines or spirit of Wikipedia. Take a minute, look through other sources and see if there is not a better way to phrase this that is directly supported by the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word it the way it should've been done, but let's agree that event has a place in the article.

@Yerevanci: There is nothing in that source that says anything about this being related to anti-Armenianism. Three different sites were vandalized, only one of which happened to be Armenian. If this was related to anti-Armenianism, why were 2 non-Armenian sites vandalized? Your conclusion that this relates to anti-Armenianism is not in the source. This is pure WP:OR on your part. (And if I had to judge based on this source, I would say your conclusion is, in fact, wrong.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how ignorant you sound? Have you ever heard of the Holocaust? Did you know that millions of Poles, Gays, Gypsies and Invalids were also part of it? Just because the Armenian cemetery wasn't the only target doesn't make it less of an anti-Armenian act. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And thus, if one of the victims of the Aurora theater or Sandy Hook murders were Armenian. those would also be anti-Armenian acts. All murders of Jewish people are inherently acts of anti-Semitism. And the killing of Marvin Gaye was an act of racism, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite an appropriate comparison, because you can't tell if a child is of certain ethnicity (at least in most cases) and Sandy Hook was clearly not an ethnic crime. But you can tell when a cemetery is Armenian. You can tell by the letters on tombstones (Armenian has a unique alphabet that can't be confused) or by the cross styles. And at last, didn't you know that Armenians are one of the largest Christian groups in Jerusalem and one of the 4 Old City sections is Armenian? When attacking a cemetery or a church in Jerusalem it's either gonna be Greek or Armenian. I don't think that the vandals were unaware of this fact. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil. Several editors have explained to you why you are wrong. I suggest you take a break and come back later with a fresh mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if offended. Didn't mean anything personal, but your last statement wasn't exactly reasonable. And yeah majority isn't always right.--Երևանցի ^talk 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Without looking into the detail, might there be a case for saying that its so obvious that sources don't see the need to mention it (and if they don't see the need, then why should we)? Formerip (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OIC, I didn't take into account the WP article title. Maybe my comment is not so helpful. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

playing devil's advocate -- vandalism conceivably could be the work of destructive children who have no idea about the ethnicities involved, no? If hate language is spray-painted on something, that's a different story of course, but... if we're talking about anti-armenian acts would it be possible in this context to simply say that the cemetery was vandalized without speculating on the motives of the vandals? Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the above. Unless the source (not its reader) links the attacks to anti-Armenian motivations, it would not be appropriate to suddenly make such motivations appear. That is especially true where two other targets with no apparent connection to anti-Armenianism were vandalized, and this is likely why the source concludes that the motivations were anti-Christian, not anti-Armenian. Regardless of why they do, though, we can't just synthesize such a connection. The source has to say it. So short answer to your above: Yes, it must explicitly say that, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to directly contradict what it actually does explicitly say, that the motives were anti-Christian ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So you think the vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery doesn't have place in the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is best asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. It's either me who's not getting it or the users above that fail to understand. Anyways, I don't wanna continue wasting my time for nothing.--Երևանցի ^talk 02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You can put it in as far as I am concerned, though other people editing the page appear to disagree. But what you have posted here is not enough for you to say that it was necessarily discrimination. Maybe it was just random ugliness. Find a reliable source that says it is and then you have a different question and maybe a different answer, depending on the source.99.11.227.190 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)