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

Media matters (25th time asked)

An editor or two has been consistently removing sourced material when attributed to Media Matters for America with the justification that "it's not a reliable source" or "it's a self published source" or "policy overrides Noticeboard decisions", even though their criticisms are constantly cited by other reliable secondary sources (WSJ, NYT, NPR, NBC, et cetera ad infinitum). It has been consistently upheld that Media Matters is considered a reliable source for their own opinions when it's in the genre of their stated area of interest (media watchdog). Has this changed at all since the last time this question was asked? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The most recent RS/N discussion appears to favor equating "Media Matters" content with that of "Newsbusters" for sourcing purposes and precluding "...links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs". JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jake, but we don't evaluate sources based on how an opposing ideological source was evaluated. Sources are evaluated against WP:RS, not against each other. I challenge you to point to a policy that supports your tit-for-tat assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"...but we don't evaluate sources based on how an opposing ideological source was evaluated."

Perhaps so, perhaps not, but for a "non-evaluation" of "opposing ideological" sources, that RS/N garnered considerable input from a fairly wide spectrum of editors who, I'd suggest, found the comparative to be quite appropriate and compelling...not to mention rather revelatory IMHO. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Impartial opinion(s) requested: The use of a reference to the partisan media research organization Media Matters for America has been deleted recently from the criticism and controversy section of the Fox News Channel article.

1) The first time, the reasoning was that the sourcing not a reliable source for derogatory content.

2) The second time the reasoning was that the sourcing was primary research and a blog of research.

Two questions,

1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article?

2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way?

Thanks in advance for any advice offered. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy, as I understand it, precludes introduction of biased content (not even the much more stringent BLP criteria). However, the content itself should be supported in "notability" by the provision of appropriate third-party sourcing, with even more substantial sourcing for BLP considerations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Three important points, Jake:

1. This isn't about a WP:BLP.
2. Could you point us to the exact policy and specific language that "precludes introduction of biased content"?
3. Could you explain your "supported in notability" comment given that notability doesn't govern content?

Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a WP:BLP.

Unless I missed it, your OP was non-specific in that regard. Nevertheless Wikipedia guidance addresses introduction of biased content to both BLP and non-BLP articles.

Could you point us to the exact policy and specific language that "precludes introduction of biased content"?

You've misread my post. It doesn't.

Could you explain your "supported in notability" comment given that notability doesn't govern content?

Quite correct. My descriptive was not a Wikipedia term but rather my own euphemism for a WP:UNDUE consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you are correct, I misread your post with regards to #2 above. Sorry about that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[ec]Research generally has to be published in a secondary source to be considered usable as a reliable source. The primary problem with that section relating to MMfA is that they are doing independent research and then presenting it as factual information which is then being used as a primary source in the article. Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by thrid party sources then you could argue notability. Simply stating that MMfA thinks something is notable doesn't make it so, especially given their partisan objective. If this type of research is to be allowed, then similar research by MRC would have to be allowed within other articles. Simply stating that MMfA thinks that FNC is biased is fine as an opinion. Stating that FNC is biased because their research shows that they did x, y, and z is not fine because it is a primary source of research which has not been reported on by a reliable third party. Arzel (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the previous WP:RSN discussion mentioned above by Jake but I disagree that there is a consensus. The most reasonable responses seem to advocate for case-by-case determination. PrBeacon (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was quite careful to avoid use of the "consensus" attribution. Whether this apparent majority opinion (on both questions} constitutes "consensus" is, perhaps, a necessary consideration...and one which I'll happily cede to the Wikipedia philosophers. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, I think you're bypassing the point here... one, MMFA opinions as a media watchdog is extensively cited by other reliable sources (from NPR to the WSJ, and almost everything inbetween); two, MMFA is only being used to source their own opinions (so let's not pretend this is about "research"); three, there is no policy that supports your repeated assertion that sources are unacceptable when they have a "partisan opinion" (see my misread with Jake above). Also, even Jake acknowledges that the concept of "notability" has no relevance to a discussion about reliable sourcing policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

MRC (NB) is cited just as extensively as MMfA, and until you are willing and able to see that they are basically two sides of the same coin there is little to discuss. Are they, or are they not, equally reliable sources? And please don't wikilaywer the point. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"...even Jake acknowledges that the concept of "notability" has no relevance to a discussion about reliable sourcing policy."

On the contrary. "Notability", as a non-wikipedia euphemism for WP:UNDUE, has everything to do with reliable sourcing policy. Perhaps I may even have stolen it from Arzel and wasn't clear enough in my earlier response. As to...

"...there is no policy that supports your repeated assertion that sources are unacceptable when they have a "partisan opinion"

"Partisan opinion" = "Bias"...and Wikipedia is rather explicit as to the parameters for the use of biased content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we explicitly recognize that all sources are biased, so when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true. Self-published sources require third party citation to established notability as well. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, can you please show us the policy that supports your belief that "Self-published sources require third party citation to established notability as well"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold up, Blax. Arzel's claim of 'self-published' should not go unchecked. Two outside editors (KillerChihuahua & Dlabtot, below) have since made the argument that MMfA is not self-published. PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

prelim. summary

[outdent] I asked two questions, seeing answers, summarizing:

Two questions,

1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article? [Answer: No.]

2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way? [Answer: Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by third party sources then you could argue notability.]

The is absolutely no doubt that "their basic story has been reported by third party sources". See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly, plus many others. Therefore, I conclude that the two [1][2] text deletions which I asked about were unfounded in WP:Policy. Thanks for the help! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly...

Boehlert is not a "third-party source". He is affiliated with Media Matters.

...plus many others.

At least one, preferably several, of those "many others" (assuming they are RS themselves) should do nicely. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the book is the source that should be used. The book is the secondary source. However, looking at the book, I don't see that being a direct relationship to the section in dispute. Clearly it is a secondary reference to the opinion that MMfA think FNC is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 13:44, May 6, 2010

Jake complains about the author. The publisher is Simon and Schuster, 2009, which is a secondary published source. We look to the publisher, not the author, when measuring the WP:IRS of a source. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We look to the publisher, not the author, when measuring the WP:IRS of a source.

You appear to have misread WP:IRS...

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake asked for another source giving secondary coverage to the MMfA criticism of Fox News. The article in The New York Times 158.54481 (Nov 1, 2008): pA15(L). An All-Out Attack on 'Conservative Misinformation'.(Media Matters for America on the 2008 presidential elections) should be sufficient third party secondary sourcing of this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake asked for another source giving secondary coverage to the MMfA criticism of Fox News.

Actually, I didn't. You stated...

"...their (Media Matters') basic story has been reported by third party sources".

I simply noted that Eric Boehlert cannot be considered as a "third-party RS" for matters related to an RS consideration of "Media Matters" due to his affiliation with the subject.

As to the NY Times article you cite (a link would have been helpful BTW), I believe it to be a legitimate source, though I'm unclear at this point just what article content it is intended to support. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, your conclusions are premature, especially considering that there has been little involvement in this discussion so far by uninvolved editors.--Drrll (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source... especially if material being taken from it is attributed (as in: "According to a Media Matters for America report dated May 6, 2010 so and so said 'such and such'."). If this disagrees with some other reliable source, that can be stated as well ("However, a CNN report dated the same day quotes so and so as saying 'this and that'.") Remember, our sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in reporting what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is shown that Media Matters cares more about making their point of "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" than providing factual information then it is clearly not RS. It appears that their vetting process from an overseeing editor is not up to par with more traditional (yet also sometimes biased) print media. I don;t know if it is shy enough of any benchmark we could magically find to concretely say one way or the other.

And regarding Blueboar's comment: Agreed and that is a major problem problem. If editors base whole sections or articles off Media Matters then the tone easily turns soapboxy. Not the sources fault but something to watch out for.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of a lot of cases where Media Matters is incorrect? I would think that would be the primary test of whether their fact checking is adequate or not. Croctotheface (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Cptnono - do you have links to criticism of MMfA's vetting process? I haven't seen any. I'm familiar with some of the journalists there and they have solid reputations, imo. PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the nub of this discussion centers around a question of sourcing requirements under WP:UNDUE for article inclusion of assertions/allegations made by "partisan" or "biased" entities. While the need for substantive "third-party sourcing" for "biased" content under BPL consideration is clear and unequivocal, it is, perhaps, less clear under Wikipedia policy than I had thought for non-BPL articles (or perhaps I'm just missing it somewhere...there has been considerable editing as of late in this area). It seems to me to be a logical extension of the BPL "philosophy" or "spirit" that "biased" or "partisan" content should mandate a higher level of "sourcing" under WP:UNDUE for non-BPL as well. Am I just missing this somewhere? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, questions of undue weight should be addressed at the NPOV noticeboard. BLP questions should addressed at the BLP noticeboard. As far as identifying reliable sources, bias is not a factor to be considered. Which is why it is not mentioned in the relevant guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included in articles on media organization and members of the press. This doesn't mean that we always must include MMfA's criticisms whenever they are on topic, but in general the may be used as a source as long as proper inline attribution is provided. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

self-published?

A relevant issue for WP:RSN about this source is whether it falls under the "self-published" designation talked about in WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper): "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable".--Drrll (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's obviously not self-published. Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.[3] Please refrain from making such spurious arguments, which border on tendentiousness. Dlabtot (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The MMfA is not unlike Freedom House, both organizations being self-declared partisan advocates and both being widely recognized as authorities in their purview and both being self published. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you ignore the plain meaning of the words 'self published', as well as the more specific Wikipedia usage of the term. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Dlabtot, it's not obvious that they are not self-published. Note that WP:SOURCES specifically uses the word "published" to refer to reliable sources and then shortly thereafter talks about "self-published" sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles."--Drrll (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try to make some argument that the output of 501(c)(3) organizations ( such as Media Matters, Freedom House, Wikipedia, etc.) somehow qualify as self-published sources, you are welcome to do so. It would be interesting to see such an argument, as I for one, cannot conceive of any reasonable rationale for that position. Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources. It is not self published, which would be a blog or vanity press. Obviously someone publishes newspapers, for example, yet they are not self-published even if the newspaper is not owned by a larger parent company. Although we do not "recognize that all sources are biased", MMfA is left-leaning. This does not render them unreliable, it affects how materiel from the site might be presented in the article. Please note that there is a difference between criticism and derogatory content. Criticism may indeed be negative, but it is not necessarily, or even often, derogatory. Please do not conflate the two. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that there exists a source that has no inherent bias of any type? Could you name one? Dlabtot (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that we do not state as a matter of fact that "all sites are biased". That's absurd. We do not examine every site. We are certain some sites attempt to achieve neutrality; we hope some are successful. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. I am saying that the mere assertion that "all sites are biased" is not provable, nor should we even care to bother to try. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked a different way, could you name a source that is disqualified as WP:RS, not because it's poor reputation for fact-checking and reliability, but because of its perceived bias?

My point is that bias is irrelevant in RS discussions; all human beings have a point of view and that point of view, if nothing else, is an inherent bias. Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot. While I do not agree that bias is irrelevant, you are correct that it is, if not irrelevant en toto, at least nearly irrelevant in RS discussions. It becomes relevant when discussing propaganda sites; but you are correct in that it is the inherent inaccuracy in of propaganda sites and not their bias which causes them to fail RS.

As a side note, would you please use edit summaries? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Much as I hate to say no to such a polite request, I don't think there is much point in using edit summaries on talk or noticeboard pages, so I'm going to continue my current practice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy, and this page is not the place to explain the NPOV policy, yet we have to repeatedly. Dlabtot (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that MMFA or other "media-watchdog" websites generally recognized as "biased" or "partisan" sources cannot be RS for content but rather that these sources are not "unqualified" RS as are those non major/traditional media entities who appear to or at least profess to walk both sides of the ideological street (eg "Politico", "Real Clear Politics" etc). It is their quasi-RS status that should mandate additional and substantive sourcing just as does the introduction of "biased" content under BPL considerations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. No doubt a failing on my part. Do you have one related to the editing of any particular article? Dlabtot (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is.

"Media Matters", "Newsbusters" et al are "Reliable Sources"...for partisan content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, professing to "walk both sides of the ideological street" is entirely meaningless, unless viewed as a 'red flag' - like when someone in a bar starts out by saying "this is a true story". Dlabtot (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Jake that is what's been suggested (if I understand you clearly in the first part of your comment "I don't believe anyone here has suggested...") at the Talk:Fox News Channel # Media Matters as a reliable source as well as several edits/reverts on the FNC article: [4], [5], [6] thus prompting this RSN query. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of generalization happening in this discussion. If someone can show that the Media Matter's bias has led to continuous inaccurate or questionable reporting then that should be all that is needed to not consider it RS.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS, though we should cite with attribution. There can be some question about using a biased source for a BLP article, especially if the BLP is only marginally a public figure, but this is not the case. Whether an advocacy group's publications are a true secondary source or a press release for the organization's opinins wouldn't matter, as the opinions of Media Matters are considered releavant and cited for fact by many unquestionable RS's. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in BLPs

If MMfA is allowed as a source for non-BLP articles, should it be allowed as a source for BLP articles? From WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."--Drrll (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not get much more response here since, as Dlabtot says, thats for the BLP board. (Although two or three editors discuss it somewhat, above). In case anyone didn't see the 2nd RFC "Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?" within the archived RSN mentioned above, there is mixed support and opposition. PrBeacon (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the BLP board is a better place for this question. Yes, the last time that was asked (and to a wider audience since it was an RFC) the result was mixed, with a few more people opposing using them in BLPs than supporting their use.--Drrll (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any (un)official tally should include the outside editors above who've indicated support (KillerChihuahua) and mixed/conditional (Dlabtot, Squidfryerchef, Blueboar), although who's included in the later group may be conjecture on my part. [Edit: I took off Yilloslime's name because Drrll pointed out his/her involvement with MMfA article] PrBeacon (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we take it on a case by case basis. There's no reason (policy-based or otherwise) why it should be categorically excluded as a source on BLPs, though we don't need to be citing it at ever opportunity, either. If I try hard I can probably think of some hypothetical situations where it wouldn't be appropriate, but that's the case with any source. As the instruction box on the top of this page says, "eliability is often dependent upon context." Yilloslime ^T_C 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Until this recent diff, WP:BLP read as follows...

If an editor appears to be promoting a point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the subject's notability.

I'm not sure just what rationale supported this deletion (the edit summary reads "tightening some more, removing repetition, wordiness, overlinking"), but it is the ONLY Wikipedia "Policy" on BLP I've found that provided some buttress against the wanton introduction of POV biased, quasi-RS content into BLP's. I believe this is a dreadful policy deletion and Wikipedia will be the worse for it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake asked me to comment here. The bottom line is that we have the same sourcing requirements whether we feel an editor is promoting a point of view or not, so the sentence you're citing didn't really add anything to the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin's eye injury

British politician Nick Griffin lost an eye in 1990. Of the three sources cited on that accident:

The Guardian says only: "Griffin had a serious accident, which led to his eye being surgically removed".

The Scotsman says: "he has a glass eye, although he didn't lose his on the rugby pitch but instead when a shotgun cartridge exploded in his face 20 years ago in France in unexplained circumstances".

The Times says:

<blockquote he removes his glass eye and lays it on the table. It is curious behaviour that draws attention to a mysterious chapter in his shadowy past... By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later.

The timing is interesting: Griffin had just left the extremist National Front (NF) after an ideological spat and was living in France, where he had cashed in on the 1980s property boom after buying houses in Shropshire. Leading a disgruntled breakaway faction of the NF, he founded a new movement with one of the most notorious fascists in Europe. Griffin’s collaborator, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by police in Italy after the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station, which left 85 people dead and 200 wounded...

The article goes on to discuss Griffin's involvement with Fiore before returning to the eye injury.

However, the current version of the article reports Griffin's version of events as fact, without acknowledging any doubt over the matter. I don't believe this is appropriate use of the sources cited, since the only one that mentions the "pile of wood" story treats it with a good deal of scepticism. It seems to me that we're effectively accepting Griffin as a RS on himself, while ignoring the doubts raised by the Times article. I have tried to modify the article to represent this as Griffin's account rather than presenting it as fact, but these edits have been reverted. Suggesitons/comments? --GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources and it seems that neither you nor anyone else is disputing that. So your question seems to be outside the purview of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear there about why I've raised this as a RS issue. The other editor currently involved in this dispute has argued that "we must take Griffin's word for the truth, unless other evidence is offered". To me this is elevating Griffin to the status of a reliable source, which I don't believe is appropriate in this context. (The same argument was made by another editor | a while back). He also appears to be saying that the Times article is not a sufficiently reliable source to justify mentioning that Griffin's account is questioned: "the times offers weak evidence to the contrary, and these claims have been thoroughly refuted by Griffin. In that case we certainly are obliged to take his word for it." --GenericBob (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"we must take Griffin's word for the truth, unless other evidence is offered" - well, that's simply wrong and unsupported by any Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The standard thing to do, when multiple reliable sources conflict, is to say in the article that multiple reliable sources conflict. We shouldn't be trying to pick "the right one" ourselves unless there are serious differences in reliability between the sources, not the case in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to adopt that formulation. In fact, I haven't even attempted to insert the Times' alternate explanation into the article - all I did was to change "he lost his left eye when X happened" to "he lost his left eye in an accident which he said was caused by X", but the other editor involved is unwilling to accept even that much. --GenericBob (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because such wording might imply that as editors we're casting doubt on Griffin's claims. If something is to be said about this, I'd rather have it in the form of a footnote, than as part of the body of text. I'm firmly of the opinion that when it comes to oneself, oneself is the most reliable source available (in the absence of contrary opinions). The Times does little more than speculate, and it isn't known for being wholly reliable in Griffin's case. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, reliability depends on knowledge (does the source know the truth?) and bias (do they have an incentive to misrepresent it?). Self-sources are great on the former but often bad on the latter; I think they make great RSes for neutral information that doesn't reflect to their credit, but I'm very wary about taking people's word on issues like this. What if we simply left it at "Griffin lost his eye in an accident", linking to the sources available, without making any further comment in the article about how that accident may have happened? --GenericBob (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where it will be most visible to those interested in the subject. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The only possible unbiased neutral source here is the Scotsman, see Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010. You have to take that into account and read between the lines. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Times and the Guardian are reliable. Reliable is not the same as unbiased. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We can take it as a fact that he lost his eye, but we cannot say that it happened the way he claims. TFD (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We can say that the sources do not agree on how it happened. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When different reliable sources give different accounts of the "facts", we list them all, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We can also say that the Times peice make no mentionn of who said this. As such it cannot be attributed and wuold be a peice of anonymoous rumour in a BLP. As such I have some doubts if it should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Times isn't claiming to present known facts. Either say nothing about the circumstances of the accident, per GenericBob, or say that the circumstances are unclear. That the circumstances are unclear is reliably sourceable to The Scotsman. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Its interesting that an anonymous (and vague) accusation is given the same wieght as a specific account by a named individual. An account that has (it would appear) not been challenged by the police in the country it occured in. As opposed to an account that implies illegal activity that has never been investigated (or indead repeated) by the police in the country the alledged offence took place in. If this did not breach (as far as I can see) BLP rules I would agree. But as far as I can see iut breaches it is some prety big ways. It is an anonymous accusation, irs vaguly libalous, its vague and boarders on little more then inuendo, it does not appear to be taken seriously by the authorities. It prsents no evidance (bar inuendo) to support the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, as I said, The Times isn't saying that it knows the facts of Griffin's accident. The wording at the moment must be amended because it misrepresents the sources. Taking the three newspaper reports together, all we can say is that Griffin lost an eye. We don't have a reliable source for Griffin's version of events so we have no basis to go into detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This source [[7]] states that this is (Ie The shotgun story) how how lost his eye, not that it his his version. So we have RS saying that this is the (n effect) the real version, and a source that ays that ther is an unsabstatiated, anonymous version that they admot is only a rumour.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark Nation Webzine

The owner of this site has added reviews from it to ~160 different industrial and electronic articles, but I don't really see a lot of editorial oversight. The site is not very professional, and the English articles are poorly written. I just wanted someone else to take a look before I start removing his reviews and links from all the pages. Thanks. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the additions are indistinguishable from spam and should be reverted. I didn't notice an "about" on the website and see no reason to believe it is a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No indication this source meets Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

...em.. but it's not being used as a RS is it? it needs to considered as an EL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought usage for music reviews required reliable sources, whereas material for interviews was less stringent. Nevertheless, it still seems like this is WP:LINKSPAM to me. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Information boards

I've had a good look round, but so far haven't found any information about using information panels/interpretation boards as a reliable source. They're the most common form of providing information in museums and all around popular locations, so I was wondering if they can be considered Reliable Sources. In my particular case I'd like to cite information from some large, professionally produced information boards making up part of a display at Fort Nelson, Hampshire, produced by the Royal Armouries museums service. I can't imagine for one minute that they would be unreliable to be honest. If they are good to use, does anyone have any idea how to cite it? There doesn't appear to be an appropriate template in Category:Citation templates. Cheers in advance, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Noraft has a similar query, posted minutes before mine! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I approached it was cite visual, since it is a visual medium: {{Cite visual|title=St. Michael's Cathedral|url= |date=|medium=Sign|distributor=Roman Catholic Church|location=St. Michael's Cathedral Courtyard, Qingdao, China}} I know it wasn't designed for signs, but since they're technically visual media, I made it work, for lack of something better. If we get a consensus here that signs are okay, though, I'm probably going to create a {{Cite signage}} template. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, cheers Noraft. I'll go ahead and use it - I can't believe that official signage produced by Royal Armouries wouldn't be RS. In the wider wiki I don't see why there couldn't be a template for this - I think that as with all sources, the reliability of each sign/board will have to be judged on a case by case basis. Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One possibility is to take a photo of the sign, and release it on a Wikipedia compatible licence. The photograph can then be used to reference the info. For example, this photo could be used to reference the fact that St. Paul's Church, Bristol is managed by the Churches Conservation Trust. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a photo of the sign... it is a verifiable printed source that is located in a specific place... and can be cited as such (a link to an image of the sign is a courtesy, but not necessary). The reliability of signage depends on the reputation of the person or organization that authored what the sign says. An information plaque next to a display in the Museum of Natural History is backed by the reputation of the Museum and would be considered reliable. A hand written poster written by Joe Schmoe to explain his High School science fair project would not be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks very much for the suggestion MJroots, but I resisted in this instance because there is also the issue of copyright to consider (it might be ok with a lot of boards, but in this instance this is a professionally produced board complete with images, some of which appear to be created specifically for the panel). It certainly would help back up a source, but much like other offline source I think it should be the merits of the producer that make it reliable. Blueboar is right that each case would need to be considered accordingly. Does anyone think there should be a more specific citation template, perhaps one that allows a quote or sosuch? Unfortunately I have no idea how to make one! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not quite happy with this. Signs from reputable museums are quite likely to be reliable, but is a sign that's only available in one place in the world "published"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not quite sure it is (see the discussion in the thread above this), but I'm not quite sure how to reconcile that with the fact that its a RS. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers required for reliable sourcing?

An editor is insisting that he can use book names to reference specific claims, without supplying the relevant page numbers. In general I find the claims dubious, because he initially used a book published in 1991 as a reference regarding claims made about a company established in 1995. When I pointed out a book published in 1991 couldn't possibly be a proper source for the claims, he added additional book titles, but refused to provide pages numbers, insisting that WP:V only required page numbers for exact quotes, and that I needed to assume good faith regarding the rest. The actual discussion is here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

When a claim is cited to a book, editors who add the claim should be able to provide a page number and a quote from the book to support that claim, upon request from other editors. If they have the book, there is no reason for them not to do this. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly... It depends on whether you intend to cite the entire book, or a particular passage. See WP:CITE#Identifying_parts_of_a_source, "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole; for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:V, "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." Also from V, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Seems like a no-brainer to me.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It may not be an absolute a priori requirement (although a recommended good practice), but once there is a specific challenge, with a request for a supporting quote and page number, they need to be supplied to show that the source's actual words directly support the material in question. If the editor adding the material has the book, there is no logical or good faith reason to force others to buy it or order it from a library, when the one with the book can simply quote and provide the page number. If nobody has the book (and there is no quote and page number to directly support the material), then the challenged material may be removed, pending the availability of the source. Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't have to spend so much effort on defending an article against typical conspiracy theorists' claims. Hans Adler 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly, paying special attention to the words "where appropriate". It is not appropriate to specify a single page if the statement is supported by an entire book. For example, if the statement is "Singer and Grismaijer believe that wearing a brassiere causes breast cancer", then it is appropriate to cite the entire book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, not merely "page 2" (the first mention of their since-disproven idea) or "pages 1-192" (out of 192 possible pages).

In this particular instance, it is possible that the relevant statements (American Jews were involved a whole slew of financial companies) are supported by entire books, not merely individual pages or chapters. For example, here's one of the refs:

• Charles D. Ellis, The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs (2nd ed. 2009)

This entire book might, in fact, be about the (undisputed) fact that "Goldman Sachs...[was] founded by Jews". If that is the case, then it is pretty silly to demand production of individual quotations and specific page numbers: the entire work supports the claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In cases where the "entire book supports the claim", I would include sample quotes, each with a page number. If there is further controversy, then an independent source reviewing the book would be needed to support the claims. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that citing to an entire book is very poor practice. Surely you can come up with a definitive statement somewhere in those 192 pages that bras cause breast cancer?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't, the claim is too dubious to be included. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 is right. Supplying pages numbers is good practice, and when challenged, should be required. Cases where an entire book must be read to understand the basis for the reference would be non-ideal, and pretty rare. In the academic world, mistakes happen and are propagated due to sloppy referencing and pseudo referencing. Only by supplying pages numbers (or even better, quotes as well), is it reasonable to call a claim verified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like Bruce Fife (1997), "The detox book: how to detoxify your body to improve your health, stop disease, and reverse aging", Health and Well-Being Series (2 ed.), Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 126, ISBN 9780941599320 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995), Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group, ISBN 9780895296641 or Barbara Joseph (1998), My Healing From Breast Cancer, McGraw-Hill Professional, pp. 272-273, ISBN 9780879837112, citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995), Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group, ISBN 9780895296641 might serve. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My deliberately unrelated example seems to have derailed this discussion (which involves a problem at American Jews), but for the purpose of editor education, you all might want to take a look at the specific sample sentence I provided: It does not say, "bras cause breast cancer". It says, "These two authors believe that bras cause breast cancer." The main point of the entire book is their (discredited) belief. The simple statement, "Bras cause breast cancer", should not be included in an article, because it is wrong and explicitly rejected by at least a dozen high-quality sources. However, if you have a reason to say that these two authors believe this (e.g., in the article about their book, or in a section about breast cancer myths), then the entire book is an acceptable reference for the (misguided) belief that the authors discuss throughout the entire book. It's silly to say, "just page two", when this single belief is directly and indirectly referenced on 192 out of 192 pages (that is, the entire book).

Back to the actual problem: If you have a book that is entirely about the fact that a given financial institution was founded by a couple of American Jews, it's kind of silly to demand a specific page number to support it -- especially when you are perfectly certain that Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs were American Jews, and the book is being cited to support statements like "Goldman Sachs was founded by Jews", not some conspiracy theory statement, like "American Jews control the world financial systems and are out to kill people".

Nobody thinks that Goldman Sachs was founded by Christians, or Muslims, or non-Jewish people.

So why are we hassling someone about providing a specific page number to support a fact that we all already know is verifiably accurate from a hundred different sources -- especially when the majority of the named source is about this fact, and that opening the book to a random page would probably result in finding support for this widely known fact? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the claim was not simply that Goldman Sachs was founded by Jews, and because we're trying to get to an underlying principle here regarding proper citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For the underlying principle, there can be rare cases when the entire book is about a single subject, so can be a sufficient citation: the example "Singer and Grismaijer believe that wearing a brassiere causes breast cancer" and Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras is one of them, because the claim is obvious just from the book title, I'd be willing to believe that nearly every page in the book would back that claim. But that's a pretty rare case that doesn't seem to apply to the current issue at hand. The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs is not obviously entirely about the fact that the founders of Goldman Sachs were Jews; and this NYTimes Book Review confirms that it isn't, the word "Jew" doesn't appear once in the entire review. Page numbers for that specific claim are required if demanded. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The case is rare enough and valueless enough that the exception isn't worth the making.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not common, but I don't know that it's rare enough not to be worth mentioning. I'm sure we can find hundreds of books like that, where they're all about proving one specific statement, and just citing the title is enough to back the general statement that "Author believes X": from Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard to The Da Vinci Hoax to Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot... Of course we're veering here; I don't see the specific books in question to be that clearly and completely about the single statement in question. --GRuban (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Student Study

Would a study conducted by an economics student at George Mason University that was published in Econ Journal Watch be reliable?[8] Truthsort (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That the author was an undergrad seems unimportant since the publication itself appears to be eminently reliable. As always, though, it depends on how the source is used. Can you please give us the context in which you ask your question? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See here. Truthsort (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In that context I see no reason for removing this source. Neither the fact that it's "electronic" nor that the author was an undergrad are relevant as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485 etc.

A fairly recent editor and follower of Menachem Mendel Schneerson has been countering objections made to Schneerson and his followers using sources such as:

• Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485
• Chofetz Chaim, Likut al hasiddur-168,C'C al hatorah, par.behar, and similar statements in p.noach. See also the Kol Yaakov, [R'Y.T. Yalish] on p' tavo 16
• Likutei Sichos vol. 2, pp. 510-511.
• Pardes Rimonim 16:6 and 22:3 by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Zohar-2 38a, and Zohar-3 79b, and Sefer Tanya ch. 22 & 23. See also Rashi Bereshit 33:20. Note that the Divrei Shlomo (Venice 1596) writing on Vaeira, explicitly states that "All the Names of God are actually 'atzmuso umehoso', and not merely descriptive like the other names people give to things..."
• Zohar-1 9a, Zohar-2 163b, Mechilta on Exodus 18, Bereishit Rabba 86, Tanchuma Tissa 27, and the well-known Chassidic principle ascribing fundamentally the same status to the soul of any Jew, as elaborated on by R. SZ of Liadi in Tanya ch.2
• Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485

See [9][10][11]. Are these reliable sources from which to construct counterarguments to published material? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to distort what has actually been going on, and read what is being discussed on the Talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Needless_edit_warring, where your spurious arguments have already been addressed. None of this material was cited to counter any objections at all. They were simply the sources for the statements discussed in the article, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Winchester2313 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources themselves may be fine... but the format of the citation is so obscure that I have no way to know for sure. I gather that "Igros Kodesh" is the author... but what is Kehot 7:2? Who published the work? Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the formatting of the references for clarity. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Igrot Kodesh is a collection of correspondence and responses of the seventh Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, modeled after Igrot Kodesh Maharayatz which are the letters of the sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch, Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn (which information didn't help me much). Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Schneerson as the Jewish Messiah says, in part, "Some followers believe that he is able to answer their questions from beyond the grave, through a process of bibliomancy using his collected letters. This practice is known as "Igrot Kodesh", by which answers to questions are derived through consultating the published collections of Schneerson’s letters known as the Igrot Kodesh.", citing The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present, M. Avrum Ehrlich, ch.18, note 14, KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369 and Chabad's critic from within Tom Segev, Haaretz, January 17, 2008.

I'm tempted to point to WP:NPOV re constructing counterarguments to published material, but I see that User:Jayjg has a much more extensive WP background than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They look like primary sources, then. What's your own impression of them, Jay? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that at a minimum these are primary sources, with all the limitations that implies. WP:NOR allows for primary sources, but only with extreme caution. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic for another page, but the problem with using primary sources (at least with contentious material/articles) is that they can be easily misused to violate WP:NPOV by simply cherry-picking which part of the primary source you want to selectively use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends what they're being used for. Igros Kodesh is mostly a secondary or tertiary source for a lot of things. If it's being cited for the fact that the author wrote something, then it's a primary source, which is also fine so long as you stick to exactly what he wrote. Ditto for most of the others. -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But in this case it's not being used as a source for what "exactly what he wrote"; rather, it's being used to support the argument that Hutner respected and admired Schneerson. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed primary sources. An author has pointed out that Elazar ShachYitzchok Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson and his movement. To counter this, a Wikipedia editor has gone through the correspondence of Schneerson, and found letters which he thinks indicate that Shach thought highly of Schneerson. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. I suggest you re-read my edits. The references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to respond until you actually read what was written, and make a coherent argument. I'd suggest you read both Goldbergs book (pseudonymous 'source' and all), and then read the references (secondary, in fact) I provided which completely disprove the SYNTH you are trying to promote here. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Jay. Shach isn't mentioned a single time in any of Schneerson's correspondence, nor has anybody here claimed otherwise. You're tripping all over yourself here, guided by your not-so-discreet POV edit-warring. Please stop making things up.[Sanitized by request :)] Winchester2313 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, typed Shach when I meant Hutner. Shach was also a huge critic of Schneerson and his movement, of course, but in this case we were talking about the argument you constructed using ""Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485". Care to try again? I suggest you remove the personal insults. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I constructed no argument using the Igros Kodesh, and indeed, haven't quoted a single word from them. I have no idea what you're on about, and suggest, yet again, that you carefully read what I wrote.Winchester2313 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am surprised that you write that, as you should know very well by now that Winchester has argued that these sources are being cited to put Shach's critique many years later in context and create balance. I agree that the formatting of the references could be improved, though. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking here specifically about "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", which was used by Winchester2313 to counter the fact that (in this case) Hutner (not Shach, sorry) was a vocal critic of Schneerson's idolization by his followers. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You mention many other sources as well in your list above, the reasons for which were given in the talk page of that article. (Very oddly, one of the sources that you mention as being irrelevant is the very source upon which the article reports that some levelled critique!) And as for the references to Igros Kodesh in the article in reference to Rabbi Hutner, I don't see any question in the first place, but even assuming that there is one, did you raise it on the relevant talk page/s first? I missed it there. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. I'd appreciate if you stopped ascribing motives, and actually read what I wrote. The references I provided later where Rabbi Hutner seeks the LR's blessings etc. are what I used to provide accurate and verifiable information. There's no SYNTH here, the sources I cited are absolutely clear. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Winchester2313, the references to Igros Kodesh were given specifically for the purpose of refuting the fact that Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson's movement and idolization of Schneerson. Here's the edit

Before Winchester2313's edit

After Winchester2313's edit

However, he became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson.

While some report that Hutner became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson, there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect. Hutner corresponded with the Rebbe over the course of several decades, often seeking his guidance and input on a wide variety of halachic and particularly, chassidic subjects and texts. While most of their correspondence centers on academic matters, Hutner also maintained regular contact via a number of Rabbis serving as messengers between the two, and occasionally sought Schneerson's blessings.

The source given for footnote 2 is "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", the source we are discussing. Did those source really say "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Or was that just your editorializing, based on primary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No. As I said, the sources (Igros Kodesh) provided in footnote 2 are merely evidence of the fact that there was an ongoing correspondence, that's all. The sources for everything else are footnote 3, which is a secondary source, and necessitates no editorializing at all. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Source 3 is "Mibeisa Hagenozim, B. Levin, Kehot 2009, p.88-98" "Kehot" is a publisher of Chabad-Lubavitch books, is it not? The movement Schneereson led? Who is B. Levin? Is he a reliable source? Can you quote the sections where it says "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Levin (often written as Levine) is the chief archivist of the Agudas Chabad Library - one of the most renowned and extensive collections of antique Judaic literature in the world. He has also published around thirty books on historical research and Jewish law. As per your request, I will re-edit the article to copy exactly from what he says, and also include more of the published material. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still quite difficult for editors unfamiliar with the subject area to advise. My earlier impression, and that of Blueboar, that these are primary texts, hasn't been contradicted. To what extent can we draw on a writer's own texts in order to describe the positions he has taken? Obviously, a great many articles do that. But we should prefer secondary texts where they exist. We must avoid original synthesis and ensure that our account is compatible with what mainstream sources say. Don't suppose that settles the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course Igros Kodesh is a primary source. It's ludicrous to suggest that that disqualifies it--this precisely references the correspondence that proves that Rabbi Hutner had the utmost respect for Rabbi Schneerson, as anyone who peruses the original can see. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the issue here is less one of reliability as Original research... Wikipedia does allow primary sources, limits them to purely descriptive statements. The usage here seems to be interpretive and conclusionary, which is not allowed. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that interprets the Igros Kodesh and reaches the conclusions stated in the article. We are not allowed to reach our own conclusions based on "what anyone who peruses the original can see" Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already noted that I cited the Igros Kodesh merely as evidence of correspondence, and not in support of any interpretation etc. As a matter of fact, however, Mibeis HaGenozim (a reliable seconday source) does cite these references as part of their section on Yitzchok Hutner, so it is a moot point. The rest of my edits were sourced from http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=17&P_ID=4797&strPageHistory=&strKeywords=shimshon&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=240 which is a thoroughly researched work that actually presents copies of all original documentation supporting the research. I don't believe there can be a more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources compliant source than a secondary source that also presents all the original documentation alongside. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Where can we read about B. Levin/Levine's academic qualifications, and what makes him a reliable source? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zionism & Israel Information Center

I stumbled across the Zionism & Israel Information Center site being used as a source in both the Albert Einstein and Albert Einstein's political views articles. It's being used to support a statement but I'm not really concerned about that specific instance because plenty of sources are available for Einstein related topics. I would like to hear evidence based opinions on whether the site is an RS in general.

It appears to have come up once before on the noticeboard but the issue of whether it is an RS wasn't really addressed in the thread.

Their about page doesn't help much and I can't find instances of the site being used as a source by other RS although I haven't spent much time searching. It appears to be run by Ami Isseroff, Joseph M. Hochstein and is 'maintained by a group of volunteers'.

The site is used extensively in Wikipedia as a source. See LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on their 'About us' page, I would say it is definitely not a reliable source, though there might be exceptions which could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As far as I can tell, Isseroff and Hochstein are two bloggers, and their commentary on the site has no editorial oversight. I randomly picked one of the LinkSearch results currently being cited in Wikipedia. It was written by Isseroff, and cited a couple sources. The sources Isseroff cited in his post may be reliable, but Isseroff's personal commentary and evaluation of them wouldn't be, any more than any other blogger's commentary. ← George ^talk 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

An editor of the Stephen Ambrose article (Centpacrr) has used this web page as a source in the article. He uses it to buttress the argument that one of Ambrose's books had "significant errors, misstatements, and made-up quotes." Now granted, substantial problems have been found with Ambrose's work. The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors.

Although from its name, the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum" might appear to be the website of a museum, in actuality, it's a site maintained by a group of railroad buffs interested in the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. Nothing on the site is peer reviewed; it's all self-published. One of the primary forces behind the site is Bruce Cooper, Centpacrr's real name, as stated on his user page.

"About the CPRR Museum" courtesy of Bruce C. Cooper, the great great grandson and biographer of CPRR First Assistant Chief Engineer, Lewis M. Clement – a veteran professional writer, digital image restorer, avid railroad collector, and frequent contributor to the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum website. (http://cprr.org/about.html)

My reading of WP:SOURCES suggests that the web page isn't a reliable third-party source. Moreover Centpacrr's affiliation with the website and his editing of the particular section of the Ambrose article raise issues of conflict of interest. I've placed an Unreliable sources tag on the section and asked for a more reliable source on the article's talk page, but I'd like a second look to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

Thanks for any help! 75.2.209.226 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you should probably notify Centpacrr of this discussion. Second, does Centpacrr indentify himself by name on his userpage? A hasty glance and I didn't see it, perhaps I missed it or it is in an earlier version of the page. If not, you might want to review WP:OUTING.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind about the outing, his name is one click away from his user page by his own act, it's his lookout. It is not an easy question. I would be inclined to think that the website, given Cooper's self stated accomplishments in the field (if true), is probably reliable. However, Centpacrr shouldn't be citing to himself, that would be a COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, Centpacrr is citing his website. One never knows whether someone's "self-stated accomplishments" are objective, or whether they're peacockery, does one? One of my mentors always used to say, "If you have to tell someone you're famous, you probably aren't."  :) 75.2.209.226 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've asked him to look here and consider commenting, let's see what's up there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the index page of CPRR.org you will see that it contains literally thousands of articles, original source documents, maps, photographs, and other materials provided and/or written by hundreds of contributors. One such document is the 25-page research paper questioned by anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226. I am not one of the authors of that paper nor did I do any of the research for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier publication of mine was quoted by Ambrose in his book in a number of places, but all were also fully acknowledged in the book's introduction, chapter notes, and bibliography, and none of those references to my work were faulty or lacking in any way.)

As a question has been raised about the reliability of the researchers' paper, however, in an abundance of caution I have added an additional source bolstering the veracity and reliability of its material which is the 2001 revised second edition of the Ambrose book itself in which ALL of the corrections documented in the paper were accepted and incorporated in the text. Whether or not anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 accepts or rejects the paper, or the information about myself that I have posted on my userpage, is completely up to him/her. I created my userpage as a courtesy to other editors in order to help them evaluate my contributions. I have nothing to hide, and anyone is free to check anything there in whatever way they want to. Unlike 75.2.209.226, I have have disclosed exactly where I am coming from. But as i say, the bottom line to this discussion is the fact that the publisher of the Ambrose book completely accepted the material in the researchers' paper and incorporated all of it in the revised second edition. This speaks for itself as to its reliability as a source. Centpacrr (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do people with knowledge in the field review what goes on that website for accuracy?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Ambrose didn't make a note of accepting the corrections? He just completely gave up on classiness whatsoever after the plagiarism issue? II | (t - c) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• The reader is entitled to know about these allegations, and to be provided a link to the document source. Whether we go into much detail is a question the editors can decide on, but the allegations should be discussed. Washington Post picked up the CPRR allegations and I'm sure other people have as well. It's also noticeable that the IP editor does not contest the factual basis of these errors Thus it sounds a bit like wikilawyering to remove verifiable material because it's not from a clear-cut oldschool source. And somehow I doubt the IP editor is doing this work out of noble concern for Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. Note that the inclusion should be phrased not as if there are errors, but rather that errors were alleged until there's more conclusive evidence such as an admission by Ambrose. II | (t - c) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that absent any sort of peer review or editorial oversight of the website, no reader can know the reliability or soundness of the critique posted there. Centpacrr may be an expert. But we only have his word on it. That's exactly why WP requires reliable third-party sources, isn't it? As to the Washington Post article, it in no way verifies any of the criticism of the railroad buffs. It simply reports that they issued a critique. Thus, there is a reliable third-party source for the fact that the railroad buffs issued a critique, but there is none supporting the validity of the critique itself.

It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable.

In this context, "self-published" means material not subject to full editorial control. - from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

75.2.209.226 (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the sharp tone and possible bad faith of my above post, although I'm even more disappointed now. You did not even mention the WashPost or the front-page Sacramento Bee article which picked up these allegations even though they're clearly in the article. You also omitted the fact that one of the authors wrote an article on the issue for the History News Network. By omitting these relevant facts you presenting a biased picture of the situation. Why? As I mentioned, the errors should not be presented as fact, but since they are a notable and important part of Ambrose's career, to not mention them would be an error of omission. And clearly we should do the reader the service of linking to the CPRR article. WP:RS is not a rule. There's obviously some flexibility when you consider that the main difference between self-published and published is, in fact, money and incorporation, which does not necessarily entail reliability. Clearly CPRR is borderline, but it's also clear that it is a wealth of information on the specialized topic where there's unlikely to be a ton of controversy. In truth anyone can jump over the "selfpub" hurdle with enough work and money and "publish" their views, if necessary by their own corporation, so there's obviously grey area. And we're not exactly going to classify a scientific or academic society's journal as self-published even though forming a society and publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did. That's why WP:RS is a guideline guided by common sense. II | (t - c) 06:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

First, allow me to respond to your question. Did you actually read my comment? Did you notice the sentence that began "As to the Washington Post article..." (An apology for your unwarranted accusation of bias would be nice...) I thought about mentioning the Sacramento Bee, but that would have been redundant - its article suffers from the same problem as the Washington Post's article - it simply reports on the fact that the railroad buffs wrote a critique. It doesn't validate their criticisms. Anyone can post criticisms on a webpage and any newspaper can report that criticisms were made. It doesn't make the criticisms sound or valid. Second, and more importantly, I think there's another way to look at this issue that may be more productive:

If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.

I just spent some time looking for reliable third-party reviews of Nothing Like It in the World, and in just a few minutes, I found well over a dozen, in both scholarly peer-reviewed journals and popular media.

• Nugent, Walter. in The Journal of American History, vol. 88, no. 2 (Sep 2001), p. 657.
• Ducker, James H. in Journal of the West, vol. 41, no. 3 (Summer 2002), p. 97.
• White, W. Thomas. in Journal of the West, vol. 41, no. 2 (Spring 2002), p. 95.
• Mutschler, Charles V. in Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 1 (Dec 2002), pp. 49-50.
• Howard, Thomas Frederick. in Geographical Review, vol. 92, no. 4 (Oct 2002), pp. 608-610.
• Hofsommer, Don L. in Technology and Culture, vol. 43, no. 1 (Jan 2002), pp. 169-170.
• Shepherd, Allen. in Nebraska History, vol. 82, no. 3 (Sep 2001), p.132.
• DiMarco, Scott R. in Library Journal, vol. 131, no. (Jan 1 2006), p. 174.
• Grant, H. R. in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, vol. 38, no.5 (Jan 2001) p. 962.

In addition, there were reviews in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, Christian Science Monitor, National Forum, Publishers Weekly, Forbes, and Fortune. Rather than asking the question of whether the self-published website is a reliable source, the real question, it seems to me, is: With the wealth of reliable, third-party reviews by disinterested parties available, why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?

As to your assertion that "publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did", nothing could be further from the truth. Articles in peer-reviewed journals undergo substantial vetting. A manuscript is likely to be reviewed by 3 to 6 experts in the field, some of whom are selected because they hold positions contrary to the manuscript's author. There are typically multiple rounds of reviewing, as the first set of reviewers asks for revisions, then those revisions are made, and then the revised manuscript is reviewed again, and so on. Last comes a round of copyediting by professional copyeditors. I doubt very much if the CPRR webpage underwent any kind of outside scrutiny, by impartial reviewers or copyeditors. In any case, the question remains: why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?    75.2.209.226 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused you. When you initially presented this issue, you did not mention the WashPost, Sacramento Bee, or History News Network references supporting CPRR in the article. When I mentioned WashPost, yeah, you did mention it. But the fact remains that you presented the issue with only one side. The degree of rigor in history peer review is an empirical question that we can't settle here, but my experience with peer review in other fields and in general makes me doubt your assertions. My position on this issue has been stated above. 12.12.85.204 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ... The original question was: "The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors." Neither posing nor addressing that question requires reference to any other sources. Your insistence that it does bespeaks your bias. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All one has to do is just go to the paper itself and actually READ it. There you will find all the details and sources (many of them original source documents) to document the Ambrose book's errors that you want.. Centpacrr (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the point the IP makes (and about which I requested info above) about the checking for accuracy that the website uses for its contributions?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 still seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cited paper is and why it was written. It is not a scholarly "review" produced to be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed academic journal, nor does it pretend -- or NEED -- to be to be a reliable and verifiable source to demonstrate inaccuracies in the Ambrose book. It is instead a fact checking commentary that objectively points out and documents more than sixty easily verifiable inaccuracies found in a non-peer reviewed narrative "popular history" produced and published for mass commercial distribution to a general interest audience. If the book in question were the product of many years of original research personally done by its author and published by a university press as a scholarly treatise written primarily for an audience of academic historians, then perhaps 75.2.209.226 would have a minor point supporting his views about the paper criticizing it. Instead, however, the Ambrose book was commercially published in mid-2000 for a mass audience after being largely "researched" in 1999 by a paid assistant (his son, Hugh) employed by a commercial enterprise (Ambrose-Tubbs, Inc.) while Ambrose himself was unable to do so as he was slowly recovering from the effects of a a serious head injury that he suffered in a fall in November, 1998 that resulted in his extended hospitalization followed by months of rehabilitation. This caused the production of the author's manuscript for the book to be delayed and thus many inaccuracies (which, after all, is the subject of the section of the Stephen Ambrose Wikipedia article in which the paper is cited) contained in his text that were thus missed in the considerably truncated and rushed editing and review process forced on the publisher in order to meet its scheduled commercial publication date as closely as possible.

These errors (and their corrections) were identified and documented by three individuals with long interest, research experience, and vast personal knowledge in the field and submitted gratis to the publisher. The fact that the researchers are not "professional historians" does not make what they identified and documented any less accurate or verifiable. And the fact that these corrections were also all incorporated by the publisher in the book's revised second edition affirmatively demonstrates this even if Simon & Schuster did not issue a press release announcing that the corrections had been made or a "third party" did not publish an article in a newspaper or journal specifically reporting the changes. Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 has yet to dispute the substance or accuracy of the cited fact checking paper, only the process of its publication (i.e., where it is available on the internet) which he apparently does not consider to be sufficiently worthy because it has not been "blessed" by a "professional historian." Of course Dr. Ambrose was a "professional historian" but that did not prevent him from making many errors in his manuscript that "non"-professionals were easily able to identify and document. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless the IP has something that goes against the statements being made by Centpacrr, my view is that the site is reliable, and even if the language in WP:RS and affiliated pages were against it, this is an WP:IAR situation, so either way, in my view, sounds like it is getting in. IMHO, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the anonymous IP 75. Knows exactly what the web page is. Given Centpacrr's assertions regarding the expertise of his buddies, I wondered why I could find no mention of it in any scholarly or academic venues, and after having read it, I now understand why. It's not a review, by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply a list of allegations. Some of them are supported by evidence. Many are not; they're simply bald assertions that Ambrose was wrong. Moreover, the web page focuses solely on the factual accuracy of the book, failing to acknowledge that history consists of far more than an aggregation of factoids. There is no mention of Ambrose's interpretation of facts or events, of the themes he emphasizes, or of his conclusions regarding the impact of the transcontinental railroad on American history.

I'm glad Centpacrr pointed out the web page because it's a good illustration of a major difference between reviews in scholarly journals and those found in self-published sources - Scholars realize that hatchet jobs and bludgeoning authors are not effective ways of getting one's point across. Clear, concise writing that gets to the heart of the matter is not only more professional, but more productive. Moreover, unlike advocates, scholars are expected to write balanced reviews that identify the good points of a work, as well as the bad. Nugent, for example, in his review in The Journal of American History (the official publication of the Organization of American Historians), was highly critical of Nothing Like It in the World. Still, he recognized that in the book "Many points are well made" and that it "will adequately inform and enlighten most of those who choose to read it." No editor of a scholarly peer-reviewed journal would accept for publication a review that thoroughly excoriated a work, itemizing all its faults, major and minor, with evidentiary support for only some of them. Wikipedia shouldn't accept such advocacy as a reliable third-party source, either. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• User 75.2.209.226 apparently failed to read the long comment on this subject directly above that begins "Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 still seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cited paper is and why it was written. It is not a scholarly "review" produced to be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed academic journal, nor does it pretend -- or NEED -- to be to be a reliable and verifiable source to demonstrate inaccuracies in the Ambrose book. It is instead a fact checking commentary that objectively points out and documents more than sixty easily verifiable inaccuracies found in a non-peer reviewed narrative "popular history" produced and published for mass commercial distribution to a general interest audience." The inaccuracies identified in the paper were all objective fact checking and editing errors relating mostly to incorrect names, dates, places, relationships, amounts, and other easily verifiable non-controversial facts which is exactly the topic of the "Inaccuracies" section of the Ambrose article, as opposed to criticizing his opinions, writing style, organization, tone, interpretation, or any other subjective elements of the book which is not the topic of the section.

• It should also be noted that neither of the other two citations in the section relating to inaccuracy issues with Ambrose's WWII books to which User 75.2.209.226 has curiously also not objected cite "peer reviewed journals" as sources either, but instead cite a privately owned website called "WarChronicle.com" which describes itself as "... a noncommercial website devoted to main roads and byways of military history" which "has no affiliation with academic or military organizations.", and an unlinked and otherwise unverified 1994 interview with a WWII veteran identified only as "Sgt. Slaughter." No scholars, professional historians, or reviews published in "peer reviewed journals" are cited in these instances which indicates that User 75.2.209.226's standards of verifiability and reliability for citing sources are at best inconsistent. (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/)

Is Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- though in the event of a discrepancy as to a major league baseball player, JewishMajorLeaguers.org would be the superior of the two, given its relationship with mlb.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable because...? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Mays has a Jewish parent and went through a bar mitzvah. If you're not happy with one reliable source you're free to find others. Google is your friend if you wish to doublecheck or improve the sourcing. He's called Jewish by many sources. - 04:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Epeefleche, the question here is whether or not Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) is a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish. Period. It's not about any specific individual. I'm looking for outside, policy-based views from regulars of this board, not the views of people who've followed me here from other conflicts which they've lost, hoping to start up on a new front. Please let the process unfold without this interference. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interference? You don't know a Jew from a Gentile. You've got no business editing anything to do with this topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see above, and review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And you need to read WP:Competence is required. You are unqualified to be working on this subject area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, despite your insistence that they should, Wikipedians cannot actually decide who is or isn't a Jew based on their father's name and occupation. We have to use WP:V instead. And someone who cannot read and understand the basic and plain text of WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:CIVIL (which are policies, by the way, unlike that essay you linked to) really has no business editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had done your work competently in the first place, you wouldn't be arguing about this on at least 3 different pages. Do you even know anything about Judaism??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly relevant, but I've essentially single-handedly written 5 of the 12 Featured Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. I've also single-handedly written 6 Good Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. How many FAs in Wikiproject Judaism have you written? How many GAs? How many FAs or GAs in any project? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Which leaves your meat-handed approach to that list even more inexplicable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, let's look at one of them. East Midwood Jewish Center. Even ignoring the ambiguously/poorly worded "The building's architect is uncertain." (uncertain about what?). It has many sentences that lack footnotes. How would Jay feel if an editor came along and deleted all of them, and all similar sentences in all FAs and GAs he worked on? Rather than tag them?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Every fact in that article is cited. Footnotes sometimes cover two or three sentences in a row, or even a whole paragraph. This is the standard way of writing good articles; one does not repeat the same footnote at the end of successive sentences. Those familiar with writing FAs and GAs know this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I expect you know Jay, is this. When a paragraph is clearly a cohesive whole, that makes sense. There is good reason to believe that the ref applies to the entire paragraph. What you have done, however, is write paragraphs, with facts that are not clearly part of a cohesive whole. There is no way of knowing, in such circumstances, whether the scrivener has a footnote at the end that covers only the last sentence, which of course may be the case, or if it is meant to cover the entire paragraph. Sloppy editors leave this as an open question. Careful editors do not.

Nobody knows, where you have a three-sentence paragraph, if the first two sentences are simply unreferenced. And as another editor of course may come along and add a sentence (unreferenced) in the middle, how would we know that it was unreferenced, and not covered by your footnote? We wouldn't. In fact, that may now be the case in your FA articles, as this is a collaborative enterprise. You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted. I mean, how much extra effort does that take?

The corollary to what you are saying, of course, is that I should be able to put a ref at the end of a list of Jewish athletes, indicating (at the time I tagged it) that all were Jewish as reflected in the ref. And ignore the fact that someone could come along, and add a non-ref covered person to the list. I doubt, given what I have seen you say, that you would be highly pleased by that.-Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable because it is relied on by RSs, and they do actual groundwork to find the answers rather than copy some existing list. BTW -- why are you protesting my giving you the further information that in the event of a conflict w a certain other RS, the other RS is superior? I would have thought you would find that to be helpful. As to me not being a regular here -- I probably am in the top 10 in edits on this board in the last ten days. And even if I were not, it would not matter ... I'm entitled to express my view. Why in the world you would seek to chill it is beyond me. And unbecoming for a sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why a source is reliable is helpful; just saying "Yep" isn't. Please review Arxiloxos's response below, which is a proper response to the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review my response, immediately below his -- and directly above yours -- and tell me why that was not a proper response to your question. And if it was a proper response to your question.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I answered the question as it was asked. Even the quickest google search -- had you done it -- would have yielded the basis for that response. Once you asked for the basis, I did your work for you, as Arx did as well, and put here what the google search revealed. It's not that difficult. I didn't deserve your snarky comment -- I was completely responsive to the question as asked, and you suggested that I should not be commenting here? That's out of line.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sports Review is a print publication that charges a substantial annual subscription fee ($36/year)[12]. It has been publishing in its current incarnation for 12 years. Based on my search at Google News archives[13], it appears to be cited frequently by other reliable publications on articles about Jewish athletes. Sports Illustrated, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have all written about it. [14] [15][16] A 2007 editorial in J Weekly called it "the most reliable and authoritative source on the Jewish heritage of athletes."[17] (This editorial related to a case where the JSR had concluded that an athlete was not Jewish.) Based on the foregoing, I'd certainly think that this journal is a reliable source for this subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. As is quite apparent here: Jewish Sports Review.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Arxiloxos, that was a helpful response. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hahaha. Jay -- was that a back-handed, petulant way of saying that my response was not helpful? And why would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Jayjg was looking for more specifics. Rather than "Reliable because it is relied on by RSs", he was looking for "Reliable because it is relied on by the following RSs", and a list of citations, like Arxiloxos gave. Yes, possibly he could have done all this work himself, by doing a Google search and following the resulting links, but it would have been work, real work. Half the articles in the Wikipedia have been written by doing a Google search and following links, but that doesn't mean it didn't take real work to write half the Wikipedia. Please, let's not take offense when we don't absolutely have to, please. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you give Jay too much credit. For two reasons. First, if one does a gnews or gbooks search, or even a gscholar search as the editor below me points out, the very first page you see is replete with RS reliance on JSR. What makes this curious is that it follows an AN/I discussion where a number of editors brought Jay to task for deleting material (rather than tagging it), that was clearly accurate. Perhaps this was something POINTy in this follow up. Second, if you look at my above link to the Jewish Sports Review article that I pointed Jay to, and click on it, you will see that the article is replete with such examples, saving even the editor who is too lazy to hit google the effort. All nicely laid out. Jay left his petulant message below mine, which pointed him to the JSR article. So, no surprise that he hasn't responded to my query as to whether he was being petulant. Res ipsa loquitur. But it was sort of funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar links. There seems to be a recognition in a few places that this is a reliable source about the subject of Jewish people in sport. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is LiveScience.com a reliable source?

1. A link to the source in question: LiveScience.com: The Most Popular Myths in Science

2. The article in which it is being used: List of common misconceptions

3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and as best researchers can tell, seven seconds seems a gross overstatement.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LiveScience has a professional editorial staff[19] all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both. Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC,[20] New York Daily News,[21] National Science Foundation,[22] Christian Science Monitor,[23] NASA,[24] etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems reliable to me. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Research Center / Newsbusters

Given the recent mostly positive support for using the media watchdog Media Matters for America as a reliable source [25], should the media watchdog Media Research Center / Newsbusters be considered a reliable source? A widely discussed RfC a few months ago overwhelmingly favored consistent use/non-use of these two organizations: [26]. Related questions are whether the MRC / Newsbusters is a reliable source for use in BLPs and whether the MRC is a self-published source.--Drrll (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

MRC/Newsbusters are "partisan"/"biased" RS and, just as with "Media Matters", any sourcing should be both attributed and accompanied by additional RS to ensure notability per WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Euractiv

I am wondering if the site - Euractiv[27] - is a reliable source (here is an FAQ on the website[28]). This is in specific reference to the article on Antonio Tajani and if this story [29] could/should be used since it involves WP:BLP. Interestingly, this article mentions that Tajani's press office has been trying to edit the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Moore

/* External links */ Marianne Moore: Poetry--A Blog for Her Poetry Sources. I would like to post a link to this website: http://moore123.wordpress.com. The site is a blog developed by Dr. Patricia C. Willis to explore and contribute sources for Moore's poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmetta (talk • contribs)

Given that Willis was the editor of Moore's works and has published extensively about her, she seems to pass the "recognized authority" exemption to WP:ELNO #11, which this would otherwise fall under. So it looks ok to me, at least as an external link. IF it's added by someone unconnected to Willis herself, that is; otherwise, it would be a conflict of interest. Given the similarity of her name with your user name, that part is unclear to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Glass

Charles Glass is a noted journalist and author, former correspondent for papers like Newsweek and The Observer. Is he a WP:RS? The question has arisen on Sderot, where some people want to keep him out. It can also be noted that the same person who wants to keep Charles Glass out as a source from of wikipedia articles, wants to keep David Duke in as a source, saying he meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and that in WP:BLP, no less. See here. Huldra (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  

First of all, we're discussing if this self-published piece (apparently from a lecture he gave) is RS, not Charles Glass as a person.

Second, if you read the discussion about David Duke, I said he is an RS for what he thinks. Not in general. Way to try to poison the well though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK: You have argued that David Duke self-published pieces is a source we can use directly in an WP:BLP-article (to be specific, in the article about Gilad Atzmon). See the discussion here: [30]. While on a geographical article; Sderot, you argue to keep out the writing of highly respected journalist Charles Glass, as it is a "self-published piece". Very funny, indeed. Huldra (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I argued that David Duke's self published piece about his opinion on something is a RS, while Glass' self published piece about what he claims are facts is not, particularly since it's a lecture he gave and is not under any RS's editorial control. If you read it, it seems to me he was giving it as an activist rather than as a journalist, but that's another point altogether. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  

Isn´t this rather disingenuous? You forget to mention that you argued this on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. So in other words, you find an old Ku Klux Klan-leaders self published "opinions" noteworthy on a BLP-article. While you rv Glass as a "self publication of a lecture by a self proclaimed activist" on Sderot. Enough. Huldra (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What's disingenuous here is your trying to compare apples and oranges in a silly and transparent attempt to change the topic from the non-RS you tried to edit war into an article and make it about me. I know that's your usual MO, but it won't work. Enough indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If the two of you keep bickering I'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER RIGHT NOW AND YOU CAN WALK HOME!

Seriously - please disengage or at a minimum take your personal disagreements somewhere more appropriate. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable self-published source if it is used as such. In other words, it is reliable as to the author's opinions and viewpoints but not as a statement of fact. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. if I may interject, Glass is being used to further support a statement by Walid Khalidi regarding Sderot being built of the village lands of Najd. This is an uncontroversial fact, not contradicted by any other source. At least it was uncontroversial before an IP and then newbie account started deleting it, and NMMNG came in to try to say it was somehow unique to its author and insist on attributing it to him. Other sources that also repeat the same fact are:

• Janine Roberts writing in the Palestine Chronicle: "Sderot is built on the lands of Najd, a Palestinian village ethnically cleansed by Jewish militia in 1948."
• Cathy Sultan writing in the book Tragedy in South Lebanon: "The goal was to protect the Israeli border town of Sderot in the Negev. It became home to poor Jewish immigrants in the 1950s, a few years after it had been cleared of Palestinians living in what was then the village of Najd."

And others can be found as well. This is not an exceptional claim and its one that no other reliable source has been presented to dispute. So I don't think attribution is at all necessary and the information can simply be stated in Wiki's neutral voice (unless we should write that Charles Glass, Walid Khalidi, Cathy Sultan, and Janine Roberts, among others say that Sderot is built on the village lands of the former Palestinian village of Najd." Tiamut^talk 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Glass is an expert on the Middle East and this is not really SPS. It's the text of a lecture given at SOAS. It's highly unlikely that the text on his website misrepresents what he said in the lecture. RS for this article, I think. I do wish that people would discuss one source/article issue at a time and not engage in ad-hominen attacks on this page. User conduct issues have to be taken elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Huldra was the one who pointed out there's only one source for the claim. I'm not sure why you have a problem attributing it.

I doubt the source misrepresents what he said in the lecture. I also doubt his lecture is an RS. He's not a professor. He's a journalist/activist. Is anything a journalist says considered a RS? I thought there was a reason for "full editorial control" being required for blogs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a rather distinguished journalist and more importantly an author of relevant books. This isn't a blog post but the text of a lecture at an academic institution. His website has a it as a convenience link. If Tiamut is right that his statement corresponds with other sources and is not an exceptional claim, then I don't see any problem with this at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of Tiamut's sources doesn't load and the other is not as specific as what the article says (neither is Glass, by the way). Also, in the article itself there is only one source, which is why I attributed the statement to its author.

I don't agree with you that any lecture a journalist gives is necessarily RS. Seriously, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that any lecture a journalist gives is necessarily RS. My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. I don't follow what you are saying about "there is only one source so you attributed the sentence to its author", but it may not be relevant anyway. We were asked about the status of Glass and that is what I commented on. If the Glass text is used it must be reflected accurately. Please don't lecture me about the seriousness of an encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. - coming at this cold, that's nonsense. On that basis, we could submit lecture notes as RS and we don't do that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lecture notes, no, but if it is agreed that this is the text of a lecture delivered, I think that passes muster. It would be better to find a stronger source though. Some editors have said that there are multiple sources that agree on the same point. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then find one, because my take is that this source does *not* past muster. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not up to me. I am only commenting on the question raised here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly caution against giving the reliable source green light to a lecture based upon either or both of the criteria mentioned -- 1) prominence of the lecturer and 2) respectability of the venue. I've seen many prominent speakers whose publications are eminently reliably deliver nonsense talks at venerable American universities, not to mention annual academic conferences. Add to this the amount of talks that aren't exactly poor in quality but are "works in progress" meant to elicit conversation. The types of quality checks that are present in academic publishing simply don't exist during these talks, and ironically perhaps the prestige of the speaker may in fact correlate more with unreliability than with reliability. When an academic, for instance, is established and tenured s/he is much more likely to give a talk that goes off the deep end than someone who is worried about job security. In sum I think this is a very bad precedent should it be followed. In this particular case the journalist sounds notable, and the claim sounds uncontroversial and verifiable through other sources. Why not use those instead?Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Given the above discussions, I don't understand why using this webpage as a self-published source seems to be being shunned. It seems the correct solution in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, treat as SPS is probably the best solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for your input. This all started with one issue: is the present Israeli of town of Sderot located on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village of Najd...or not? On one hand, you have Walid Khalidi´s book, (=published by secondary source, and used as a ref. for just about all writers on the Middle East), Charles Glass, and many other sources (see list by Tiamut above). AFAIK; they all state that Sderot is on the land which once used to belong to Najd. This has has been ..and is, up until now,.. an undisputed fact. (See also this. And you can also see the UN files about Najd´s land ownership here: [31])

..On the other hand, you have SPA MaorM, who arrived on Wikipedia a few weeks ago (including in some IP-versions; ie, s/he would sign as "MaorM", while logged in as an IP. ) ,.....claiming this was not true, and that "Khalidi must be a liar"[32]. No More Mr Nice Guy, seem to support mr/ms. MaorM´s opinion. AFAIK: there is not a single published source which questions dr Khalidi`s statement that Sderot is on the land which once belonged to Najd.

No More Mr Nice Guy/MaorM has then edit-warred to keep "according to Walid Khalidi, Sderot's land had belonged to the village" into the article. (Earlier it was: "Located just south of the former Palestinian village of Najd, Sderot's land had belonged to the village.")

Now: no other sourced fact in the Sderot article is "according to xx". (Shall we go through the whole article, sentence for sentence, and write "according to writer YY", "according to journalist XX" etc, etc? It would make a horrible article to read! So, one can ask; why this different standard?)

My question then is, do we have to write "according to XX"..when it is (judging by published info.) an undisputed fact?

Thank you all for your time, Huldra (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Codeweavers

Is Codeweavers a reliable source for the inclusion of this edit? [33] And to also provide an external link to the site specified in the ref? mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the Codeweavers site a reliable source for this edit, but if they are, then it is also appropriate to link to the part of the site that supports the edit. The Wikipedia:External links guideline does not apply to links to sources used in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So it`s ok for the edit but not an external link, that`s good enough :) any other comments on this? mark nutley (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote! I wrote IF it is an appropriate reference to support the article, THEN it can stay no matter what the external links guideline says. If it is NOT an appropriate citation to support the article, I say NOTHING.

I say NOTHING about whether the external links guideline would allow it or not. There is no need to discuss whether the external links guideline would allow it or not, because that guideline does not apply. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry i misunderstood you :), So were back to is codeweavers a reliable source for the edit? mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reliable enough for the information, but I wonder whether the activities of fans/modders are really important enough to be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It`s a pretty old game now and is only supported by modders, it is still played by a lot of people though and as we are all about giving out information i figured this would be ok to include in the article. And if it is reliable enough then it`s ok to use right? mark nutley (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

burnham-on-sea.com

Various articles from burnham-on-sea.com are being used to support statements on the article Burnham-on-Sea. I have just nominated this for GA status but on the talk page another editor has suggested that burnham-on-sea.com should not be considered a reliable source. I would welcome discussion of this in case a GA reviewer challenges the source.— Rod ^talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Although Burnham on sea is a nice place and the fishing is good that site can`t be a reliable source in my opinion. From it`s front page Burnham-On-Sea.com is the biggest, most up-to-date Web site for Burnham-On-Sea, Somerset, UK. Written by residents As it is written by locals (who i know will be the best sources for the town) we don`t know if the facts are checked, or if it`s a site of idle gossip. I would say no to this as a source mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As one who has previously objected to this site, let me re-iterate my objection. As a local I understand that this well-meaning but amateur site is run largely by one retired man who treats it as his hobby. Having lots of content that is of interest to locals does not make it a reliable source. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've been through and replaced them all now, although I know it is used as a source in other articles.— Rod ^talk 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources being removed from Judaism

The inclusion from a reliable source is being prevented without logical cause [34]. Could use some neutral editors to look at this issue, as there are a number of editors willing to simply ignore the rules for verifiability. It's potentially very serious, since the other editors are all experienced and obviously know the rules. Thanks for any comments. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Has hits daily double shot itself in the foot?

I would like your opinion about the following issue:

As im sure you're aware and encountered before many articles about albums cite Hits Daily Double as a source for sales. However the following error has occured.

• according to Hits Daily Double: Pulse (Toni Braxton album) sold 51,000+ landing itself at number 10 [35]
• however according to Billboard the album sold 54,000+ landing it at number nine. [36]

Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate. if so what do we do about it's massive use on here?.

Thanks –Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how accurate Hits Daily Double or Billboard are. But even the best publications sometimes contain errors, so a single error does not prove a publication is not reliable. Indeed we cannot even be sure there is an error. Whenever you try to count the sales of something, there are many decisions to make. When does the sales period start and end? If an item is purchased but returned, does that count? Does it count if the item was shoplifted? It could be that the two sources both have reasonable, but different, counting methods. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot be sure of this because I can't find a definitive statement from either publisher about exactly how they calculate their charts, but I strongly suspect that the difference is down to covering different time periods (and of course the other factors that Jc3s5h mentions may also have an effect). The Hits Daily Double chart is dated 10 May; the Billboard chart is dated "week of 22 May", whatever that means. Since the album has sold 50,000+ copies in its first week a discrepancy of just a day between the two charts could easily account for several thousand copies.

I don't think there's a problem with original research in just establishing reliability - provided it's not actually used in the article - so you could email the editors of the two sites and ask if they can explain why the figures are different. I'm sure you wouldn't be the first person in history to ask! Barnabypage (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az and U.S. Azeris Network

There is a dispute at Khojaly Massacre talk about the reliability of two Azerbaijani sources: Today.az and the U.S. Azeris Network. The latter features a PDF image of document, most likely a scan, which is genuine in my opinion. User Divot in the talk thread thinks otherwise, without any evidence, on the ground of alleged Azeri propaganda. Can we use those refs to support the sentence in question? Brandmeister[t] 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az is probably the best examples of the types of websites that should be excluded from Wikipedia. For anyone who has visited it daily, they will see that, regarding issues to Armenia and Armenians, it regularly publishes information which is not corroborated by third-party sources, attributes quotes to Armenian officials where they are not recorded elsewhere, always ascribes the cease fire violations in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on the Armenian side, calls on Azerbaijans to mass edit Wikipedia articles for supposed "falsification" in articles related to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and the language and the tone of the article virtually wax lyrical against Armenia and Armenians, etc., etc. In short, it's an agit-prop type website and third party sources should always take precedent over it. Unfortunately, media originating from Azerbaijan, with the exception of the IWPR and RFE/RL's service, are much the same.

I have little reason to believe that U.S. Azeris is any better, based on the text found in "The Issues" section. One of the issues describes the supposed failure of democratization of Armenia as "a heist worth $2,6 billion [!] dollars to US taxpayers" and in general other activities aimed at vilifying Armenians. Regarding the document, I too, have e-mailed the Massachusetts House of Representative leaders and have not received a response. There is no record of it being passed in the official journal of the Massachusetts HoR website or any other mainstream American newspaper. Furthermore, the awkward grammar in the text almost gives it away as being a forgery: it writes that the Massachusetts HoR "Offers its sincerest acknowledgment of: The 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre." The definite article "the" is missing in the space between "of" and "Khojaly", a glaring oversight for a government document but a common error found on English-language Azeri websites. Unless we receive some word from the HoR leaders, we should probably regard this as yet another hoax.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked WP:RELIABLE, Today.az seems to fall within reliable News organizations. Obviously the proof of the statement in question is not exclusively reserved for third-party, but for national sources as well since it tackles the Azerbaijani matter. USAN does not look like a questionable source either, the info presented there is highly prone to double check, so I don't think they would publish fakes or some other kind of falsified data for propaganda purposes. Brandmeister[t] 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction: while Today.az publishes information on national and international events daily, it does so in a highly tendentious manner. It's useless to find a single newspaper, anywhere in the world, that does not lean in this or that direction regarding a political issue or political party but Today.az's malicious reporting (as well as other Azerbaijani newspapers such as APA) is akin to agit-prop and it does almost nothing to hide its virulent anti-Armenian reporting. It has none of the high reporting standards of say, the Washington Post or Le Monde. Since no one is finding the information published in these Azeri or Turkish sources in third party sources, it's not unreasonable to conclude, given their past track record of falsification, that this is just another hoax. In 2008, when the war between Georgia and South Ossetia broke out, APA (and only other Azerbaijani-based sources) circulated a report that Russian fighter jets had taken off from an air base in Armenia to bomb Tbilisi, thus signifying that Armenia violated a treaty it had concluded with Georgia. The article supposedly cited the Russian Defense Ministry but this news was almost immediately denied and the report turned out to be a hoax. I don't think we can expect real reporting when such blatantly dishonest information is circulated.

At best, you should wait until an official from the state sends you a response or directs you to officially published material.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already waited for DeLeo's e-mail, nothing. Vast side accusations do not contribute well here, I still do not see evidences of alleged forgery either from you or Divot, despite of asking him about the base of his doubts. APA is not newspaper, it is Azerbaijan Press Agency, being the official informational outlet (like Reuters or Associated Press). Brandmeister[t] 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the scan of the original document to wiki commons and wikisource. See here: [37] Also there's a confirmation of the authenticity of the document from Mrs. Ellen Story, the State Representative. Anyone can contact the House of Representatives of Massachusetts or its individual members to check for themselves. Plus, I added a link to report from Azertaj, which is the State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan Republic, an official governmental source. [38] I think this should suffice to eliminate any doubts of the authenticity of the document. Grandmaster 10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today.az is a major Azeri mainstream news organisation, little doubt that they are reliable similar to other major mainstream news organisation from other countries. If the claims are controversial we might attribute them, similar to what we do with controversial claims in other major mainstream news outlets such as the BBC or Le Monde or the New York Times. Pantherskin (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But at least you can see a sincere desire of neutrality from sources such as CNN, the BBC, Le Monde and the NYT, whatever controversial material may come up every once in a while. When every article or news piece on Armenians is systematically slanted and worded to demonize or vilify them, then that just makes it no better than the commentary given by the personalities on Fox News. It's not just one or two pieces but a whole slew of them. The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a joke. The same problems plaguing Today.az, APA and other forms of Azerbaijani media I outlined above are found there as well. The government of Azerbaijan is just as big a party in spreading malicious propaganda and misinformation against Armenians while at the same time puffing up its own ego.

Is it not suspicious that none of this is being reported in mainstream news sources and especially not by the media in Massachusetts or state websites? It is not even mentioned being discussed on the Massachusetts House of Representatives schedule [39]. When, for example, a country or national parliament has recognized the Armenian Genocide, it's been pasted all over the news and not just Armenian news sites. I have a few e-mails to the representatives and am still awaiting a response from them. This seems to be the most prudent course.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan is a serious source. It reports official documents, which it receives thru official channels. It even provides a scan of the document. I have uploaded the hi-res scan to wikicommons. Also, a friend of mine contacted Rep. Story, and she said: Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself. So the scan of citation has been provided, and there's also a confirmation from a secondary source, Azertaj. Anyone wishing to further verify the authenticity of this document can contact the Massachusetts House of Representatives or its individual members, like I did. Grandmaster 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Story's notice clarified the matter, I think this thread could be closed now. Brandmeister[t] 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself." - That is all, that she said? Are you sure? Divot (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, who is "a friend of mine"? Is he Reliable source? Divot (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So where is any mention in a U.S. newspaper? Also, why did this site[40], take a month to mention this ground-breaking event? At a listing of Massachusetts newspapers,[41] searching through the FOUR Boston papers[42],[43],[44],[45], resulted in no mention of the Massachusetts House of Rep recognizing Khojaly. How odd, since there are articles mentioning Khojaly dated 1992! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson

To avoid edit warring or violating WP:3RR I would like some help with a matter regarding a current film icon. There is a belief on the net that Robert Pattinson is a Catholic, which even if were true would not warrant categorization (Category:English Roman Catholics) per WP:BLP as it is nominal at best and plays no apparent or public role in his life, except for the controversy it has generated on Wikipedia and Wapedia. This entire premise is based solely on four words, never expanded upon, during an interview, with a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, to wit: "Robert Pattinson is a Catholic Who Believes in Abstinence" (Video Courtesy of movies ireland), which may have been a facetitious comment. NNDb, as faulty as any other information gatherine site, picked up this second-hand info as has included it in their profile of the actor. The following is an excerpt of the interview:

Slap me silly, but, I assumed that, since Rob was from England, he was raised as a Protestant. To my surprise, I found out that he was well acquainted with the Pope, the rosary and the subject of confession. Not that he enumerated the three during his Movies.ie interview, but, any regular Catholic would be familiar with the topics.

INTERVIEWER: “I mean, you, being the method actor that you are, take on your character’s abstinence…(ect.)”

RP: (Agrees with this, then goes on to say…) “I’m Catholic as well.” (and then) “I mean,I totally believe in it.”

As another poster, Rachel, points out on the same thread: Okay. First of all, method acting is a style of acting where the actor attempts to feel and think all of the things that the character s/he is portraying feels. This is in order to give a more “lifelike” performance ... Notice that the interviewer says that Robert is “taking on” the abstinence BECAUSE OF his being a method actor. He then goes on to talk about Robert and Edward as the same person because of this. Robert agrees and continues the conversation in the first person (”I”) because he’s still talking about himself AS EDWARD. Make sense? Watch it again with this in mind — it’ll click ... And if you think that this means Robert is becoming like Edward in real life, entirely, as a permanent fixture of his personality — it doesn’t really make any sense, does it? What about all the other roles Robert has played in other movies? Robert Pattinson is a method actor all the time, not just with Twilight. That’s his style of acting. So thinking that Pattinson is turning into Edward for real is as absurd as believing that he’s also turning into Cedric Diggory, Salvador Dali, Tyler Whatshisname from Remember Me (lol, sorry — I can’t remember.), etc... Does this mean that Pattinson absolutely isn’t Catholic? Of course not. But this interview says as much about his own personal beliefs about Catholicism as it does about his own personal beliefs about Buddhism. Which is nothing. [46].

The following is excerpted from the talk page colloquy:

Normally people's nominal religious affiliations are not even important unless they play some kind of important role in the person's life, (WP:BLP) which is not the case here, Pattinson's reported comments about abstinence notwithstanding. (Does anyone believe he is still a virgin?) Furthermore there is no evidence at his own webpage of any religious beliefs at all. No mention of attending Mass or anything. Neither he nor his sisters attended denominational school(s), which most Catholics in the UK do. The issue of whether Pattinson is Catholic remains unproved in my humble opinion, and more importantly, is an unimportant tempest that does not belong in the Wikipedia teapot. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to tell if he was being sarcastic in that interview or not. For what it's worth, according to this family tree of Pattinson (admittedly on a blog), he is of fully English (i.e. not part Irish or Scottish) ancestry, so that makes it a little more unlikely that he was raised Catholic (unless he was descended from recusants). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to all this rush of data User:Bbrezic states "Personally, I sincerely doubt that CNN would publish an article that had not been previously reviewed." -- I was not aware that Pattinson approves copy at CNN, and in any event I don't even recall CNN being one of the sources! Bbrezic ADDS: "Also, I sincerely doubt that Pattinson would said that he is a Catholic, and that in fact in real life he is not, especially with considering that in almost all interviews and articles he is characterized as an honest person who does not lie. Do you have some proof to offer that Pattinson is not Catholic, any proof, except your own belief that in the said interview he was lying? Suggest any reliable link to support your claim ... Here by I invite the admins to make the observations about this case. If they say that those links are not trustworthy or that is unclear if he he was telling the truth, ill back off, but it will be their decision to revert the article, and certainly not yours". This is inaccurate in several regards: firstly, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian acting in good faith to correct or delete information he/she knows or strongly believes to be false, biased or of dubious provenance, especially if they can provide a concrete reason for doing so, which I did on the talk page. Secondly, I never claimed or stated that Pattinson was "lying", but I hold (along with Rachel, WhereTheLinesOverlapXX and All Hallow's Wraith) that most likely he made a facetitious comment to a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, which does not and should not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Thirdly, whether Pattinson should be categorized as Catholic depends on the notability of that characteristic to his life and career, which is nil, based on the net evidence of four words in a silly interview. I recall a long ago battle over whether Haley Joel Osment and Emily Osment were to be categorized as Catholics and the decision, unless it has been disregarded since then (I haven't checked), was NO, despite the fact that there was no question they were raised Catholic.

To clarify matters, I told -- not threatened -- User:Bbrezic that I would take the matter to WP:ANI if he reverted my edit again without explanation or comment. He reverted again and left a reply on the talk page, which reasoning is, to my mind, wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore I have brought it here to be resolved to avoid further conflict with another editor. I will abide by whatever decision is rendered by an impartial administrator. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Links:

• http://robertpattinson.org/?p=1042,
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Pattinson
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Pattinson&action=history
• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aESYGBmQmp0J:www.atwilightkiss.com/robert-pattinson-is-a-catholic-who-believes-in-abstinence.html/comment-page-1+Robert+Pattinson+raised+Catholic&hl=en&gl=us&strip= Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would prefer just to leave out the claim that Pattinson is Catholic. I watched the interview segment discussed here, and from the context it seems quite likely that he is joking or being ironic during the discussion of abstinence and religion. I don't think we should assume that he was literally describing his religious affiliation during this interview. If he really is Catholic, I'm sure other sources will eventually turn up to verify that. And if he isn't Catholic, then we're doing the right thing by omitting this interview as a reference stating that he is. (Incidentally, I don't think anything should be assumed either way from the fact that Pattinson is English as to whether he is Catholic or not. There are a few million Catholics in England and Wales.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo

Fabritius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio"[47] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim.[48] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.[49] [50] [51] [52] Fabritius then repeated the same [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored.[73] Edward321 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Prometheus Books

Is Prometheus Books a reliable source for the article on Homeopathy? In particular the following book:

• Shelton, Jay (2004). Homeopathy: How It Really Works. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-109-X.

Shelton is a physicist and apparently teaches skeptical thinking - here's a source on him - [74]. The book was reviewed by the JAMA but I haven't read the actual article [75]. Here's another review, not sure how reliable it is [76]. Comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Prometheus generally -- For anything remotely academic I would consider Prometheus second tier or a publisher that warrants skepticism when considering each work it publishes (ironically perhaps). If a standard academic publisher were interested there is no reason to have Prometheus publish a book. Prometheus was founded by Paul Kurtz and its publishing record shows the ideological inclination of Kurtz' other projects the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Most of its books tout favorable reviews from individuals and groups associated with atheism, secular humanism, freethought, and skepticism because much of their intended audience is drawn from those communities. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but Prometheus should not be mistaken for a first tier academic publisher, no matter who they are publishing. In some ways Prometheus is a "secularist" version of something like Abingdon Press or InterVarsity Press. The latter two publish academic books by university professors (among other things), but do so for a Christian audience.

Regarding this specific book -- My first suggestion would be try to source the statement elsewhere if possible, but if you can't see if the book has been reviewed in mainstream peer reviewed academic journals, and if so what was the verdict? Because of its ideological inclinations, Prometheus is bound to be more of mixed bag in terms of publishing mainstream scholarship so validation by other mainstream sources should be sought for an individual work. That's my opinion anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)