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

Oelemari Airport and other Surinamese articles

Hello. After a brief discussion at User talk:Nardisoero, Salvidrim (talk · contribs) suggested to re-route our discussion here. It does not reduce to the example below, but we can start with it. Thank you.

1. diff
2. Oelemari Airport

3. On 15 August 1960 a Northrop YC-125B Raider, registered PZ-TAD (Formerly N2570B, 48-632) stalled during landing at Oelemari and was reported written-off with no fatalities. The pilot was D.L. Walker. The airplane was leased by the Surinamese Government/SLM from Ambrose Aviation for equipment transport for landing-strip construction, under "Operation Grasshopper".

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article on Joe Baugher, and that he might qualify as an expert in the field of military aviation. But that seems a bit of a stretch here, since I don't see where that page writes the information it is being cited for here. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Continuing with Surinamese articles, here's another concern of mine, which I also raised at the article's talk page.

1. diff
2. Surinam Airways

3. Surinam Airways operated the following aircraft throughout its history:

• Beech G-18S
• Bell 47G Helicopter
• Boeing 707-320C
• Boeing 737-200
• Boeing 747-200B
• Boeing 747-300SCD
• Cessna UC-78C Bobcat
• Cessna 170B
• Cessna 206
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-100 Twin Otter
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-300 Twin Otter
• DHC-8-300
• Douglas C-47A
• Douglas C-47B
• Douglas DC-6A
• Douglas DC-6B
• Douglas DC-8 Series 50
• Douglas DC-8 Super 60 Series
• Douglas DC-9-50
• McDonnell Douglas MD-80
• Piper PA-18 Super Cub
• Piper PA-23-160 Apache E

There are now three references after the ″:″. My main concern is this one, which is of dubious origin. As I said, this has already been raised at the article's talk page, yet the editor that introduced this reference never responded to my comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

GCatholic.org

Is GCatholic.org a reliable source for information on Catholic ecclesiastics who hold the title of primate? Or should it be classified as more or less a blog run by Gabriel Chow of Toronto? See the inconclusive discussion here. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly far better sources for this kind of information than a personal blog. Use them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• [1] cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

Poll source	Date updated	Ghalibaf	Jalili	Rezaei	Rouhani	Velayati	Aref	Haddad-Adel	Gharazi	Others	Undecided
Rasanehiran	11 May 2013	21%	10%	9%	7%	7%	5%	2%	1%	37%	1%
Akharinnews	12 May 2013	39.54%	7.21%	–	1.75%	24.74%	2.75%	7.68%	17.39%	–
Alborznews	13 May 2013	15.08%	1.00%	5.07%	0.05%	8.07%	1.03%	7.06%	18.06%	17.08%	9.03%
ie92	14 May 2013	18%	7%	12%	8%	7%	1%	1%	4%	40%	2%
Arnanews	15 May 2013	8.8%	9.3%	3.9%	0.2%	3.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	70.5%	3.1%
Iranelect	15–16 May 2013	47%	21%	14%	10%	–	–	7%	–	–
Kashanjc	16 May 2013	43.25%	1.25%	5.81%	1.97%	24.04%	2.21%	6.46%	4.17%	9.43%	–
ie92	17 May 2013	16%	7%	11%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	44%	2%
Iranamerica	18 May 2013	33.33%	11.11%	22.22%	11.11%	–	–	–	11.11%	–
ie92	19 May 2013	15%	7%	10%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	47%	1%
AleF	20 May 2013	19.8%	11.6%	4.6%	12.5%	13.2%	12.5	4.7%	1%	19.1%	1%
Farsnews	21 May 2013	20.1%	13.5%	10.9%	6.6%	7.4%	3.3%	3.1%	0.2%	31.9%	3%
ie92	22 May 2013	31%	17%	22%	13%	12%	1%	1%	0.1%	–	4%
Fararu	23 May 2013	18.84%	9.56%	7.49%	24.36%	3.86%	30.96%	0.93%	4.01%	–	–
Ghatreh	23 May 2013	17.57%	16.83%	6.38%	17.32%	6.9%	30.87%	1.16%	2.92%	–	–
Seratnews	23 May 2013	22.96%	40.47%	4.84%	10.14%	6.93%	9.97%	0.84%	3.84%	–	–
Ofoghnews	23 May 2013	20.00%	19.00%	6.00%	20.00%	8.00%	23.00%	0.1 %	4.00%	–	–

Meantime (India)

This request is about the following article and whether the cited source for it can be a reliable source: For a Free Press CounterCurrents is a WP:SPS, but it has published legitimate articles from other RSs. Here's a good example from a past and archived discussion at this WP:RS noticeboard.[2] So the point is that the article appearing in CounterCurrents republished an article that appears in The Meantime published July 20, 2005. Is the Meantime a RS?

Further evidence: The Mean Time was a registered publication in India (The Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India). This we know from public records:

• Title: MEAN TIME
• Registration number: 69702
• Title code: KARENG01713
• Owner: M/S.ALTERNATIVE MEDI
• Address: A PVT.LTD.,3/6 II FLOOR, B.S.A ROAD,MASJID STREET,BANGALORE
• Pub_city: KERALA
• District: BANGALORE
• VRF Dates: 8/3/1995
• State: KAR
• Language: English
• Periodicity: OP
• Publisher: P.C. HAMZAH

Furthermore, this notice of publication appeared in print: "New magazine launched" The Tribune (India), Tuesday, February 2, 1999. (Instructions: Scroll or simply do a "find" in browser for Hamzah. And another bio at a political party also says Hamzah published Meantime.Crtew (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If a given article has appeared in both self-published and non-self-published publications, then it is not considered self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. (Consider: The New York Times runs an article, and someone copies it onto his blog. It would be silly to say that the article is self-published.)

But whether it's reliable depends on what you're trying to say with it. It might be a reliable source for statements about a reporter in India. It would not be a reliable source for statements about Einstein's theory of relativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources in English versus sources in foreign language

Good morning,
I have a general question about sources in English versus sources in foreign language. There is a the moment a (civil) discussion about the name of a roman dish, Carciofi alla giudia. Another user supports the inclusion of an alternate spelling ('Carciofi alla giudea', with "e"), and brings as support several non-Italian sources. On all the major Italian culinary works the first spelling (giudia) is used, and in Rome the second spelling is unknown. My questions are:

• Should an English source be preferred to a local one in order to define the spelling of a word in another language?
• Should the English sources be preferred to the local ones in order to determine the common name of a foreign (and local) object, in a case like this?

In other words, should wikipedia act in this case as a world encyclopedia or an English encyclopedia? I would appreciate the indication of some guideline, if present. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The spelling in English could be different from the spelling in Italian. This could occur for a variety of reasons, such as the Italian spelling changing after the dish became known in the English-speaking countries. Another possibility is regional differences in the Italian spelling, and the dish becoming known in English-speaking countries through contact with one region, while Italian books being published in a different regional spelling.

In any case, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, Wikipedia documents the English name of things. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to provide both? That would also satisfy readers' appetite for more info. :-) Crtew (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be an alternative name. Relevant guideline would be MOS:LEADALT - include it in parentheses. That's the general Wiki philosophy, by the way - if there are two alternate views with reliable support, don't choose between them, give both. --GRuban (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an Italian dish so it has Italian name. This is in contrast to spaghetti bolognese, which isn't really an Italian dish at all, or to lasagne, which has a name that is naturalised in English. The article should be under the correct name, and you could add the alternate name as GRuban suggests. I would word it Carciofi alla giudia (also sometimes carciofi alla giudea). Or you could simply leave out the incorrect spelling, on the grounds that it is... incorrect. 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We decided for the alternate name solution. Alex2006 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Weekly Standard a Reliable Source?

On a factual matter, is the Weekly Standard reliable? Neosiber (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Need more information... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=next&oldid=556654504 It was a change by an anon. I don't consider the Weekly Standard reliable, but I thought I should see what the board thought. Neosiber (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable in context. It's another example of conservatives saying waivers were funnelled to unions, and it's not synthesis because the MSNBC report connects this to the cancellation of the program. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is used inappropriately. Here is a link to the May 16, 2011, Standard blog used. The information used is actually taken from a direct quote from a Republican Policy Committee report, which is the actual source. It is used to support the text, "After this and other reports of preferential grants to labor unions." The rest of the sentence is "the Obama Administration announced it would be canceling the waiver program in September, 2011." That is a clear case of synthesis. Notice that the program was cancelled after the Standard published the excerpt from the report. TFD (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Global times as in Kennedy tragedies

Recently I was just curious about an issue in the Chinese article of Kennedy tragedies. The Global Times Source(Chinese) claims three versions of Kennedy curse which is like what I described in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_May_21#The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?. One of the versions seemed to copy the report of Weekly World News. As I have asked in the Reference desk, most replies says that claim of this source is not sensible at all, and not even worth noting. So does not it really worth any mentioning, or is it like "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.", that wikipedian's ideas and a lack of further evidence does not undermine the reliability of this Global times source?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what is your question, so I'll break it down one by one:

1) Assuming you were asking if Global Times or Weekly World News can be used as reliable sources on the topic of John F. Kennedy, curse, Occultism or Judaism, the answer is no. None of the above sources are shown to be notable/expert publications for the above subject matters, especially since the exceptional nature of the claim that "Kennedy was cursed by Jews/Devils/etc." requires the support multiple high quality sources. Try to find a better source to support the curse claim.

2) Assuming you were asking that if the view that Kennedy's misfortune is caused by a literal curse deserves some mentioning, the related wiki policy should be WP:FRINGE. In general, the WP:NPOV policy states: a) If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. b) If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. c) If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I hope this address your question(s). Jim101 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even to mention it as an example of media influence? And is the judgement whether a viewpoint is significant minority biased to different language? e.g. What is considered not significant enough in English world may not be considered so by Chinese world?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, how do we judge if a source is a "notable/expert publications for the above subject matters". Every news website can focus on hundreds of events every year, does this mean that all news site are not reliable (at least for any exceptional claims)? How should we decide whether a claim is exceptional?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you are asking whether this material is reliable as far as this English-language Wikipedia is concerned, or for a Chinese-language one? If it is the latter, they may well have their own policies and guidelines regarding sourcing, and we can't answer your question here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know about the reliability issue, because I think the way of how to judge the reliability of a source is alike for all language wikipedia.

Back again as an example of experts, how can we expect a columnist to be an expert about the Kennedy tragedies?[3]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is intended to provide help with issues concerning the reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia - it is not a forum for general discussions on abstract questions regarding reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just make the question clear again. Sorry for not have stated it earlier. Is the Global times source a reliable source? Why? Does it worth any mentioning? Why? In regard to your concern on reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia, I would say I would like to know if it is reliable so it should be cited or not.

As I was still confused about the idea in the first reply. how is "notable/expert publications" determined? Is that columnist article which is currently cited in the article expert?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Global Times isn't currently cited as a source in the English-language Wikipedia article on the Kennedy tragedies. As Jim101 has stated above, it is unlikely to be seen by us as a reliable source for the article, should anyone propose to use it - though as always, it is better to ask a specific question, stating what the source is being cited for. As for the remainder of your question, I suggest you read WIkipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Out policies regarding sourcing are explained in detail there, and there is no reason to repeat them all here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just curious about if there is a good reason. If I see such sources and claims(as I did in Chinese WP), should I just say "it is not a reliable source" and remove it?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In second thought, perhaps it is not so difficult to argue.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BIG claim needs solid source, is it among the solid ones?

diff Is the following reliable enough for the claim it's supporting? "1986–1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". History Commons. Retrieved May 10, 2013. :

"In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by Saudi Arabia^{other ref} as well as other countries including the United States of America.^{ref: History commons}"

Feel free to weigh in. (Give me a {{tb}} when you reply kindly) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking over this source (History Commons). Let's assume that somebody has objected to it (which is probably why you are here, I assume), and take it off the table right away. It contains many references within that article that could verify the fact. First and up top, you'll find Ahmed Rashid, who is a well-known and respected journalist and wrote Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (among others). So a person who faces objections to the History Commons source, which I do not evaluate here, would learn a lot and have a number of good sources to reference for the claim made. It would take some more work, but the cited source above is chockfull of good, reliable sources.Crtew (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• What Crtew says, but there are no shortage of sources for this, it is common knowledge that the west supplied arms and munitions to the Mujahadeen. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded. See also Rambo III and The Living Daylights for examples of how positive the Mujahadeen were perceived (and portraid) in the West back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Darkness Shines (I just want to note the moment for historical purposes)! ;-) Crtew (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

History Commons sounds like Wikipedia! About Us Just like we tell students: DO NOT use such a source for research! I find it reasonable for anyone to object to this source (even though I find the references used in the article you point to to be good ones, see above).Crtew (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What I asked was is this source alone sufficient?
Do we need more sources? Are there such sources? If yes, where (link)? Thanks for commenting, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This source is not sufficient at all per WP:SPS and shouldn't be used. But it provides a decent set of breadcrumbs to useful information that can be used to document the fact. Somebody would have to go through sources and verify, for instance, Rashid's book made the claim. Crtew (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend almost any of our references for our article Soviet war in Afghanistan; most of them are much better sources, and most of them mention US support for the mujahideen. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Megan Fox's apology to Michael Bay

Can anybody help find reliable sources to help verify that Megan Fox had to apologize to Michael Bay to get the role of April O'Neil the upcoming Ninja Turtles reboot? I had added a source from Radar Online, but I have come to learn that Radar has a low reliability factor per Wiki standards. Or can the Radar Online source be used in this instant? Sarujo (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but .... is this really crucial information for the article that we simply can't live without? --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of Tiffany & Co. press release about store opening in local community

Resolved

 – An alternative source was provided for the fact needed that should satisfy all parties. Crtew (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The article for Red Bank, New Jersey includes a mention of the fact that Tiffany and Co. has a store on the main street of Red Bank, New Jersey, a small Jersey Shore community with a population of 12,000 people. Another editor removed the material and its source, stating that "A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS". The source in question is an official press release from the firm available on WebWire titled "Tiffany to Open Store on Red Bank’s Historic Broad Street" that describes the company's plans used to reference a sentence in the article

"Store openings have included Tiffany & Co. in November 2007."

My reading of WP:SELFPUB is that a rather bland factual statement in a press release about a planned store opening which has been used solely to support a statement in the article about the planned store is appropriate for inclusion in an article about the place where the store will be opened, as the claim is not exceptional, is not about a third party, is about an event directly related to the company, is rather clearly authentic and the article includes several dozen other sources. Can this source be treated as reliable? Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source is reliable—and this is a bit of a WP:SKYISBLUE thing, since anyone can confirm through tiffany.com and Google Street View that the store is quite plainly there—but I would prefer one that says the store was actually opened (not just planned), and in November. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually press releases are not reliable sources and Jimmy Wales himself has written about this issue. However, journalists use press releases and incorporate them into their copy, and so if you search for the facts you need in newspapers/news media that use the press release, then you're spot on and nobody can challenge your source(s). If the person didn't remove your citation, you could put a citation needed template after the reference and the fact (since it's not a BLP and until you complete your search). But since the fact is contentious (at least to the person who removed it), then you're on shaky ground and the source shouldn't be used. However, the best place for you to search is through the trade press. Tiffany, I assume, is in the retail industry and jewels. Crtew (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason offered by the editor in question as to why he removed the statement that Tiffany announced it was opening a store in Red Bank, New Jersey was not that it was contentious, it was the claim that the press release is by definition not a reliable source. The question of whether or not the source is reliable is what I'm trying to determine both for the purposes of understanding the situation here and in other similar situations. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See NOTE #8 in WP:SPS about press releases. Crtew (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note #8 doesn't say anything about press releases beyond the fact that they are self-published, which I don't believe has been in dispute here. For SPS's purposes, a business is considered an "expert source" on its own actions, just like a person is always considered an "expert source" on the person's own actions. You may cite a store's press release about basic, non-controversial facts about the store, e.g., its location, just like you may cite a person's blog for basic, non-controversial facts about the person, e.g., the person's hometown. The press release is a reliable source for this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it better to have a source that all Wikipedians will acknowledge is reliable rather than one that has no "independent reviewers" and a conflict of interest? The source below satisfies those standards. Crtew (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing policies do not require editors to use the best possible sources at all times. You are only required to use a source that (at least) meets the rock-bottom minimum. You may use a better source, but you are not required to. This source is useable for the statement being made. It is reliable, and RSN concerns itself with whether a source is reliable, not whether a source is the best possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's surely not worth the spat they're having over this very PR issue at WP:ANI right now. In that case, I would wear a belt and a pair of suspenders! Crtew (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no spat from this perspective as Nightscream has already acknowledged that the source was always reliable as used in the article. The consensus is clear here that the press release is reliable and verifiable as a source so there is no further confusion regarding its use as a source in the Red Bank article or in using similar sources in the future in case anyone were to make a claim that a press release was not a reliable source. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further search tip: Tiffany made the announcement that it had opened the store in Red Bank in its Q4 report for 2007 released in March 2008.Crtew (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you're looking for is: title=Tiffany remains 'cautious' on U.S. market |publisher=NationalJeweler.com |date=March 24, 2008 |accessdate=2013-05-27 |url=http://www.nationaljeweler.com/nj/high-volume-retailers/a/~14589-Tiffany-remains-cautious-on-U.S.

Good luck, Crtew (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source for updating the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. If the source is found to be acceptable by those assembled here, then that's good enough for me. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hi, is Ancestry.com an acceptable source for a deceased person, bearing in mind WP:BLPPRIMARY? Article is Harry Noon‎, I have an IP who says he is the subject's son-in-law wanting to use it to verify date of death. GiantSnowman 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Largely, no. The amateur-provided data can't be used directly as cites in articles per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ancestry.com does make lots of public records available, but a lot of that public record data isn't necessarily very accurate, especially from the early 20th century. It also contains a lot of outright lies about things like professions - on immigration forms, immigrants would put down good-sounding high-skill jobs or whatever they thought might not get them turned away, even though they did not have those skills. There was also a lot of fudging of names and addresses. Such sources also could not be used to establish notability. Zad68 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding - not to discourage the use of ancestry.com as a resource entirely, however. You can use ancestry.com to find leads to acceptable sources. For example, an ancestry.com record might lead you to a newspaper article, which could be used. Zad68 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability is established; literally all we are looking for is a RS for date of death. GiantSnowman 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More information about the actual ancestry.com record would have to be provided, and what data source that record is using for the date. Zad68 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that ancestry.com is not really a source of information, it's just an aggregator of information. All the ancestry data it carries comes from somewhere else, and a lot of it comes from stuff individual amateur family genealogists type in about their own families from verbal family histories ("Hey Mom, when was Great Aunt Tillie born? 1904? OK I'll type that in."). If that's the kind of source the editor is talking about, then it really can't be used. Some of the data it carries does come from legit WP:RSs - "Look I found a newspaper article that says Uncle Bob died in 1953, I'll type that in and make a note about the newspaper article." If that original source of info is available, that can be used. Zad68 15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, I will let Wilbur56 (talk · contribs) know. GiantSnowman 15:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not rs. However, if one cannot find a reliable source for a death, even an obituary, then you need to question their notability. TFD (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, that is very much nonsense. Plenty of very notable people are missing birth/death dates. For example, we do not know when Audrey Tautou was born - if you believe she is non-notable then I suggest you take her to AFD, where you will be rightly laughed away. GiantSnowman 08:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD said "date of death", which is missing for Ms Tautou for a good reason. TFD is right that we may question notability. We can question lots of things here without prejudging them. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Date of death is, as far as we should be concerned, of the same importance as date of birth. Either way, we do not know when Amelia Earhart died, is she not notable? GiantSnowman 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take care that we're not talking past each other. Of course Amelia Earhart and Audrey Tautou are notable and deserving of Wikipedia articles, and they both have an uncertain or unknown birth or death date. However, those are both certainly exceptions; most notable people of the last 200 years have well-documented milestone dates such as those. I think that all that TFD is saying is that if the date isn't easily found in secondary sources, it's reason to ask the question about notability, although the answer might certainly be, "Yes, definitely notable" as in the cases GS found. Zad68 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not reliable because the information is uploaded by users. Regarding the sidebar about notability, the lack of a reliably sourced death date does not reduce an already-established notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, really good point, the particular footballer Harry Noon whose article this question is based on played for fully professional League One teams and clearly passes WP:NFOOTY #2. I don't think anybody is trying to take that particular article to AFD. Zad68 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree that the problem with Ancestry is altogether related to it being user contributed. Some of it is for sure, but I am guessing that this question actually relates to the birth, marriages and deaths information which isn't user generated but is part of the masses of archival public records stored and indexed there. The problem with this part of Ancestry is that it is a primary source that can only be used with great care. Some of the problems with this kinds of primary sources are described above; in this case the real problem is that we cannot be sure from a death record whether we have the right Harry Noon. That's why a newspaper obit, or in football magazine or team's website are what we need. Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Any birth, death, or immigration form is a RS by default and it does NOT matter if there is a likelihood that someone might "lie" on one of those forms. It is a government form and a reliable document. If there is a death certificate on Ancestry.com then it is ok to source the death certificate. Same with an immigration form that said xx came to the US as a carpenter. We don't care about "truthiness", we care about the source.Camelbinky (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing. Birth certificates and the like aren't recognised as WP:RS because they are primary sources, and it needs research to determine that they are in fact referring to the correct individual. We do not engage in original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andy, what Camelbinky is stating seems to run contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Zad68 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing a deceased person here. But yes, for living persons, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies, and such documents shouldn't be used at all: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite continued trying by certain groups using PRIMARY sources is NOT against Wikipedia policy, and should in fact always be used when showing a secondary source to be unreliable concerning a certain fact. Such as a date of death. If a primary source, the death certificate, says one thing the onus is on the secondary source to PROVE WHY that primary source is incorrect. Otherwise the primary source must be used to show that the secondary source is inaccurate and unreliable. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." straight from WP:RS. So please everyone shut up with the crap about primary sources being automatically not allowed in WP, sick of hearing that old hat, and it's never been true. Camelbinky (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So... the actual guideline for which this is the noticeboard regarding questions about that very guideline is WRONG? Please back up your OPINION with actual policy or guideline. I did and therefore- I'm right and your wrong. You wanna argue some more with nothing to back it up but your bullshit? Go right ahead.Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline is right - it is your misrepresentation of it that is wrong. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material." You are advocating interpreting primary sources to 'prove' secondary sources wrong. That is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about interpreting in anything I wrote? If a death certificate says my grandfather died in 19xx and a book written by someone says 19xy then the death certificate trumps the secondary source. Where is the interpretation?Camelbinky (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatever in policy that states that a primary source 'trumps' a secondary source. Please stop spreading misinformation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A primary source that proves that a secondary source is inaccurate and therefore not a reliable source in that particular case does in that case trump the secondary source. It doesn't have to be codified in policy, policies are not law, policies reflect prior consensuses and our "current" way of doing things, as accurately as something written can reflect "current" when it is being written after the fact, or in Wikipedia's case they are not always updated to reflect that. Our way of doing things through consensus trumps written policy regardless of whether our way of doing things is written down yet or not. Regardless, I'd like to point out YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION everytime you stated above that primary sources are not allowed. PRIMARY SOURCES ARE ALLOWED. That is all that needs to be said. You said they were not allowed. I showed you were wrong. You were wrong. Can I say it again? You were wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So there is no policy whatsoever behind your baseless assertions. Just what I thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source, new developments

the question of using Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source should be discussed again, mostly because of their euclid report 2011. at the time, it was accepted, but since then:

• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of comoros to the united nations says that "Verifile Accredibase is not a reliable source"
• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of central africa has a letter to UK saying page 2 that "Verifile Accredibase a private uk label is to be dismissed"
• the Verifile Accredibase contains at least one gross error: that their is no university in comoros (also on website of permanent mission to un)
• in the euclid talk page, it is almost sure that the Verifile Accredibase business owner Mr Ben Cohen tried to push his report from his ip address from Belford where Verifile Accredibase is...
• there is no panel of experts but just Mr Ben Cohen who is from Israel. euclid talk page satinmaster pointed out concern is islamophobia
• that report is also a broad attack against all intergovernmental universities like the UN University.
• what we do know for use that EUCLID is an intergovernmental organization (int domain and WIPO) and their treaty is on the United Nations.
• what we do know for sure is that Verifile Accredibase published a report written by the business owner after article in journal of OIC (Islamic)
• the now have the letter from the United Nations (December 2012) saying that they and UNESCO recognize Euclid as being accredited

so Verifile Accredibase does not meet reliable source wiki cretiria because:

• it is really online self-published source with fancy business name
• there are no references in report to support claims just opinions
• the context seems be law suit between euclid and verifile...

if you look at "Self-published and questionable sources" definition: Verifile Accredibase "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" publishes "contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions" "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media...are largely not acceptable"

conclusion, WIKI here should discuss and agree not considering Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source because it is just one person (business man from Israel) with an personal agenda against these governments and even the United Natiosn... Muez1981 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting one of these two identical sections, hope that's all right. For some context, the time this was previously discussed was January 2012 and then, as now, the article was EUCLID (university), specifically Accredibase criticism. The EUCLID/Accredibase issue seems to be a big deal, enough for each of them to maintain their own page on the issue: Accredibase's; EUCLID's.--GRuban (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now for analysis - it does look like Verifile Accredibase is an expert source on the topic of university accreditation. Here it is being cited as such by two major sources, the New York Times [4], and the International Business Times [5], and two regional papers, in England Business Weekly [6] and in California The Bay Citizen [7]. It looks like the article section with the two agencies hurling mud at each other should stay. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note the updates I just made to the page, as it seems the UN error Verifile Accredibase asserted had been made has been addressed.--Elvey (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

progarchives.com

~644 pages use this unreliable source. Help purging its citation would greatly improve the encylopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Music Enthusiast Magazine

I recently added a reception link to the Deep Purple album Now What?!, which was a professional album review from Music Enthusiast Magazine. One of the fellow contributors, a Walter Gorlitz, took down the link to the album review, later saying "http://musicenthusiastmag.com does not appear to be a site that supports professional reviewers. I could be wrong though and you could request a review of the site at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I reverted your recent additions based on that assumption".

So, I am appropriately providing a link to the online source for you to look at [8]. Similarly, the album review in question is located at this address: [9].— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyWorld1015 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look very good at first sight. There is no "Who We Are" or similar tab. I clicked on a number of reviews and they are all by a "William Clark". It looks like it could be his personal website. For rock reviews we are looking for mainstream magazines like Rolling Stone or more specialist magazines in particular genres, or even in newspapers like the New York Times. It is not compulsory that all reviewers be professional journalists, but normally they will be. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an editor adding reviews from musicenthusiastmag.com (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_Life_Goes_%28Tom_Keifer_album%29&diff=557339267&oldid=557095579 ). I have removed them since it's not a professional review site. I can't seem to find any information about the site. Is this a valid source for reviews? I suspect that the interviews might qualify as primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously don't think it's at all reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller as a source

Resolved

 – summed up by Thargor Orlando: "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible, just like with any other blatantly partisan source." -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I had updated The Daily Caller's wikipedia page, only to be told by a user named Neosiber that "Wikipedia had concluded The Daily Caller was an unreliable source" and that I was vandalizing the page. He cited these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#The_Daily_Caller_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#The_Daily_Caller

I'm admittedly new here, but I see nowhere, including on the links he supplied, where "Wikipedia says so." Several commenters chimed in to disagree and asked him to provide a concrete declaration that The Daily Caller was an unreliable source. If anything I feel that he is vandalizing the talk page by using it to attack the outlet. Furthermore, even if The Daily Caller is an unreliable source, which I don't believe has been decided by Wikipedia, to say that I can't use the website to cite something on it's OWN Wikipedia page seems absurd. What is a better source for a Wikipedia entry than the actual subject of the Wikipedia entry? I'm not interested in getting into a back and forth with this guy, who has now resorted to patronizing me and sarcasm on the talk page, so I wanted to bring it here.

As an aside, I would note that the "footnote" on one of the noticeboard entries says that The Daily Caller has now been accused of paying sources to frame a senator, but that entry does not note that virtually no one believes those allegations, and writers from The Atlantic, Slate, Washington Post and Politico have said that publicly. I know that noticeboard is closed, but I wish there was a way to allow that to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page. We need to know what exactly the Daily Caller is being cited for, and what text it is being used to support. And yes, we can very much decide that a source isn't reliable for something on a Wikipedia page about it. We don't hand over editorial control of pages to article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The About page is quite substantial. I'd say it's at least on par with Huffington Post, though there may be reasons individual authors postings might not be allowed on some articles on a case by case basis. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS doesn't work like that - we need to know what it is being cited for. How difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was editing and got kicked out because other edits were taking place at the same time. The sentence was "Months after the initial report, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie about having sex with Menendez, and that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator, a charge which all outlets denied. And the articled cited was here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/22/lawyer-behind-menendez-prostitution-allegations-recants-blames-news-organizations/

Also, it seems you are making decisions on a case-by-case basis, which is completely understandable, but which in no way supports the charge that "Wikipedia has decided" it's an unreliable source, per Neosiber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84:15:33, 29 May 2013‎ (talk • contribs)

Unless I'm missing something, the source you cite doesn't actually state that "three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie" - it says that this was 'reported' to Figueroa. It seemingly doesn't state that "police in the Dominican Republic announced... that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator..." either. The passage seems to be conflating two different statements, neither of which seem to be entirely borne out by the source. Frankly though, this is all rather confusing. (and can you please sign your posts with four tildes thus: ~~~~) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the ip editor is misusing the external sources (WaPo, et al). These are all opinion pieces, basically. It doesn't fit with the sourcing policies of WP to use non-RS to counter other non-RS, so it doesn't matter whether other opinion writers think the DC did something or didn't. If that were acceptable, then it would also be acceptable for someone to put the fact that Secular Coalition for America's awarded Daily Caller the title of "Most Unethical News Publication". But it's not, so we don't. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik Wemple and David Weigel (the WaPo and Slate bloggers, respectively) are used in over 500 Wikipedia entries. Some of them aren't using them as a direct source, but the majority are. These include pages for Benghazi, Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Cycle (TV program), Gawker, Toure and Ari Shapiro (Wemple); and Republican Presidential Primaries 2012, Jennifer Rubin, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, James David Manning, Chris Coons and Ron Paul newsletters (Weigel). As all of these cite the blogs that Wemple and Weigel write, then I would assume they are treated as the same non-RS as the blog entries of theirs that I cited? 70.192.207.199 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are really getting ahead of yourself. Slow down. There is absolutely no need to put your assertions back into the article before talking it out on the article talk page, where I have already engaged you. There is no justification for placing this material back into the article yet, and since I voluntarily adhere to 1RR rather than 3RR I will repeat that I would like you to self-revert your re-addition of that material until some consensus is reached. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: if the anon IP is claiming that this edit [10] is justified on the basis of discussions here, he/she is entirely misguided: the material added isn't the material we were supposed to be commenting on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a whiff of FORUMSHOP here too, as I suggested on the talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I'm not claiming that, and in fact never responded to your post above, which I do agree with. Apologies for that. So is your position that The Daily Caller can only be used as a source on a case-by-case basis? I had started this post looking for resolution on the claim that "Wikipedia had decided" it was not a reliable source. UseTheCommandLine introduced the new topic of Wemple and Weigel. It is my position that the topic of whether they were reliable sources had already been "fought out," so to speak, on the article talk page, which was why I added that back in as a source. It was never meant to be part of this conversation here, which remains unresolved (to me) about whether TDC is a reliable source to use in entries. Thank you. 70.192.207.199 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Most sources are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with stronger sources required for stronger claims (see WP:REDFLAG). We seem to be getting hung up on this point, but it should be common sense; we need a sense of how a source is being used to help determine whether it's appropriate. For instance, given the Daily Caller's role in the Menendez fiasco and its overall track record, I would hope that any responsible editor would avoid it as a source for contentious material about living people. However, it may be cited, cautiously, to illustrate its own viewpoints in articles where those viewpoints are particularly relevant. For those of us who got lost reading this thread, could someone re-state exactly what content the Daily Caller is being proposed to support? MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this requires either additional attention on the talk page in question, a DRN case, or attention by an administrator. I am unwilling to break my 1RR rule here, but have been unsuccessful in my attempts to get the ip editor(s) to talk out the underlying issue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've talked it out with you every step of the way. The only thing I haven't done is follow your order to revert my edit, because I contend my edit is correct. Would love to have an admin weigh in. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Daily Caller talk page, that is. I've talked it out with you all day there, not here, since your issue is one that doesn't belong in this section anyway. You aren't questioning TDC as a source, you are questioning three other sources. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Break: recap of issues

• ip editor used Daily Caller as a primary source for the allegations against it (DC) in the Menendez case.

ip editor also made this edit -- the source article says nothing about "collusion"

• Neosiber cited previous RSN discussions about DC's reliability as a reason to exclude it. ip editor still has questions about this, apparently.
• discussion here and on talk page evolved...
• currently, this edit is at issue. ip editor appears to want to use opinion pieces and news blogs to suggest that the Daily Caller is not the party that manufactured the allegations against Menendez. ip editor's contention is that because these blogs or people are cited in other articles, they are RS. My contention (after having gotten involved via this noticeboard) is that ip editor should justify their inclusions individually on the talk page, and leave them out until then. ip refuses to self-revert to remove theis material, which leads to....
• ip editor insists that because they have modified this material, and Neosiber has not yet objected to, this means that, in ip's words, "consensus, thin as it is, seems to be on my side."

I hope that's clearer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly true, but not exactly.:

• I did use a Daily Caller story as primary source for allegations against it. Also, one of the articles (I believe the WaPo article) does mention the other outlets.
• Neosiber cited previous RSN discussions about reliability, with the conclusion that "Wikipedia has decided." I don't see anywhere that it has been decided, which is why I raised the question today of whether that is the case. So far, all anyone has said is that it's case-by-case. That's fine - and answers my original question of whether or not the Daily Caller can be used as a source. I see that many issues on the noticeboards have "Resolved" above them, and this one does not. That was all I was trying to clarify.
• In the process of asking my question, I used an example, which as AndyTheGrump pointed out, really didn't support my sentence anyway, thereby making the question of whether or not it could be used in this case moot.
• Separately, in the discussions with Neosiber, I replaced the sourcing with 3 other articles, before I ever started the discussion here. I was really trying to clarify for further purposes. True that Neosiber said they were fine, though I don't contend he is the be-all, end-all, as my disagreement with him was what caused me to come to this board in the first place.
• UseTheCommand line introduced a whole new issue to this discussion, about the new sources. He did it here, before doing it on the talk page. I have engaged with him every step of the way, despite his protests that I have not. Somehow, I also got blamed for tying the discussion of the three separate articles to the Daily Caller article, when he did that himself.
• I understand his contentions. My contention is that it's just a back and forth between the two of us, and until someone else weighs in, at the moment there is no way to reach a consensus. Based on the consensus we already had on the talk page before he weighed in, I don't see a reason to undo my revert to the old edit from this morning.

The reason none of this is clear is because the conversation that this post started with has morphed into something else entirely. I have made every attempt to clearly and concisely explain myself. Also, UseTheCommand line is free to revert my change. That's his self-imposed rule, not WP's. Similarly, if anyone else had agreed with him thus far, he/she could have made the revert as well. I only said the thin consensus was on my side because it was fought out already. I'm more than open to anyone else chiming in and/or making that change. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

based on your edit history (what I can piece together of it, anyway -- is there some reason why you can't register an account?), I have little faith that my reversion would mean that you will actually talk things out either here or on the talk page before re-introducing the material. I have no desire to get involved in an edit war, thus the 1RR, thus my politely asking you to self-revert. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And make no mistake, this is still about the reliability of sources and their misuse. you have simply pivoted from using a source (already of questionable reliability) to describe allegations against itself (no CoI there) to using newsblogs to support a contention about the legal speculation about the outcome of an investigation when the facts are not known (and in fact there is an ongoing FBI probe about the matter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to talk things out all day, that's the main thing I don't understand here. But that, like the actual substance, seems to be something else we won't agree on. I don't understand your second point. What is Col? As for the facts not being known and an ongoing investigation, on that we can agree. Before I made my very first edit to the Menendez section, it read as an open and shut case and basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here obviously): TDC reported the allegations, Menendez denied them, the FBI found no proof, the women recanted and TDC was accused of paying to make the whole thing up, but they denied it. That is so far from the complete story, and even further from anything resembling neutrality. Issues which I did in fact take to the talk page in the Menendez section. So yes, I still contend that I was trying to make this more balanced. Never once (I don't believe) did I try to distort any of the sources. But just because it's a story that the WaPo won't tell in its entirety doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are outlets on both sides of the political spectrum that exist to tell stories that mainstream media won't tell. I don't know what the real story is on Menendez, nor did I ever try to conclude anything in my edits about what the real story might be. But I know there is more than you're reading in WaPo and ABC News, and just because those details don't jive with their narrative doesn't mean they don't deserve to be told. FWIW, this is the Univision report citing the collusion, but the WaPo and others parsed words, either by choice or by lack of accurate translation, I have no way of knowing which, to not allude to the collusion. Obviously a Spanish language video is not a source, but he says that these four outlets contacted him about making a video with the women and offering money, but that only a reporter from TDC actually showed up. At a minimum, Daily Caller and Univision denied everything in the report. I'm not sure about CNN or Telemundo. Univision also noted in its report discrepancies in the lawyer's story. The Univision report was only reported on by the Daily Caller, and other sources that I'm sure you find not reliable, such as Talking Points Memo After reading some of the other stories, I actually will contend they don't use the word "collude." But what would you call it when four separate (and competing) news organizations allegedly contact the same man and encourage him to find women that they can tape falsely claiming to have been with the senator? Politico also reported on the discrepancies in the Washington Post article. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I really can't believe this is here yet again. At worst, there really isn't a consensus for not using TDC as a source, based on previous discussions. At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible, just like with any other blatantly partisan source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have now joined in, and that appears generally to be the consensus. I'm going to take the liberty of marking this as "resolved" and quote you in the summary, Thargor. That appears to be one of the procedural objections at issue here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 14:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Break 2: Specific questions re:sourcing

1. Is the Daily Caller RS for reporting allegations by others against itself? (my guess is no, see WP:ABOUTSELF)
2. Are any of the following sources:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

RS to support the following statement:

Several members of various media sources, including writers from The Washington Post, Slate and The Atlantic, publicly stated that they did not believe the allegations that The Daily Caller paid anyone to make false claims about the senator.

to my mind, this is related to RS, as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:NEWSBLOG -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

the justification for use of these sources, 'because theyre used elsewhere on WP' also smacks of WP:CIRCULAR. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

flickr and "travel-around-japan.com" as reliable sources

[14] in [[Thomas Blake Glover] relies on these two sources. Do they meet WP:RS?

In 1859, Glover crossed from Shanghai to Nagasaki and worked initially for Jardine Matheson buying Japanese green tea. Two years later, he founded his own firm, Glover Trading Co. (Guraba-Shokai). His first major success was as a supplier of ships, guns and gunpowder, which he sold illegally to the rebellious Satsuma, Chōshū and Tosa clans in Japan during the 1860s.

His business was based in Nagasaki, and it was here that he had his home constructed, the first Western-style building in Japan. His former residence in Nagasaki, now a museum, is laden with masonic symbols. Although there are no official Masonic Lodge records or the like to prove that Glover was a Freemason, he is often associated with the secret society by both Japanese and foreign writers.

I suggest that the first paragraph is fully unsourced, that flickr is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and query whether the tourist website is sufficient for the remaining claims - noting that the last sentence is not remotely found in the tourist site. Last I checked, a claim requires a real source, which appears lacking. Disparate opinions are sought. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fully unsourced, and also contains a contentious biographical claim that Glover had illegal dealings with rebels. That really should not stay in the article unsourced.

For the second paragraph, it's unacceptable to use an editor's personal interpretations of a public-provided image. First, the flickr description of the image is of unknown quality. Second, the image itself would be a primary source, and any interpretation of it, such as the claim that the markings are on it are "masonic symbols", would be absolutely unacceptable original research. The website travel-around-japan.com is clearly WP:SELFPUBLISHED, as seen here, and so also does not meet WP:RS. The second paragraph also ends with unsourced contentious claims that need to be sourced properly or removed. Zad68 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Might someone be so kind as to check the "new sources" which appear to cover the really trivial bits, and still not to cover the problem bits? The editor has filed a formal complaint at AN/I that my edit was "wikihounding" :( and thus having a third party vet this would be appreciated. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the content and sourcing changes that appear in this diff, and they do seem to check out, kudos to Ubikwit for finding good sourcing (as far as I can tell). The sources provided appear to be high-quality and although I cannot see all the source text behind the Google Books snippets, just from the context the keywords appear in, I do not have reason to doubt that the sources seem to be represented appropriately by the article content.

Is there a specific bit of content that you're thinking does not check out? Zad68 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Glover Garden article as well where the same offending type of source remains in situ. I did find one poor use of a source in the Glover article -- I have an annoying habit of asking that sources support claims as written <g>. [15] shows my understanding of what the cite actually says (I went and looked at far more than a snippet, btw). I assume, perforce, that "smuggling" is "illegal" but that the added use of "illegal" is fully unneeded. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm 100% on board with the asking that sources support claims as written! I'm a particular pain in the behind about that when doing spot-checks of sources when I do GA reviews. In this case, I think we're all in agreement that the book is a good-quality source. Also I can see that, for example, the book does mention "gunpowder" on page 156 but I don't have access to that whole page, and the Satsuma are mentioned on the surrounding pages, so I could only get as far as my "doesn't look like it's a problem" response. As both you and Ubikwit have full access to good sources, it sounds like you're on the right path to improving the articles by using them accurately, and double-checking each other's work. Zad68 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikionary a reliable source for Wikipedia?

For example, there is a template that includes a lot of terms that are from Wikionary and are not in Wikipedia, e.g. arrogance, swaggering, jerk, drama queen, self-absorbed. Is this kosker? (See template below). This template is included in many, many articles.

A related question is that many articles are included in the template that do not mention narcissism in the article itself. e.g. Walter Mitty, Nepotism, Valley girl, Diva, Mr. Toad, Tantrum, Empire-building, Metrosexual, Don Juanism etc. When I bring this up on talk pages, the editors says there are plenty of sources, even if they aren't in the article. He uses google search to prove it. e.g. for Walter Mitty, he says that this proves it: [16] and [17]
This is the justification for including Messiah complex in the narcissism template: [18]

Also, Jay Gatsby is called a narcissist based on [19] Farrajak (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There are much bigger problems with that template than just having links to wiktionary (which in my opinion is not a problem). The bigger problem that just about everything in the type category directs to a subsection of just one article. Ridiculous. Subsections of articles should not be on a template.Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically excludes Wikis as reliable sources. A link may be approriate - but is not usable as a source for a claim of any sort in an article otherwise (just as we bluelink to Wikipedia articles in some (too many) cases,

What about in a template? Do templates have to be reliably sourced? Is a link to wikionary ok for including a word in a template? Also, should articles be included in the template that make no mention of narcissism in the article? (Are templates considered part of the article, or external links?) Farrajak (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these templates are for navigation, thus the name navigational templates, meaning to link between wikipedia articles, not pages in external websites, including sistersites such as wiktionary.Curb Chain (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

fisherieswiki.org

Following is an exchange concerning the status of FisheriesWiki on Wikipedia:

---

Hi Epipelagic - regarding your message of 30.4 about my having entered enough links to the Fisheries Wiki and adding more might put me at risk of breaching the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on promotion and the like, I first want to apologise for the delay in responding. But on the issue of adding links to FisheriesWiki where the article in question is about a fish species or group, I have noticed that most (all?) such articles have links to FishBase, and I was simply following the logic of that by adding FisheriesWiki links. FisheriesWiki is a site that is basically the same as FishBase - a global information system with contributions from scientists and managed by a non-profit, which in the case of FishBase (or SeaLifeBase, its sister site) is organised around marine and freshwater aquatic *species* whilst in FisheriesWiki the data is organised around the *places* (fisheries) where those species are exploited/caught. These sites are in close collaboration as well. Every FishBase and SeaLifeBase species article has a link to FisheriesWiki (in the 'Human uses' section), which will take the user to a list of all profiles on FisheriesWiki that deal with that same species (e.g., for Gadus morhua there are currently 64 profiles). And for every FisheriesWiki profile, there is a link on the profile ID page to the FishBase article on that profile's matching species. In sum, then, I do understand Wikiepedia policies on promotion but do not see in this instance how I was in danger of violating those policies, and so would like to continue to add external links to FisheriesWiki to Wikipedia articles where this is relevant/appropriate - such as articles on other aquatic species where information on a site devoted to human uses of that species would add considerable value for users. Your thoughts? --Jackwhalen-sfp (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FisheriesWiki is an open, contributor-based platform based on a model that has a lot in common with Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia does not have the sort of quality controls that, say, a peer reviewed scientific journal or a reputable newspaper has. Consequently Wikipedia editors are not permitted to cite Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. For similar reasons, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki, however useful as a general resource on fisheries, cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. There are some important points of contrast between say FishBase and FisheriesWiki. FishBase is a massive, long established database with a reputation for reliability, controlled and monitored by high profile academic scientists such as Daniel Pauly. It is not funded, as far as I am aware, by any groups which have interests other than scientific ones. FisheriesWiki is a recent start up, and not been round long enough to consolidate a reputation for reliability. It is the product, as they say on their web site, of "an alliance of buyers, suppliers, and producers". There is clearly scope for local commercial and political influences on content within the wiki. So for these, and other reasons, I do not see how it would be appropriate to use FisheriesWiki as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You say that FishBase articles link to corresponding FisheriesWiki articles, but they link also to corresponding Wikipedia articles. So that doesn't further the argument for FisheriesWiki being a reliable source. Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, but it can be an excellent starting point to get a (maybe) reliable overview of how the land lies together with a list of reliable sources which can then be followed up. Similarly, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki can be a useful starting point for investigating a fishery, and may be a good place for for a Wikipedia editor setting out to develop an article on a fishery. For that reason, I didn't revert your entries when you added the wiki a few times as an external link.

Anyway, that is just a personal initial impression and not a Wikipedia position. I have referred the matter for further comment to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Why not link directly to FishBase? If you already do, what additional does the fisheriesWiki reference serve? DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Most fish articles link to FishBase. But FisheriesWiki can have a lot of specific information about different local fisheries for a given species around the world that is not covered by FishBase. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thunderbird (mythology)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thunderbird_%28mythology%29 noticeboard archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_148#Talk:Thunderbird_.28mythology.29

@Mangoe Did my research, and found that the book has an extensive reference here in the article on which it is based: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_council_of_thirteen_indigenous_grandmothers#Book_published_about_The_Grandmothers. Author says about her work: "the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them. In a sense, this book represents our collective spiritual heritage." [[20]] She gives diligence thus as a secondary source, nearly archival work.

The council itself is a long prophesied event, and carries significant anthropological and ethnographic significance. The International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers initially met, for 7 days, on 11 October 2004 at the Dalai Lama's Menla Retreat Center on Panther Mountain in Phoenicia, New York, declaring themselves a council at that meeting. The choice of location for the meeting, the land of the Iroquois, was fitting as the Iroquois nation always consulted their own Council of Grandmothers, the Unami Clan of the Lenni Lenape before any decision was made. The Council was founded and sponsored by a non-profit organisation, The Center for Sacred Studies, under guidance of the Center's Spiritual Director Jeneane Prevatt. [[21]]

I suggest that this is valid secondary source of reasonable reliability and quality. Books published by respected publishing houses, material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas. passes WP:FRINGE that Hiero voiced his concern over. I suggest that the book because of its extensive reference in an important native american occurence and nine translations (the fourth of which is English) is thus well-received in the scholarly ethnographic/anthropological world. Furthermore, I can vouch for its integrity of information and usefulness. We must not censor and oppress these native traditions any more; as religious intolerance AND disrespect for the wisdom of elders or females has led nearly to the extinction of their whole way of life and culture. Schaefer, C, (2006) Grandmothers Council the World: wise women elders offer their vision for our planet. Trumpeter Books 978-1-59030-293-4

So, with this in good karma I do submit a new final version. Sincerely, User:EM_Che] EM Che (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Talk:Thunderbird (mythology). User wants to cite "gifted with the great power of sight and was able to transmit telepathically ancient wisdom and knowledge in prehistoric times" and "According to ancient legends, the world will know a time of balance, and amazing things will be able to happen when the Thunderbirds come home" in the article Thunderbird (mythology) with this collection of new age drivel. Several other editors have responded at the article talk, at their talk and at the IP talk from before they created an account. Could someone please put this definitively to rest. I'm in the process of quitting after 20 yrs as a pack a day smoker, and my patience with this person is wearing awfully damned thin today. Maybe someone else will have better luck with them than I have. They seem to be a true believer here to promote their "religious beliefs" and little to no interest expressed in anything else. Heiro 05:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some responses other than my own that they have gotten to this same question:

1. at their original IP talk page
2. at the article talk page
3. at the original RSN thread

They have been pointed to WP:UNDUE, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE many many times, but do not seem have read or understood them. I'm beginning to wonder if it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:COMPETENCE. Heiro 05:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that this council cannot be considered a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the council article for deletion based on its sourcing, and the lack of notability for the group. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

LaRouche movement and Prince Philip

Should a source from the LaRouche movement ("Who's who in Prince Philip's Allgemeine SS" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 21 (43). 28 October 1994.) be used in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? There is another source that covers the same material ("The Duke of Edinburgh: Activities and interests". Official website of the British Monarchy.) but an editor insists on adding the extra LaRouche movement source. Both sources state that he served as UK President of the World Wildlife Fund from 1961 to 1982, and International President from 1981. 86.155.138.169 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Not only is that a horribly unreliable and fringe source but the whole issue is a direct attack on the subject. If that's all it's wanted for, here is the WWF page on him, can't ask for a better source than that.[22] --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The LaRouche movement shouldn't be considered as a reliable source for the number of days in a week. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the Executive Intelligence Review piece appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP, and should be handled as such - that is, reverted without concern for the 3-revert rule. I will leave a note/warning on Egeymi (talk · contribs) asking him/her to desist and use appropriate sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I have learned that it is unreliable, I want to say I hope you will show the same sensitivity to the other bio articles where EIR was used as a source. Egeymi (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If anything anywhere is being cited to the LaRouche movement, it shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is a 2004 ArbCom decision on LaRouche material. It's unlikely that ArbCom would even rule on this today, but it goes to show how little is thought of its reliability. Location (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A quick search finds larouchepub.com on 64 article pages [23] - time for a cleanout, I think. Possibly followed by blacklisting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. Most of those seem to be articles about LaRouche and the movement, where they will be useful sources for statements about themselves. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few weren't - I've been through them and removed the dodgy-looking ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is website NAGASAKI an RS for reference to Masonic Gate preserved in Glover Garden

This website [24] appears to be the result of a collaborative effort between academics, one of which is Lane Earns [25] the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.

The following text appears at [26] of the website

The Nagasaki Masonic Lodge was inaugurated at No. 50 Oura on October 5, 1885. The

founding members were all British, but during the following years, men of various

nationalities and religions became members and participated in regular meetings and social events. The lodge moved to a new building at No. 47 Oura in June 1887. The Freemasons contributed to the Nagasaki community until disbanding in the early Showa Period due to a lack of members. Today, the graves of several former Freemasons can be found in Nagasaki's international cemeteries, and the stone gate of the former lodge is preserved in Glover Garden.

Here is a link to a photo of part of the gate[27].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

SOHR

I cant understand how a partisan & biased non-neutral amateur organization run by a single person (Rami Abdulrahman) living in the UK is considered by some editors as a reliable source to the Syrian civil war, with the unique and weak argument that "Western media had used their claims to publish news", while real media with dozens of professional journalists (not activists, like in the SOHR case) like Russia Today or Press TV are considered unreliable, clearly only for ideological reasons. I think that mixing personal ideologies & feelings while dealing with sources do not favour Wikipedia credibility, but weaken it more than it is yet. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

He is one person in the UK, but he is connected to a whole network of activists in Syria. They are an opposition activist group. However, their credibility and reliability has been proven to be high. If you would read just a fraction of the news articles about SOHR itself you would see that the opposition itself hates SOHR. Why? Because they have bothered to document and report not just civilian fatalities in the conflict but also rebel fighters and even government soldiers killed. Plus they have also extensivaly researched and reported on not just government war crimes but rebel war crimes as well. Thus showing a high level of neutrality, which has earned them the anger of other opposition activist groups (who only count civilians and report on government war crimes exlusivaly) but it has also earned them a great deal of respect from international media for their non-biased position on all reporting. For more info on SOHR and how it works and how it is free from bias please read the following articles [28][29][30][31]. In any case, SOHR has been used constantly by virtually all editors of the Syrian civil war articles for the last two years and no complaints have been made about its credibility and reliability, unlike with other opposition sources. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first source you posted (N.Y. Times) stated literally, quote: "Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually A ONE-MAN BAND.". I've got no more to add to that clear and fair description. Talking about the so-called "opposition" "hating" the SOHR is naïve or directly false. If you can support that claim with reliable sources or facts, I could change my mind. And I think that everyone could understand that an organization that support one side on a civil war could not be neutral and reliable, its obvious. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

For some relevant context, see HCPUNXKID's aggressive edit-warring at Damascus offensive (2013). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about SOHR credibility or about my personal behaviour? Trying to influence other users or administrators with that distractions show how low some users can get to achieve their goals...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.sci-fi-online.com/

Hi - could someone provide some guidance on what counts as a reliable source for UK science fiction releases, for instance those by Big Finish Productions?

Specifically, does this website - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/ - pass muster?

As examples, could this review - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/00_revs/r2012/audio/12-06-30_who-cc-ikiria.html be used as supporting evidence for that audio's Wiki page?

Or this feature article - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/Features/Doctor%20Who.htm - be referenced properly on appropriate Dr Who books pages)?

Any advice would be very welcome StuartDouglas (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Princess Marcella Borghese

There are some contested content at Princess Marcella Borghese. Some editors insist that this contested content be allowed to remain without being verified by sources. Other editors would like the contested, non-sourced content to be removed.

I know nothing about this article, subject, or debate, but I feel that per WP:V when content is contested and unsourced then anyone can remove it and request that it be sourced before re-adding it. I am writing to request that someone from this board weigh in on this. I am unaware of any reason to treat this as anything other than the addition of contested content which has no sources. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, you're in a fight with User:Bishonen! I don't envy you. She's gotten a bit more crotchety over the years, but once she was the single most supported admin ever, and she still knows her stuff. Look, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What that means is that the rules are there to help build the encyclopedia, not the other way around; the encyclopedia isn't just a game we're playing to see what happens when we blindly follow the rules. If there is really contested content, then it should certainly be cited, but that doesn't mean you should go delete every innocuous sentence that doesn't have a citation, and say - I deleted it, therefore it's contested, therefore I was right in deleting it. This isn't a game of Nomic. What content do you really have a problem with? A real problem, not just "I want to delete it because I can"? That should certainly be cited. But your deletion comment - "Citations on every sentence, please" is ridiculous. And in that very deletion, you're taking out two of the references you're asking to have! What is that about? Blue, m'man, you're on the wrong side here. If you really contest some of the content, for a real reason, say which content, and why, and you'll get plenty of support here, and the specific content will be cited, or it will be deleted. But if you're just trying to beat someone over the head with the rules, then you picked the wrong person in Bishonen. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, it wasn't that hard to add some more citations, which I did for you. It probably took less time than you spend arguing with Bish, and it certainly would have caused less sore feelings. Have you ever heard of the saying: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"? --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of transcripts

There is a video recording of a speech that is of great public interest and is quoted in 2013 Woolwich attack. This has been done by incorporating a transcript of same. There are perhaps one or two full-length transcripts from what could be classified as reliable sources (actually I'm not very sure about the second one); there is another one, one we all agree to be accurate, sourced to a blog. There is agreement that, other than the blog, the transcripts quoting the full speech are not 100% accurate.

There are currently disagreements as to which version of transcript should be used in the article. The "reliability" of the blog has been challenged, and this has not been robustly defended. I and the challenger believe it's more important to cite a "wrong" transcript from The Telegraph, a RS, and attribute the content correctly, which would allow for easy verification and seems to be the standard approach. There is the feeling among some editors unhappy with the transcription errors that we should go directly to the primary source (the video), citing WP:IAR, and eliminate the error (which has now been done).

Of course, much of the problem could be circumvented if we merely excerpted the speech like most news articles have done, as I pushed for, but quite a few editors strongly insist that the speech must be in full. There is currently a full-scale tag-team edit war at the article. But instead of seizing ANI, I'm requesting intervention from anyone with experience of how a similar situation has been resolved in the past. Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRANSCRIPTION is not original research. It would be better to cite the video itself than to add errors to Wikipedia. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)