Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

CAMERA - WP:RS?

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.

It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.

Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.

Help? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're unreliable based on thier wikihitstory, but please provide links and specify articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved editor - the first RSN on CAMERA was swamped by involved editors (and I regret to say that I then joined in). However, the result (from the uninvolved editors) was clear and summed up in my words: "the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care".

There was a second such RSN cut short when some objected to it being characterised as a hate source. But the conclusion from amongst the uninvolved editors was the same.

The wikihistory of CAMERA is that one of their staff (the director?) sought editors who would subvert the processes of the project, and found an enthusiastic ally in an active editor, who proceeded to plot to create faux administrators. On that occasion they were detected very early on and this one editor was indef-blocked. Please note, there have been persistent efforts to claim that this affair concerned a tiff between CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (eg here), this was not the case. I regret to say that this account I'm using has a history of wiki-stalking, so if a large number of other involved editors arrive, it may be considered important that they identify themselves as such. PR^talk 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Use with care. My advice would be use it minimally. It is an advocacy organization which has a history of interfering with Wikipedia. It isn't outside the realm of possibility to envision them releasing materials with the express purpose of impacting debate here. That notwithstanding, we can treat them like we treat any other advocacy source--with grave caution. Where those sources have a history of fact checking and responsibility (e.g. Brennan Center for Justice, Southern Poverty Law Center or the Center for Public Integrity), we can feel comfortable summarizing published material that they create in articles which relate to their areas of expertise. Where those sources do not, we should use them exceedingly rarely. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Such sources can definitely be used for statements of opinion, attributed to the source... for statements of fact, reliability often depends on exactly what is being said in the article. If there is doubt, it is probably better to find another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk -- a question. Does CAMERA have a history of fact checking? Not clear what "responsibility" means in this context. Appreciate an expansion of your comment. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki campaign or no really has no bearing on CAMERA's reliability or lack of. Even bias does not necessarily speak to reliability. In fact, I can't find anything in RS that would count CAMERA or other advocacy groups out. If the particular item being referred to is challenged, CAMERA should not be the sole source. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA breaches the same policies as does David Irving, hate-speech and falsification of sources. It's partisanship is so extreme, and its concerns so trivial that the assistant editor of a major Israeli newspaper said of them (copying in CAMERA's Israel Director Tamar Sternthal!) "In the event that this [CAMERA complaint] gets to you: We have a quasi 'policy,' on the orders of [editor-in-chief] David [Landau], to ignore this organization and all of its complaints, including not responding to telephone messages and screening calls from Tamar Sternhal [sic], director of CAMERA. Otherwise, we will never finish with them." PR^talk 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, historian, or even as a responsible human being. Comparing pro-Israel advocacy groups to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Being a professional, habitual racist is worse than being a professional researcher. PalestineRemembered has been asked multiple times to stop using this false analogy and ad hominem. [1] I ask him once more that he stop this foolishness that hasn't helped his cause even once and will never help his cause. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a Godwin's, innit. B'er Rabbit (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that comparing one's ideological opponents to Hitler is useful - but using David Irving as a touchstone against which to compare RS is valuable. Racism and falsification march hand in hand - we've seen lots of evidence of both at previous RSNs and on TalkPages. PR^talk 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, PR, give it a rest. <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I believe we have all had enough of your comparisons of pro-Israel scholars to Holocaust deniers. I am warning you that sooner or later I will report you for violating WP:CIVIL if you continue using this hateful false analogy/reductio ad Hitlerum. You have been asked to stop more than 8 times now.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I suggest you take my request seriously this time. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the assertion that CAMERA's campaign to influence wikipedia (however small, misguided and unsuccessful it was) should have no bearing on our treatment of their reliability. I don't think it should disqualify them per se, nor do I think, like Cerejota does, that we should "punish them" for their meddling. I just think that if we are attempting to examine their record, it would figure somewhat prominently. As for "responsibility", I mean that they present facts without distortion, that they don't have a history of ethical problems (plagarism et al.) and so forth. We don't have the talent or the resources here to conduct some thorough review of CAMERA's research and publication history. So barring some external review (say, from an award or E&P or CJR looking at them), we have to judge "fact checking and reliability" based on some related heuristics. In cases like this, where we are attempting to judge the reliability of an advocacy organization in a pitched battle, we should have a pretty high standard. The outcome from christening them as a font for reliable information (if they are not one) will be to shift the weight of the related articles too much. Honestly, I think most advocacy organizations should be quoted with caution. In most cases, there is not a shortage of material, there is just a shortage of material available online at the click of a button. There are scores of books published on the Israel-Palestine conflict every year. The vast majority of those would work fine as sources. Using CAMERA (or whatever their Palestinian equivalent is) as a source in place of those (or newspaper articles, or magazine articles, or journal articles...etc.) strikes me as unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [10] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [11]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume IronDuke's comment that CAMERA "weirdly [isn't] linked to Holocaust deniers" is tongue in cheek. --GHcool (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption would be correct. IronDuke 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:) --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a RS, but should be used sparingly because of the crap you're going to get if you do use it. See WP:IDONTNEEDTHISCRAP (forthcoming)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So that makes 7 people who commented saying that CAMERA is an RS (however, it ought to be used with care) and 2 people who commented saying that CAMERA is not an RS. --GHcool (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. --Cerejota (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, are we being a little melodramatic here? CAMERA is highly partisan, not at all objective, should be cited sparingly for relatively non-controversial entries, and their history of trying to undermine the Wikipedia cannot be discounted. But to suggest some sort of tit-for-tat rationale is an unacceptable position to take, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where they're important sources, and articles like Muhammad al-Dura where they should probably have a sentence or two. They shouldn't be used in BLPs at all, they should be used very sparingly if at all in highly important "mainstream" articles like Operation Defensive Shield, UNRWA, or Second Intifada where there are books full of reliable-source material available. Better to cite sources with a well-established reputation. <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Eleland's post above. CAMERA is an RS most of the time. I have never read anything by CAMERA that made me feel as though they were guilty of deliberate falsehood. The worst one can say about them is that they are one-sided, and that affects their research and conclusions. The "fucking with Wikipedia" thing failed miserably and they likely won't try it again, but that is evidence of Wikipedia's strength, not CAMERA's weakness. --GHcool (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure. I would say they wised up, but I the face of a lack of public mea culpas etc, I am weary of them getting anything out of us. There are other equally partisan sources we can use that are not them. There is no reason for us to link to them except as a source about themselselves.--Cerejota (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GHcool: wha? How can you say you agree with my post, and that "CAMERA is an RS most of the time?" The whole point of my post is that CAMERA should not be used most of the time. One can say far worse about CAMERA than "they are one-sided;" if you want my opinion, they are vicious, vaguely McCarthyite, negationist, nasty, and relentlessly dishonest. Looking at this RSN posting, it seems that you're only hearing what you want to hear. All uninvolved editors who've commented here have expressed grave doubts about CAMERA's reliability, including me. <eleland/talkedits> 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited Israel and the apartheid analogy, but I've attempted to be non-partison there and have raised the heckles of both "sides" in reasonably equal measures. I would trust CAMERA as a source of facts about as much as I would trust Hamas: not at all. They should only be cited as an example of the position of an extreme lobby group, they should never be cited on points of fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now CAMERA has been equated with Hamas. Does CAMERA fire missiles randomly into Gaza? Probably better to compare them with the EI, both somewhat partisan activist groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I compared them in terms of being unreliable sources on points of fact. They both engage in propaganda and have scant regard for honesty, and can only be used as sources for their extreme partisan positions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just looking over your talk page and your edits to the article in question, I tend to question that you are raising hackles of both sides in approximately equal quantities. This isn't the place for that debate, but I really don't think the anti-Israel (so I term them, my opinion) editors use your name as a target for darts or whatever other aerial missiles they currently favor. Not the place for that debate. I just don't see anything, though, that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS. A partisan one, that should be used with great care, but a RS under our rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "a partisan source that should be used with great care" you mean that CAMERA should never be cited on points of fact, only as partison opinion, then we are in agreement. Is that what you mean? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think they could be used as a RS. In practice, I would advise against it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we essentially agree in practice. In terms of Wikipedia, isn't practice all that matters? What is a "reliable source that I'd advise against using", really? And for that matter, which of the criteria on WP:RS does CAMERA meet, in your opinion? Are they "trustworthy"? I think it's pretty clear from their behaviour on Wikipedia that they are not, and looking at CAMERA it seems that they have copped a lot of flak from reliable journalists for bending the truth. Do they have a lot of people "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing", like a peer-reviewed academic source or major newspaper? Are they actually a "third party" to matters involving Israel, or are they in practice a propaganda group? When you say that you don't see any thing "that indicates that CAMERA is not a RS", shouldn't you be looking for signs that they are, according to the criteria actually listed on WP:RS? Are all sources assumed to be reliable sources until proven otherwise, or do we require that they actually meet the criteria? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this I can't hear you? I said it above, don't use CAMERA because you are going to get a lot of flak about it here, so it is not worth the grief. All the same it is a RS. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's not about whether people will give you flak for using a source or not. It's about whether the source meets the criteria in WP:RS, which are relatively objective. What criteria from WP:RS does CAMERA meet? If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it's clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't think it meets the criteria for the reasons I mentioned above, but I'd be interested to hear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stick candy

There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.

As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)

In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?--kelapstick (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at length and more accurately on the article talk page, starting with Talk:Stick_candy#RfC:_Disagreement_over_sources. I had requested multiple times that editors post here if there were going to continue to assert that these primary sources are reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no WP:RS available for something, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That's what WP:V means. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html is not WP:RS and can't be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to use those sources. You could say "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes", but it woulnd't be very encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the above points are correct according to WP:V policy, there is a case here for using common sense. If every store sells these things at certain sizes with no disagreement and the encyclopedia would be improved by having the info there then i think you can ignore the rules. --neon white talk 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement, otherwise we would not be engaging in this discussion. No, this certainly does not appear to be a case where one could justifiably ignore WP:RS and WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, OK. To be honest, I'm amazed that this article has generated so much fuss. To be perfectly frank, I'd be all for a merge to the candy article. But, since I've already responded on the talk page via an RfC, I figure "In for a penny, in for a pound". First let's make clear that WP:RS is a guideline as opposed to a policy, there's a big difference. Second: verbiage such as "ignore" indicates a willful attempt to circumvent the policies and guidelines; and I don't see that as the case at all. This all seems to stem from the desire of the editors to include, and I paraphrase Stick candy is 14" long. Apparently the UP, and API wire services haven't done a whole lot of reporting on stick candy, so finding a good secondary source is the crux of the problem. This leads us to the use of a candystore.com site [sic?] for the reference to the candy size. Now, looking at WP:V, we find the following. "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources:" My interpretation of this is such that due to the lack of a good secondary source, the candystore.com site which makes this aforementioned candy stick, would be acceptable per the "acceptable to use in some circumstances" part of the WP:V statement, If the candystore isn't blacklisted, and if the editors don't have a COI with the site. I'm not sure about the former, and have no reason to question the later. Even myspace and youtube are cited on a very rare occasion.

I definitely agree that the wording as it is/was (depending on the version at time of PP), needs some major work. That part is easily addressed, and I believe it is being addressed on the talk page. I understand and admire those editors who adhere to the strict letter of the law, but we must not lose sight of the intent either, both in policy and in community goals. Items like WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR (and forgive me for daring to utter those far too often quoted links), are there for a reason. If there indeed is a "Thou shalt never use a store site to verify the size and shape of an item, least ye be struck from all mention within thine wikipedia", I simply have not found it. (was that over the top?...sometimes I just can't tell ;)). Anyway, since I jumped into the pool with the RfC, I figure I may as well swim over here to the deep end to blabber on about my interpertations and perceptions of yon policy. — Ched (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and really the only thing relevant here is whether sources meet the criteria for WP:RS. http://www.candywarehouse.com/greensticks.html or similar sites do not in any way meet those criteria, not even as self-published sources. It doesn't even claim to be a source of information - it's a candy store. It's simply totally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia in any way whatsover, in my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We either aim to be as encyclopedic as possible or not (we do). As such, we use the best possible sources. Blanking information such as typical dimensions and flavors from this article, as well as the best possible sources, simply is not helpful in ensuring we have the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Threatening to merge the Stick candy article (one of the most traditional and historical candies in the United States) to Candy is similarly unhelpful, and perplexingly so. Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Permit use. WP:PRIMARY is the key part of the WP:NOR policy here. In relevant part, it states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

In other words, there are two concerns, and in this case they are easily addressed:

• "Reliably published". Is an online retailer a reliable publisher of the specifications of its wares? Vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product benefits and underestimate the all-in cost to the consumer. Other than these two related issues, vendors are privy to the most not least accurate information about their product. The potential conflicts can addressed (and should be addressed) in either or both of two ways. First, corroborating the information with multiple different vendors would be sufficient unless there were thought to be a widespread coordinated fraud amongst vendors selling $0.15 products. Second, checking for positive reviews of the vendor and lack of negative reviews could establish the reputation of the vendor for fair dealing.
• "Description only". The intended use is only for description, so this poses no issues.

It is mind-boggling to me that this issue has been taken this far. If there are any legitimate issues with the text and the citations that are used to back it, they are whether the information itself is sufficiently notable or encyclopedic to include. While to me this issue appears to me to have been established in the affirmative, but if people disagree, there are other venues for addressing it. Bongomatic 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have to wonder if the statement that is being made is really accurate, dispite the source... sure, these may be standard sizes and flavors for stick candy being made by big commercial candy companies, but surely there are other, smaller candy manufacturers that make non-standard flavors and non-standard sizes. What about the hand-crafted candy shops? I think it would be safe to use a commercial website for a statement as to what that particular company sells... but not for a broad statement about an entire genre of candy. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I never eat candy... I'd rather prefer not to know the size of a candy stick or just guess it from the picture or - why not - believe it with no source offered (it's hard to imagine somebody would invest much energy only to fool me into a wrong belief about candy stick size) than to link to commercial companies as a good source (even if I've no doubt they'll be accurate about their products) By the way, if the candy page was in need to be edit-protected for a week as to avoid further armed incidents about candy size, don't you think it qualifies for WP:Lamest Edit Wars? Sorry, I just couldn't avoid this comment, you'll excuse me. Cheers and have a sweet day.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found - wrong. If they aren't RS (and they're not), they can't be used. Did you notice the period at the end of that sentence? Policy is clear on this point. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations are made to pages that are not reliable sources all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Editors do a lot of things 'all the time' on Wikipedia that are blatantly contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Svante Cornell

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? I question whether he is reliable as he is only an associate professor and I find his works incredibly biased. He has written on Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the conflict in Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find him "incredibly biased" but this is not the valid reason to question Cornell's reliability given the number of scholarly publications published by him and referring to him.[12] --Kober^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd better read the page which you are referring to. "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.". Thanks, --Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Further on this topic, I would like to know how the work of this associate professor at an swedish institute is ranked in terms of reliability when compared with a)online news reports b)analysis in respected newpapers by non scientist authors c)analysis by NGOs (e.g. HRW) by non scientist authors. --Xeeron (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? Yes, of course. It is not possible to become an associate professor if one is always "incredibly biased." But is the mentioned report[13] about the 2008 South Ossetia war a good source to use? Not really, for 3 reasons: 1) it was published very early (in August), less than 3 weeks after the war started, before certain informations about the conflict became public knowledge, 2) it does not cite its sources. It seems to be nothing more than an opinion piece; it is not "scientific" in any way, 3) it seems quite unbalanced. So to answer Xeeron's question on how this paper compares to other mentioned sources in terms of reliability: I cannot see why it would be any better than the other sources mentioned. Offliner (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an associate professor doesn't make you correct 100% of the time. If you have to use someone's resume or CV to prove that their writings are reliable, rather the defending the writing itself, that already is a sign that the writing is poor and most likely unreliable. And Offliner, one can become a professor by being extremely biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Also, you can build up your credentials and then sell out, because once you get your PhD, unlike your license to practice medicine or law, you cannot lose it. And PhDs are not that hard to get. Also, the online news reports have their paper counter-parts, its just easier to cite the online version. As for the analysis, I would much rather have scientists sticking to science and historians analyzing history. NGOs are to be taken with a grain of salt, but if their facts check out, there's no reason not to include them. Thus I would rephrase the question: Is Svante Cornell a reliable sources when it comes to post-Soviet republics? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr. Cornell's writing on Nagorno-Karabakh should be cited here as well. Same region. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to challenge your opponents' arguments using credible sources such as academic reviews of the publications in question. Your personal observations are hardly of any imporance here.--Kober^Talk 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I cannot challenge Jerry Fallwell when it comes to religion, because I don't have a theological degree, is that your point Kober? How about Hans Mommsen? If my personal observations can descredit the PhD's argument with incredible ease, then that argument is completely invalid. It's not my personal observations Kober, it's common sense. But alright, let's use your point: Zhirinovksy of LDPR has 3 PhDs. You have none. Clearly then, we should take Zhirinovsky's position as to who should own Georgia, over your own. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for you as well Kober. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? Can you specify when I refused to provide sources or I will have to assume that you say something just to say something.--Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the points above against Svante Cornell's works being considered a reliable source, if you review the his writings in the Nagorno-Karabakh document, he illustrates his bias when he repeatedly writes "the alleged Armenian Genocide". A scholar of repute would not put that qualifer in front of that horrible event that happened during WW1. Another problem I have with Cornell is that apparently he is the principle of a consulting company that looks like it offers consulting to organisations and companies in the west that want to tap the energy resources in the Caspian Sea. Naturally this would make him biased against newly independent regions that gained independence from Georgia and Azerbaijan as well as Russia and would bias him in favor of Azerbaijan and Georgia's initiative to resubjugate these newly independent regions. Using Svante Cornell as a source for the conflicts related to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Nagorno-Karabakh would be the equivalent of using research from a company that does business with Indonesia as a source for the conflict in East Timor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. Look to other reliable sources, not your own analysis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look to other reliable sources for what? I'm trying to get a consensus on whether Cornell is reliable and so far I haven't heard a single argument in favour of reliability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Look to other RSs that say he isn't reliable.

Also, looking a bit more closely at the paper, I'm not sure that he's saying the genocide didn't happen. Can you provide a quote? Sometimes he calls it a genocide, and other (fewer) times an alleged genocide. I think that he's being specific, because to some people (not him) it is an "alleged genocide". On page 72, he lists two sources about the genocide, one for each view, while specifically not really going into detail on it himself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: doesn't the source need to meet the criteria rather than trying to prove the negative by finding other reliable sources that say that a source is not reliable? 74.12.151.89 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at that google book search above (incorrectly labeled with a google hits acronym) you'll find he passes with flying colors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The question cannot be answered in the abstract. Historians and other scholars can be reliable when published in publications subject to peer review, editorial oversight, accountability, fact checking, or other indicia of reliability. When advocating for their own pet theories, in opinion / editorial mode, participating in politics, or working for propagandists, battling rival scholars, or operating outside of their field of specialty, they can be terribly unreliable. A history of partisanship, and espousing provocative positions on matters of great controversy, both cast doubt on a scholar's overall reliability in any publication. It also depends what the professor is being cited for. Incidentally, policies like original research and verifiability / reliable sourcing apply only to main space material. Personal opinion is just fine for meta-discussions and decisions, such as working through the question of whether a source is reliable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• He's Adil Baguirov's lap dog, of course he's not reliable. VartanM (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's not a serious argument. Why a scholar, who published books and articles in peer reviewed publications should not be considered reliable? Is there any criticism of this author, coming from reliable sources? I don't see any at all. Grandmaster 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cornell is a highly political source, member of a group maintained by an Azeri ultranationalists. He is into international relations stuff, his obvious aim is securing the pipeline route from the Caspian to Turkey. He's works are financed by the foreign department of Azerbaijan. That's what his company does: Energy Development and Economic Security. CCC has considerable expertise in the political and economic aspects of energy development in the wider Caspian Basin. We produce analyses of the domestic ramifications of energy development; the role of oil and gas in regional politics; pipeline security; the social consequences and local-level politics linked to energy development and pipeline construction; the domestic energy security of the regional states; non-oil natural resource issues, including water. [14] He's present to nearly all AdilBaguirov nationalistic prepared gatherings. It was at least once exposed here on Wikipedia that Cornell replaced historic locations place because of the current Caucasian situation. Since all other sources claim otherwise, it can not be ignored that his action was deliberate. We see him interviewed with AdilBaguirov and his publications present him as a political source, as such Wikipedia rules on using political sources should apply. VartanM (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You may cherrypick as long as you wish, leaving just Bournoutian, Mnatsakanian and Ulubabyan, but this is not the first case. Previously Brenda Shaffer has been challenged on the same conspiratorial basis with Fedayee trying to pull out Tadeusz Swietochowski. That's my summary. brandспойт 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comparisons only discredit you, Cornell department is financed by oil companies his colleague was caught lying about it. Now you can start comparing other scholars because they are ethnically Armenian with proven corrupt scholars, but as usual your comparisons are bogus. VartanM (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a reliable source. How, and whether, he should be used is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Most of the editors here, me included, don't follow these decisions beyond that. We're not part of dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, God's/Jimmy Wales's gift to the professional propagandist, will be the making of people like Cornell. If 100 sources say that there are little green men on Mars, and one source says there are not, then, according to Wikipedia standards, Mars must be brim-full of little green men. Meowy 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get what we're discussing here. That is, what concrete uses of Cornell of a source are we talking about? I mean, if what he says is contradicted by other sources, then we should say, some think this, some think that, and link to the various sources. Or are you arguing that he should not be presented as an independent observer/analysist/scientist? sephia karta | di mi 15:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This paper wasn't subject to reliable peer review, therefore it is not reliable. The lack of sources clearly shows it as being unreliable yet again. No credible university will award a PhD to anyone who tells them that he will publish papers with as little citations as Svante Cornell has. Here is another work by Svante Cornell: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf

Here is the Table of Contents from that work: ...Russia: The Dishonest Broker?; Turkey: Azerbaijan's Only Ally; Iran: In the Pitfalls of History; the United States: from Neglect to Comittment... is it just be, or is this author rabidly anti-Russian? And that source, much like the previous one, has a lack of citations. No serious historian is going to tell his reader what to do. As a B.A. History Graduate of the UC (University of California) System, we were told to present the facts and let the reader decide. Svante Cornell, by his titles alone, makes the decision for the reader. He doesn't cite properly. He is an insult to the historical profession. Doesn't Wikipedia have anti-hack doctrines, like historical articles not violating WP:Weasel, or requiring historical articles to cite their source. What I am seeking to do, is to ban Svante Cornell's articles, in encyclopedic entries related to Russia. No matter how bad the adversary, you can always find something positive about them, Svante Cornell fails to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has a "pro-hack" doctrine. Meowy 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Having an opinion does not prevent him from being a reliable source. One reason that that is all we require are becuase disputes between countries spill into wikipedia. Imagine what would happen otherwise. Take the Isral/Palestinian articles. One side would remove half the sources, and the other side would remove the rest. There'd be nothing left. There may be other reasons not to use this author, but he's a reliable source as we define it. How to use him, or not, will have to be worked out on the talk pages of whatever articles are involved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but where concretely is this used to support what statement? sephia karta | di mi 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Israeli and Palestinian sources are extremely well cited. Svante Cornell doesn't cite. It's not having an opinion. It's being blatantly and rabidly anti-Russian in every single paper he writes. How is this being used in the article? Well in 2008 South Ossetia War article, the ratio of Russian troops to Georgian troops was generally established as 1 to 1. (Note I'm talking about the overall Russian-Georgian troop ratio, not the numbers of troops involved, and only limiting it to South Ossetia.) There have been some outliers, arguing that the ratio was 1:1.5 in favor of Georgia or Russia (depending on the article). In comes user:Xeeron and using Svante Cornell's source, which itself fails to properly cite the number of Russian troops, rather merely saying "Saakashvili said so" - keep in mind Saakashvili also said that Russian infantry would attack Tbilisi and that ties are delicious - cites Svante Cornell and suddenly establishes the ratio as 2:1 in favor of Russia. This is critical for several reasons: one it makes it look like Russia won the war by outnumbering the Georgians, which is instantly contradicted by the casualty statistics; two it makes Russia look like a bully, rather then a fair fighter; three, it is largely untrue, and has been contradicted by more credible military sources, such as Moscow Defense Brief. Even BBC stated that as a Georgian claim, whereas Svante Cornell stated that as a fact. HUGE difference. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But who says that Cornell is anti-Russian? Is there any criticism of this author coming from reliable third party sources? I already asked this question, but no criticism from any reliable sources has been demonstrated so far. Grandmaster 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the pdf file - the Georgia one? It's almost too laughably extreme and badly written to be called propaganda. Propaganda usually makes some effort to appear to be what it is not, but in his tabloid-style "work", Cornell doesn't even make the pretense. There is unlikely to be criticism in reliable sources because reliable sources normally only concern themselves with the works of serious historians. I wish they would get out of their ivory towers sometimes. Meowy 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you serious?! Re-read his table of contents. Do you really need a reliable to criticize that? Find me a reliable historian who even tries to imagine that the ratio was 2:1 in favor of Russia. And this is the source that pro-Georgian editors say is "credible" - heck read their arguments above. Meowy - you are right, historians should get out of their Ivory Towers, I'll see if I can sway them to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice: the anti-russianism does not make a scholar unreliable. It is a stance. brandспойт 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having anti_Russianism suggests he is not a scholar, at least not one as understood in the West. Scholars don't have stances, they have opinions and theories that should best-fit all the available facts. Meowy 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything that is not their personal opinion as to why he is biased and should be considered a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see something. The accusations are biased itself and Meowy has not missed an opportunity once more. brandспойт 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From my talkpage:

Let's take a look at the ISDP first & second paragraphs, page 5 of 45:

"In August 2008, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia that sent shockwaves reverberating - first across the post Soviet space, but then also into the rest of Europe and the World, as the magnitude of the invasion and its implications became clear.

This invasion took the World by surprise. But what should have been surprising about it was perhaps the extent of Russia's willingness to employ crude military force against a neighboring state, not that it happenned..."

First off only a complete ignoramus would have been surprised by Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, because on August 5th, Russia sent a clear note to Georgia, that BBC published. Here's a timetable:

August 5th: Russia to Georgia: do not touch South Ossetia military, or else we will intervene (BBC published this!!!) August 7th: Georgia attacks South Ossetia full scale, with Grads, tanks, and the whole thing. August 8th - August 12th (or 16th): Russia intervenes.

What in the World did anyone find surprising?

And if you study real military analysis, you will realize that Russia force was not crude. Batallion Vostok doesn't use crude force. Nor do any of the Russian units sent in.

Still don't think it's heavily biased? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hala Sultan Tekke

I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:

1. This is forking POV and you can check this out through reviewing this user page User:Chesdovi.
2. This section is in violation with wikipedia:reliable sources
3. This section is in violation with wikipedia:verifiability
4. This is section is a wikipedia:hoax
5. This section is in violation with wikipedia:OR

I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.

Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:

1. This section claims that this is a holy place in Islam, while all of the resources used are authored by non-mulsim scholars (or soemone with no theology background) and without refering to muslim books, texts, Qoran, or Hadith. How come that a non Muslim authors (or someone with no theology background) can say this place is holy for Islam while it is not verified by Muslim scholars? This means that this is not more than a claim since it is not verified by Muslims. I tried to add this word "claim" to the title of this section but was removed by the same user.
2. Concerning the sources that are used to support the claim of the holiness of this article, please note the following issues:

• Reference No. 1: Freedom of religion and belief: a world report: is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and the paragraph that grants the holiness of this site is not even referenced in his book by Islamic books, text, Qoran, or Hadith.
• Reference No. 2: "Study of building stones and mortar from Hala Sultan Tekke mosque": the page can't be found. Even when using the web archive site it can't revert the calimed page, u can see that here.
• Reference No. 3: Financed Restoration of Church and Mosque on Cyprus Supports Cultural Heritage and Tolerance, once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and without referring the holiness of this site to any reliable source.
• Reference No. 4: Purcell, Hugh Dominic (1969). Cyprus. Praeger. p. 367, once again the author is not Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using in this section to any Islamic reliable sources. P.S. the same user didn't even bother to add the ISBN nor the related URL for this book, but after I spent long hours searching for this book I was able to locate it.
• Refence No. 5: Syneleusis, Hellēnikē Koinotikē; Hypourgeio Paideias, Grapheion Dēmosiōn Plērophoriōn, I was not able to locate this sources, and I doubt the reliablity of it, not to mention it is authored by non Mulsims.
• Refenece No. 6: once again is authored by non Muslim (or someone with no theology background) and is not using any Islamic reliable sources.
• Refence No. 7: Daniel, Geoff; John Oldfield, Christine Oldfield (2004). Landscapes of Cyprus. Is a tour guide, and despite the same user:chesdovi agreed that it is not reliable sources as per wikipedia:reliable sources, still he is insisting on adding it to the list of the references.
• Reference No. 8: once again a non Mulsim author (or someone with no theology background) is granting the holiness to an Islamic site without using Islamic reliable sources, and by the way, I think that this sources is not a relaible source.
• Reference No. 9 once again is authored by non Muslims (or someone with no theology background) and is not referring to any reliable Islamic sources. Moreover, I doubt the reliablity of this source. Not to mention that the sources does not say that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims, nevertheless, the same user is saying that this site is the 3rd holiest place for Mulims thourgh referring to the mentioned site, this might be an indication of forking POV.
• Refernce No. 10: once again doesn't use any Islamic reliable sources, and I don't think it is a reliable source in this context. Moreover, the source is used to support the claim that this site is the 3rd holiest place in Islam, but the website, doesn't show this information, again this shows forking POV.
• Reference No. 11 once again no referral to Islamic reliable sources.
• Reference No. 12] This might be the only Islamic resource that is used, but once again, in the context of saying this is the forth holies site in Islam it doesn't quote any Islamic reliable source, qouting is very important in Islam, as well as other religions. Moreover, I was not able to identify what is website is about, ok it contains Islamic information, but what is the reliability of this site is doubtful.
• Refernce No. 13: The page didn't open, I am not sure why.

I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.

Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread. Yamanam (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One quick note I'd like to mention: I'm concerned about the concentration on Muslim sources. Other people can learn about Muslim ideology and practice without being Muslim. All the refutations that use "non-Muslim writer" as a base are no use to me. Not reliable, that's fine, not Muslim, I don't care. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, it is not only that the authors are non Muslims, it is also they are not depending on Islamic reliable and verifiable sources. It is just like reading a book about chemistry authored by an economic guy who is NOT depending on chemistry reliabe and verifiable sources. Yamanam (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam, this looks to be a content dispute, so there's really no Administrator intervention that can take place. The crux of the dispute appears to be the reliability of the sources you listed above. I think your best bet at this point is to post over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to get their opinions. Inviting the other party to that discussion would be helpful as well so that a proper discussion take place on the core issues, rather than just reverting edits. Best, Arakunem^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Since this was moved from ANI, I'll strike out and indent my above, as we're now in the proper venue. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Arakunem, for reading the thread and advising on where best this thread be posted. Yamanam (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, if it's reliable, the religion of the source does not matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it sounds like there may be other issues to deal with, an reliability of sources is just on aspect to be used in editorial decisions. Hope that helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since two users have so far made the same comment, then I think it is my fault I didn't make my case more clear; of course there is nothing wrong with non-Muslims to author or to write about Islamic topics, but if they want to write about Islamic rituals, teachings, and/or Islamic sites, then I beleive they have to use Islamic sources, becuase Islam must decide on those things no one else, same with Christianity and all other religions, the case with this section is that it does not use any Islamic reliable source. I hope it made it more clear now. Yamanam (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This thread is posted at No original research noticboard as well. Yamanam (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there anyone who'd like to advise about this incident and how to deal with it? should I delete that whole section of the article? Yamanam (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You don't just delete what you don't like! As User:Peregrine Fisher and [[User:Padillah have stated, your concerns that these sources are not islamic is not an issue on wikipedia. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, both of them agreed that if there is a problem in the reliability of the sources then it is a problem, and so far no one advised whether there is a problem in the reliability of the sources or not. Concerning the Islamic sources, as you can see, I edited my thread, and it became there is no theological reliable sources. Yamanam (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Redux: Is "Document" documentary on BBC4 radio RS?

I believe it is covered by the same case-by-case standard as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_a_Discovery_or_History_Channel_documentary_considered_a_reliable_source.3F. In this case, the documentary simply gives a platform to the conspiracy theory of John Buchanan (American politician): a couple of editors are arguing that "the BBC" is a reliable source, and therefore Buchanan's views about a historical event are entitled to the same reporting as (and perhaps more space than!) Arthur Schlesinger's. Full discussion at Talk:Business_Plot#Buchanan. THF (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Are you talking about a document displayed on BBC4 page? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty safe in considering the BBC a reliable source. Or more specifically, that if the BBC interviews somebody, it's a safe bet that what was said in the interview, however controversial, is important enough to be mentioned in our article as somebody's opinion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Why is a BBC4 radio documentary about a conspiracy theory more reliable than a History Channel documentary on a conspiracy theory? Why is a John Buchanan, who clearly falls under WP:FRINGE, raised to a reliable source just because he shows up on the BBC? THF (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "why" question is not relevant. The question is whether the BBC is a reliable source per wikipedia requirements, and in particular BBC Radio 4: clearly this is a reliable source according to wikipedia's definition. No one is saying Buchanan is a reliable source. The reliable source is BBC Radio 4. They have chosen to broadcast his views. Therefore per NPOV we should also represent them. The fact that they have been included means they are by wikipedia definition not WP:FRINGE. Ty 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all correct, up to the last couple of sentences. Reliable sources often report fringe views. They don't report them as facts, rather they quote the source of the fringe view. For example, the BBC could interview people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. Also "Therefore per NPOV we should also represent them" is not really correct. Just because one RS has reported a view, that doesn't mean it must be reported on Wikipedia. Views should be given due weight based on how widely they are reported and in how much depth. A single report of not much depth, regardless of how reliable the source is, doesn't give a view a great deal of weight in terms of whether it should be described on Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is the link to the BBC Radio 4 programme.[15] There is a programme synopsis online and the show available to listen to by clicking a link. THF has argued that because it has included Buchanan's views it is therefore an unreliable source, because any source that uses Buchanan must by definition be unreliable. The opposing view is that BBC Radio 4 is a reliable source by definition, and that gives validity to include Buchanan's views in the article. The principle has been established for some time; see this earlier discussion.[16] There is no argument that Buchanan should be given more space than Arthur Schlesinger: that is just creating heat and dust. Ty 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the show is RS only to the extent that opinions presented in it are reported in WP as opinions and not reported or used as facts. (and a transcript is infintely better than a recording as sometimes people hear what they wish to hear, and a transcript is verifiable per WP guidelines far better than a recording is). The reliability of Bushanan should however be germane to discussing his opinions, no? Collect (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how Buchanan is used: the article quotes his opinion in direct speech attributed to him with the BBC item as a reference. People read what they want to read as well. The key point is whether material can be verified by readers and other editors. In this case it can, as the programme is available online to listen to. If there is a source that challenges his opinions on the subject in question, the Business Plot, that should be included. Otherwise there is no discussion of his opinion, merely a presentation of it, so the reader can make up his or her own mind. Ty 01:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The show is an RS for "Mr. X said 'ABC', not for "ABC is so". A secondary source as reputable as the BBC would imply that Mr. X's saying "ABC" may be important enough to mention in a WP article. ( I'm trying not to use the term "notability" because that's really for articles as a whole ). But there's still an editorial decision on how much weight to give this opinion. One sentence should be plenty. Heck, in the past I've cited sources just for a single adjective, so as not to run into issues with weight. Also, yes, a text transcript is much preferred over rich media for several reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:UNDUE, I suppose: not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does. It's something he invented 75 years after the events in question, with absolutely no basis in reality: not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it. If that's not 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., what is? THF (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your evaluation and hence WP:OR and discountable. The BBC considers that it is worth presenting and we go by the evaluation of sources not of editors. According to WP:NPOV, we follow the lead of the source and present it, as Squidfryerchef says, as Buchanan's view. WP:UNDUE demands it should not be given excess presence, and, as Squidfryerchef suggests, it is just given one sentence. Ty 01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, it's actually given four sentences and 153 words (compared to three sentences and 101 words from Schlesinger), and the reader is given no hint that Buchanan is a fringe conspiracy theorist and 9/11 truther. THF (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And please stop saying "that is OR." The whole point of RSN is to do original research on sources to determine if they are reliable. Show us some OR that contradicts the facts I've been telling you. THF (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will note for the record that WP:OR (and our other content policies) does not apply to Policy pages and talk pages... only to articles themselves. So the fact that his views may or may not be OR is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact text on Buchanan is: "In The Whitehouse Coup, John Buchanan says President Roosevelt stopped the investigation for a political deal: 'The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted'." OK, two sentences. Apart from you, are there any sources that say with regard to the Business Plot that Buchanan is a "fringe conspiracy theorist"? If so, they can be included. This isn't an article about 9/11. You seem to have difficulty recognising that the BBC is a reliable source and we follow sources. This is NPOV, and your approach is violating that policy. Ty 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I'd like to add that I don't think its constructive when the "conspiracy theory" card/label (using the term in a disparaging way) is used so often by an editor because it has the effect of a slur on the content in question. It really,unintentionally I'm sure, puts the editor which supports the content in a position of having to shift focus to debating the "conspiracy theory" categorization of the content. That categorization tends to stifle and deflect discussion and restrict appropriate article discussion and content (because very few editors want to be seen as supporting any kind of way-out conspiracy theory). Usually,as in this case, it is only a personal POV as to whether something qualifies as a so-called conspiracy theory. I also think these types of comments make collaboration almost impossible: "not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does... not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it.", even though directed towards content, it fuels combative editing because it makes editors who think the content is valid for the article feel as though we are promoting some kind of evil and crazy agenda that I,for one, certainly don't want to be promoting. It's also annoying that Collect and THF keep running to noticeboards and administrators when any article discussion is not going their way; at least that's the way it appears to me. Abbarocks (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When a person's views are reported by a reliable source, it means we can report those views as verifiably belonging to that person. The weight that is given to those views in an article should depend on the weight that is given to them in reliable sources. Whether those views will be presented as likely to reflect objective reality will depend on whether the person quoted is considered an expert in the field. Expertise can be established by how reliable sources (including those other than the one used for the quote) describe the person's expertise, and whether they are widely published as an expert in the field. Buchanan is quoted by the BBC on this subject, which means his view may be worth including as a reliable source has reported it (although unless his view is also reported elsewhere, that doesn't give strong weight to including his view as the BBC report may be a lapse in editorial judgement). If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many fringe views on this or other somewhat related subjects, then that should also be taken into account in terms of how his views are reported. If the whole article is about a fringe subject, then it will naturally be made up of well-documented fringe views so this is less of a concern. However, if it's an article about mainstream views, then the article should not unduly imply that a quote from a person with many fringe views reflects a mainstream expert perspective on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This *particular* documentary is not a reliable source

The documentary makes the claim (and is cited for the proposition): "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." This is the conspiracy theory to explain why, if the conspiracy happened, there weren't any prosecutions. But this fiction is completely disproven by Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, a 1935 case where business interests successfully struck down the centerpieces of FDR's New Deal, the National Recovery Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act. It is quite clear that business interests didn't "let FDR do what he wanted" and the "deal" that the documentary claims to be documenting never happened. It's completely fictional WP:FRINGE. THF (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote you give is direct speech from John Buchanan, not the programme editorial voice: the BBC documentary is cited to substantiate that Buchanan made it. The rest of your argument is an interesting speculation but not admissible article content per WP:SYNTH. I have not anyway seen any mention of Schechter Poultry Corp as part of the plot. Ty 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As the precis of the documentary indicates, the documentary is simply a recounting of the Buchanan conspiracy theory.

Buchanan claims that part of the plot was "[striking] a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." So it's not synth to include a reliable source about Wall Street's opposition to the New Deal, since the article section is about the supposed lack of opposition to the New Deal. But feel free to get additional opinions at WP:NORN. THF (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC documetary is an RS that the conspiracy theory exists. There's a question on how much space to give this, but my feeling is if the BBC saw fit to mention this theory in a radio program, meant for a general audience and with inherent time constraints, it's pretty hard to argue that the more inclusive Wikipedia can't mention it. However, we should qualify the Buchanan quotes as "controversial Georgia politician John Buchanan opined that ...", so we make it clear that this is a political opinion. The original WP article left the reader with the assumption this was an academic opinion from a historian. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He is now in a separate section "Other commentators". I don't think we should be adding epithets such as "controversial" to people's names though, nor for that matter "conspiracy theorist", which has just been added, but which does not relate to this particular issue. We shouldn't be making it clear that it's a "political" opinion, unless the source does (which it doesn't). Ty 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial is an understatement, not an epithet. I've been arguing pretty hard to use understatement and avoid sensationalism when qualifying opinions, news sources, and the like. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

online Encyclopedia Britannica

Is currently used as a lede cite as "Encyclopedia Britannica" on Drudge Report. The cite is from an article on the Huffington Post, and characterizes the Drudge site as "conservative." I suggested that the word "online" be placed to make clear that it is the online site being used, and that the article from which the claim is taken be mentioned. This was roundly rejected. Beyond that, however, I have a lingering doubt that an encyclopedia which solicits revisions from its readers is all that much better than a "flagged revision wiki." Also that a site where the cursor shows you ads every time you go over a marked word is a bit less than we demand of other sites. Is "online EB" fully utile as RS? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can just find better ref saying he's conservative - or whatever it is he is. Makes it easier to argue your case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's three references stacked up to support something that's pretty obvious anyway. ( Why do we do this? Was there an edit war where somebody challenged the idea he was conservative? ) Anyway the Brittanica reference was actually to an article about the Huffington Post, which had just a trivial mention of how it was intended as a liberal answer to the "conservative" Drudge Report. We have two more direct references, take the Brittanica cite out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No one questioned that Drudge personally is conservative -- the issue was whether the site "Drudgereport.com" qua site is "conservative." I am off that page -- so if anyone will do it, please do so. Collect (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the lead sentence where it's cited is about Drudge himself. Which is another argument to use one of the other two cites, which are about Drudge. The Brittanica entry mentions Drudge's web site. But I see that I was reading the page in the middle of an edit war; there is something down below in some of the diffs also using the Brittanica, which is probably what's being asked about. Anyway there's at least six stacked references saying that Drudgereport is conservative. Isn't one or two enough? Also don't forget Google Books, there's books on new media that devote an entire chapter to the Drudge Report. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, one good source is worth 25 which are not as well presented. I think the current stacking is precisely because I did not feel the online EB in an article on another topic was a particularly good source to characterize a website. One editor particularly charged the DR with "leeching" websites, and only linking to conservative views. Collect (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To get this back to discussing the "online" EB... yes, it is a reliable tertiary source. Arguably, the most reliable online encyclopedia that exists, in fact. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But we should avoid citing other general-coverage encyclopedias unless there's some really unique information in the other encyclopedia's article or we're writing about the other encyclopedia. Exception being our botany articles that make use of the 1911 Brittanica. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, try a book called "Consider the Source" by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller. It's a book about news websites. It has a chapter on Drudge Report, and a paragraph on page 108 about whether it has a conservative bias or not. It's on Google Books. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Pakistan Daily a Reliable Source?

In some of our articles, we're using Pakistan Daily as a reliable source on statements of fact, and I have some serious concerns about its reliability. First, many of their articles read like editorials (but aren't marked as editorials) and contain very questionable material. Second, they seem to have an anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic bias. Third, they allow anyone to upload submit articles to their web site [17]. They state that "hate related articles will not be accepted" but it's not clear as to how to tell whether an article is written by their staff or by the public.

Here are some examples:

This article [18] refers to Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle as "Zionist Israel-firsters" and Israel as the "Israeli racist-Zionist state". I can't imagine any reliable source here in the West using that language in a straight news story. This article also states things such as "Dennis Ross should not be allowed to occupy any position in the US government" which is clearly an opinion.

This article [19] claims that "USA Jewry" were "declaring war on America’s dispossessed majority, white Christian Americans" and "Jews fear and will do anything in their power, (and they now have all the power in America), to eradicate any semblance of nationalism emanating from white Christian Americans."

This article [20] appears to be a Holocaust denial article (or poem), "Jew conceives HOLOCAUST Factory / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Stories to Deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Days to deflect Guilt".

In the article titled "Obama is Two-Faced Liar" [21] they claim "President Barack Obama treated [Republicans] like dirt, didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package". Hardly neutral or fair writing.

In this article, they claim that Barack Obama has the "psychopathic nature of the ideal Jewish puppet" [22]

"Barack Obama likes to control others and uses that control to do others harm. In addition, Obama lacks genuine emotions, other than anger and pleasure. He is cold-hearted, arrogant and condescending.

"Like most psychopaths, he has learned to disguise his disorder. His lack of normal emotional response he masquerades as if cool headedness. His mendacities are stated in terms meant to mislead his followers into believing that he has their best interests at heart.

"Behind this deceitful psychopath prominently stand the Zionist Jews David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. Obama makes a perfect puppet for World Jewry. He has no conscience. Obama is eager to betray those who believe in him. He is ignorant and inexperienced, which means that he will have to rely on the advice and scripts of his Jewish advisors as heavily as he has relied on the money of his Jewish financiers."

Should Pakistan Daily be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

they allow anyone to upload articles to their web site [23] No, they allow anyone to submit articles. Your implication that they do not retain editorial control over their content looks to be false.

The links you provided are clearly opinion pieces, and don't seem to make any pretense to be news stories. They could be conceivably be cited as opinion of Pakistan Daily.

OTOH, an article like this, is a straight news story. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The word 'upload' was a poor choice of words on my part. I've changed the original post to say 'submit'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any claim on the web site that they retain editorial control, other than rejecting "hate related articles". If someone could point to their editorial policy, it would be appreciated. (Disclosure: A Quest For Knowledge and I have communicated on my talk page about this issue. I stated that I believed a particular article to be editorial-like, and hence not reliable. His actions here are his own.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'Editorial control' means that they control what content they publish. It seems that no one is disputing that they do indeed retain full control over what content they publish. The ability of someone to 'point to their editorial policy' is irrelevant. Could you 'point to the editorial policy' of the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune? Dlabtot (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. It imagine it would not be difficult to find similarly vicious material in the editorials of otherwise (somewhat) reliable Western publications. The coverage of Fox News and Murdoch on Muslims and the left comes to mind. II | (t - c) 20:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one determine whether one of their articles is an opinion piece or a news story? As far as I can tell, they're not labeled as such. In fact, all of the above articles are found in their "World News" section and say "Written by www.daily.pk". While some articles do appear to be pretty straight forward and factual (as Dlabtot points out), but some do not and it's this latter category that concerns me. In particular, some of these questionable articles are being referenced by Wikipedia articles on fringe theories for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors must form a consensus and exercise judgement on a case by case basis. As with any publication.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done, especially with articles on conspiracy theories where the conspiracy nutcases theorists are trying to push their POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The practiced extremist is very skilled at presenting extremist views as perfectly logical and reasonable. PetersV       TALK 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the website that anyone can edit - I don't think anyone claimed it would be easy. BTW, you should not refer to other editors as 'nutcases', as it is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dlabtot (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I'm getting the feeling this is not a reliable source. I looked at about 20 articles, and they're all credited as written by "www.daily.pk". I didn't find any actual names. They don't seem to have a normal about page, just about iWrite, which is sketchy at the least. I think they are a user submitted news source. Now, I'm sure someone is selecting and organizing their articles, but I couldn't find who that was, so I don't think they can be consdiered reliable. Now, if we figure out they were part of something in List of newspapers in Pakistan, then maybe we could reconsider. They don't seem to be part of a real newspaper as far as I can tell, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to go on an article by article basis. If it uses clearly opinionated and prejudicial language and it is not clear in what appears to be a news story or an opndefinitely identify the source. However, remember there are nuances. In a news story to always say "the apartheid state of Israel" might be bias, but to say "Israel, which many describe as an apartheid state..." might not be. It's a judgment call on article by article basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Virtually all websites have correct info, but we cannot pick and choose among them for which we think are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have to choose what sources are appropriate and reliable for what content. Dlabtot (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If a site doesn't have consistent reliability, it's completely useless. There's no indication that writers are professional. Should we start accepting UseNet posting, personal blogs, and chat forums if parts of them appear sensible? --Rob (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is not a website of an actual print publication, but an online only news portal. Can anyone confirm that ? If so, do we know anything about its (online) publishers, popularity, reputation etc ? Do other news sources cite it ? I googled but didn't find anything relevant at first glance. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now we are getting to the point. Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability? Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This confirms it is a news portal. Seems to be more like a blog than a RS. Jayen466 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Your News. Powered By You." Hmm... that really puts the kibosh on reliability. No better or worse than "Wikipedia. Your Encyclopedia. Powered By You." And Wikipedia fails the reliability test. PetersV       TALK 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Pakistan Daily qualifies as a reliable source, and much evidence that they do not: [24][25][26]. Per WP:FRINGE they are out. THF (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now done a more thorough search and still found nothing relevant to indicate that this news portal is usable as a source. Some troubling pointers:

• Websiteoutlook suggests this is very minor operation; though Quantcast gives higher statistics - so I don't know how much weight to place on this.
• Their Contact us page has no name, physical address or even email address. Only a comments form that is used to contact them and submit material.
• Their iwrite page says that they accept user-submitted content, including opinion pieces. But none of the articles I saw on the website were marked as submitted articles, or differentiated between news and opinion.
• I didn't find them referenced in any standard Pakistani newspapers (Dawn, Daily Times, The Daily Mail), though, of course, it's hard to prove that they never have been cited)
• As Dlabtot pointed out, they do seem to have some straight news stories, but most of the articles I saw were highly polemical.

So I would advice against using this as a reliable source for facts, or even as a noteworthy source for opinion - unless someone can show positive evidence of their reliability and/or noteworthiness. Pakistan has a vibrant print media (even in English), so sourcing straight news is usually not a problem, and if something is sourceable only to Pakistan Daily - it should probably not be on wikipedia anyway. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From what you've found, I would have to say it's not a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasonable looking articles are just cut and paste jobs from actual reliable sources.[27][28] So, not only are they not reliable, but they're also a big pile of copyvios. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We might be getting a little too whacked out about "fringe" opinions, especially if they are seen as "one fringe article appears, and the whole source is forbidden on WP". Think of the Soviet-era newspaper Pravda. Would you use it as a statement of fact in articles about American foreign policy? No. Would you use it for articles about the ballet? Yes. Would you cite it with attribution in articles about the Cold War? Yes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "iwrite" user-submitted articles appear to be segregated into their own section, just like dozens of US news sites that have a "citizen journalism" area.[29] But outside of that, there are some very inflammatory editorials about Israel, and no, I don't want us using those as statements of fact. They could maybe be used as statements of opinion, say in an article about conspiracist thought in Pakistan. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I missed that point in my review above. Abecedare (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would question the reliability of a source that allows copying and pasting of other news services articles without attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe not, maybe not even for statements of opinion. At first I thought people were asking about the Pakistan Daily-Times, which is very different. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus is a clear 'no'. I concur. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Observer

The Metal Observer is cited in multiple articles relating to performers of heavy metal music. The website's coverage of band genres is inconsistent, its content appears to be user-submitted. Most reviews that I have seen from this website do not appear to be professionally written. Can anyone confirm the reliability of this website? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

I had trouble finding a good about page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to be a reliable source- or match up to other sites like Metal Archives which do have user-submitted content on par with IMDB. Nevard (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

This is one Cnfusing place --No Idea if this is posted in appropriate place --OR how to FIND same.

Community where I live: full of creative people, structures and beautiful geography, some reasons why it has a page here. I have a website about the community (every aspect), started three years ago, with Sidebar links to everything a neighbor would want, which is why I attempted to add the page, under "external links" --but promptly got notice: 'a bot will remove your link'

So I'm asking: a.) why --isn't blog allowed b.) if I am the author/owner of the blog and its contents: why can't I add a link (of the blog) to community page? --All the material is original, neutral (except for political news) nothing inappropriate, crude, vulgar or others' material. So what's the prob? Thanks for help, Poppy

That's another page. Someone will mention it soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia has high standards regarding cites and external links, and blogs fail to meet those standards.

Specifically, here's what Wikipedia's policy on verifiability has to say on the subject:

Anyone can 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 books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Wikipedia's policy on external links specifically lists blogs as links normally to be avoided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To Quest: thank you for replying (aren't you impressed I Found this page again, lol, I am!) I appreciate the material you listed, my *search wasn't as successful. Ironically: I usually have the same view, about blogs, most (90%?) are junk; my background in English and ethics, standards grounded in journalism prevent me from producing typical blog type stuff; doing things even daily newspapers do, so (*blush*) my view of the neighborhood-grounded blog: NOT the usual rag of sort. e.g. several pages, with cites, on controversial issue of our reservoirs, surrounding meadow, and future use. e.g., Under "Food" all external links to Forums, boards, websites - pre-set to community restaurants. e.g., recently a series of crimes occurred (for the first time in years) and all kinds of people popped in looking for news, up-date, notice/details of police-community meeting to discuss.

Blog is not my personal 'daily travails in the 'hood' sort, but links to all categories, in/related to the community. Ergo: I thought it would be useful to readers of the wiki Page; apparently I'm not as neutral as wiki wants? Could I list it if I cited myself as the owner?

Ah well, would you take a look, see if blog is acceptable? I'll check back tomorrow for reply. Thanks for reply, Poppy (--I don't know how to sign off with the icon/sig thing)

I don't know which article you are referring to or the blog either, but based on what you've said so far, no, it does not seem like it would be an acceptable for external link. Blogs are only acceptable if the author of the blog is an established expert on this specific topic and has been published by reliable third-party publications. Has the blog's author been published by any reliable sources about this specific topic? If so, how many?

To sign your posts, just include four tildes at the end. Just like this but without the spaces: ~ ~ ~ ~. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Frontiers of Physics in China.

Springer page. Co-publication with Higher Education Press.

Editorial Board

We have articles on Chao Tang, Charles M. Lieber, Daniel C. Tsui, but I'd guess that many more are notable scientists in China. I'm not particularly up on searching in Chinese.

There is notice of the Frontiers ... in China series at Thomson Reuters:

"Launched in January 2007, ‘Frontiers of Computer Science in China’ is part of the “Frontiers in China” quality journal series which aims to provide a forum for the publication of the best of China’s peer-reviewed papers in English to foster closer communication and exchange between authors in China and abroad. The “Frontiers in China” series is the most extensive English series of journals in China, both print and online, to cover the widest range of subjects including natural sciences, humanities and social sciences which span 24 important disciplines.

However, this is a press release from Thomson Reuters, apparently Manuscript central, a TR activity, was chosen by Higher Education Press.

Beijing Review has an article about the web site, "Higher Education Press: Launch of Online "Frontiers in China," http://journal.hep.com.cn.

The series, Frontiers in China, aim to establish a Sino-foreign academic exchange platform to represent the highest level of research in China, and an excellent brand of international academic journals as well. These full-text English series of academic journals covering natural sciences, engineering technology, as well as humanities and social science, are unique in China, which is a vital new force to implement the strategy of Chinese newspapers and journals "going abroad".

Chinese government web site has this on Higher Education Press.

according to the ranking-announcement of the global publishing industry in 2006, China's Higher Education Press ranked No. 44 with total revenue of RMB 2.4 billion Yuan, and becomes the only one publisher of China which selected in the range of the top 45.

In terms of the global publishing industry ranking in 2006, the multinational publishing group Reed Elsevier ranks no.1 with total revenue of 5,851 billion euros. In Asia, there are only the publishers in China and Japan selected in the range of the top 45 publishers, thus Higher Education Press becomes only one publisher of China which selected in the range of the top 45. According to the data of the International Publishers Association, the total revenue of global publishing industry is 56 billion euros in 2006, while the global top 45 publishers possess 51.1 billion euros of the total revenue, especially the former 10 accounted for 2/3 of the total revenue of the top 45 in 2006.

Publisher's Weekly has a 2008 article on Publishing's Top Guns.

The sale of its Harcourt Education group dropped Reed Elsevier from the top spot to fourth place, making room for Thomson Corp. to claim the title as the world's largest book publisher. Thomson landed in the #1 position even though it sold its Thomson Learning division in the year. The company has also made it clear that it would rather be known as a digital publisher than a print publisher—the majority of its revenue is generated by electronic products and services. Nevertheless, most of the information it provides in a wide variety of professional areas has its roots in books and journals. Revenue for 2007 does not include Reuters; Thomson completed the purchase of Reuters earlier this and is now known as Thomson Reuters.

Note that the above lends some weight to the Thomson Reuters announcement. This is the world's largest book publisher.

44 Higher Education Press Higher Education Press China (PR) (2006 revenues: $301.65 million)

Apparently HEP is the largest publisher in China.

Reliable source for physics, sufficient to assert it, not as a final conclusion? Any advice, caveats? --Abd (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are widespread but unverified claims a reliable source?

I put a dubious tag on the claim in the Video assist article that Jerry Lewis has a US patent on the technology. Other editors removed the tag on the theory that the patent is widely believed to exist.

Ordinarily, such patents are easy to find. I tried to find the patent, and couldn't. Although such a patent would almost certainly be mentioned as prior-art in later patents, there are no such references. There's a well-known patent by actress Hedy Lamarr that is trivially easy to find and frequently mentioned by later patents. In short, the factual evidence does not support the claim in the article.

The reference in the article only shows that this patent is widely thought to exist, not that it does, and in fact the author of that reference says he has no evidence that the patent exists.

Please see the discussion here: Talk:Video_assist#Jerry_Lewis_patent

I hate having to say this, but I have no particular opinion on the matter. I respect Mr. Lewis and there is a vast amount of evidence that he made substantial contributions to the development of this technology. That's basically what the Jerry Lewis article says, and I'm fine with the language there. But the claim in THIS article is that he has a patent, so there should be a reference to support that claim.

Thanks.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced now. For something uncontroversial like "there are 24 hours in a day" it's obnoxious to demand a source, but I think it was reasonable for you to suggest a source was needed for something not immediately obvious like the Jerry Lewis patent -- I know a lot of trivia, and a lot of legal history, but I didn't know that. THF (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand-- what is sourced now? The claim that Lewis has a patent is still not sourced. The claim that he is credited with the invention is, but that is a separate claim.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The cited source says that he got a patent for it. (The cite might be wrong, but the Wikipedia standard is verifiability.) If the argument is that the source is not reliable because it's wrong, that's a different question. It could well be an urban legend (one even repeated by Jessica Biel at the Oscar ceremonies and by Lewis himself, and you could be the one to debunk it: best bet is to take it up with Snopes. My own OR shows that this could be an urban legend; there's no patent by the name often credited to the one Lewis claims to have had. For $2.95, you can check out this article, which may be the answer you're looking for, or may not. THF (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the cited source told me he doesn't have any evidence for his own statement that Lewis has such a patent. But this isn't about that source. It's about the fact that I put a dubious tag on a specific claim in an article, and the tag has been removed because that claim is widely believed to be true. I'd think such a tag could only be removed if the claim has, you know, factual support somewhere, so that the claim isn't dubious. How in heck does "widespread belief" constitute a reliable source?

I appreciate the point about verifiability, but I think this is a special case that needs special consideration. The verifiability policy says the burden of proof is on the editor adding a factual claim. I don't think an editor satisfied that burden by saying that other people believe the same thing, no matter how reputable they are. If a US patent exists, there's exactly one way to verify it: provide a patent number. I don't think that widespread belief is a reasonable alternative to that standard in this case. And that's why I'm here-- to see if there's a consensus on that point, or if not, to build one.

I also appreciate that article, but Songer's work in the area began in 1968, long after Lewis was said to have received the patent (around 1956). 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This hinges on the exact wording in the article. If the wording is that Lewis had a patent, then I agree, we need better sources to verify that statement. If, on the other hand, the wording is that a given author believes he had a patent, then the source THF gives is reliable (as it discusses that author's belief). It is the difference between a statement of fact, and a statement of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I suggest we change the Video assist article to say "Comedian and director Jerry Lewis is credited with inventing this system, although some similar systems existed..." which matches the language in the Jerry Lewis article.

That would eliminate the specific claim that he has a patent. If I can find the patent-- and I'm still looking-- I'll add the number to both articles. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Hi,

The article List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population is almost solely based on the World Gazetteer data. This source has been widely criticised on the Talk-page but I would like an independent view on its reliability.

Ghaag (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is a WP:RS. The site seems to be maintained by a single user (For Ex: the faqs say "I") and we are not sure about the information available in the site [30]. Does not seem like a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine Almanac uses it.[31] Good enough for Time is way good enough for wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, and Holm Sundhausen

The reliability of the above mentioned is questioned, and a user removed material sourced to a book authored by them [32]. This removal (not the first one) is based on un-proven reliability.

The questioned book [33] was published in 2006, and despite being a recent publication has already been cited by numerous other authors [34]. It was written by two professors, Brunnbauer [35][36] and Sundhausen [37], and a PD, Esch [38], all historians and experts in the field the book is about (modern Eastern European history). The book was published by LIT [39], a publishing house specialized on science.

All the informations are easily verifiable (googleable) and though the sites are in German, the basic information should either be understood by non-German speakers, too (eg "Professor" and "Universität foo"), with other key words like "Geschichte Osteuropas" (history of Eastern Europe) a web translation will turn out a result. Therefore, I think that an English speaker should be able to retrieve the key information about the authors within a few minutes. Additionally, the disputed quote was given in the footnote, also the respective URL, and a translation was provided on talk [40].

The questions I have are:

• Am I right that the source is reliable?
• Do I have to further prove (if yes, to what extend?) the reliability if the URL of the book preview, authors and title are given, and as shown above further information about authors and book are easily retrievable online using the information given in the footnote?

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The book seems like a reliable source in every respect. The quoted article by Prof. Detlef Brandes seems as reliable as a source can get. I don't see how there could a problem here. No need for any further proof. Offliner (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Detlef Brandes writes about Czechoslovakia. His expertise in Polish matters is doubtful. Poland isn't Czechoslovakia nor Russia, what people in the West generally ignore. Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia.

"In seiner Habilitation über Großbritannien und seine osteuropäischen Alliierten in den Jahren 1939 bis 1943 beschäftigte er sich mit der Politik der Exilregierungen Polens, der Tschechoslowakei und Jugoslawiens unter anderem hinsichtlich der Vertreibung und Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus dem östlichen Europa – ein Thema, das er in einer Studie über die Pläne zur Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus Polen und der Tschechoslowakei wieder aufgriff. In seiner neuesten Monographie widmet er sich der Geschichte der Sudetendeutschen in der Zeit vor dem Münchner Abkommen. Ein weiteres Forschungsfeld von Brandes bildet die Geschichte der Deutschen in Russland und der Sowjetunion, wobei vor allem die deutschen Kolonisten und Balkansiedler in Neurussland und Bessarabien in der Zeit von 1751 bis 1914 sowie über die Sibiriendeutsche in der Sowjetunion im Mittelpunkt stehen."

It seems quite clear than he has more than enough expertise in the subject of the article in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, even in "Polish matters." Offliner (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This book is a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? And your source is?Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:RS, whether the information in it is correct or not is another issue, and I suspect is where the dispute lies. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The anthology's publisher (LIT), editors (Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, and Holm Sundhausen), the author of the cited chapter (Detlef Brandes), and positive review in American Historical Review (quote: "This book adds to the substantial amount of research about “ethnic cleansing” that has been published in recent years in the German language." ... "It is a virtue of the volume that it unites authors from various disciplines and nationalities. The essays also provide a good overview of recent research on ethnic cleansing in various European countries.") establish that this is a reliable, and, in fact, a good source to use on wikipedia. That doesn't, of course, make all its contents indisputably true, but if there is a controversy, present the alternate view too; don't simply exclude this source. By the way, while referencing this work, you should cite the actual article and its author(s), and not only the book and editors. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes if there is a controversy or others dispute this view, you can present it as "so and so scholar argues that ...." (see WP:WTA for words usage), by stating opinions as opinions and not as facts. like this the article will be more neutral and all POVs will be represented. --Nvineeth (talk)

"Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia" - Brandes is competent (probably) when writing about Czechoslovakia. He writes sometimes about Poland and creates problems. Here is an academic opinion about his another book [41]. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the courtesy of pointing out the relevant section of the review: "this is not an explicit comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. In general, the Czechs (and Sudeten German exile politicians) get the overwhelming majority of Brandes' attention. When the Poles do appear, it is rarely in a comparative context." - that review just says that he doesn't make a direct comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. That is not "creating problems", as you would have it, and the reliability of the evidence and conclusions is not questioned.

User:Nvineeth offers some good advice above, which I would strongly endorse. Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "presenting opposing POVs" is that an opposing scholary POV has not yet been presented, and the removals I addressed here were based solely on questioned reliability of the source, which the removing user still does not see confirmed. I am all for integrating or adding other views, if just someone would present one. In any case I will take the advise of Abecedare, and if we come to presenting opposing views, I will follow Nvineeth' advise, too, which is regular practice I do not question. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my preceding comment was addressed to Xx236. If there are scholarly views which disagree with those presented in Skäpperöd's source, he should include them in the article with citations. (Glad everyone agrees that Nvineeth's advice is good practice for all of us!) Knepflerle (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material because the source lacks a source

Recently, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) removed a comment that Chuck Baldwin opposes interracial marriage. The statement was sourced to a BET article detailing Chuck's political opinions in which they made the comment that Chuck Baldwin believes that interracial marriage is a from of white genocide. It seems like this is both a WP:RS and WP:BLP issue, but since the original verbiage in the article was fairly neutral, I am assuming that the RSN was the place to go.

I searched around to see if I could source the statement elsewhere, but the best I could do is link it to his opinion of the book Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants here but without listening to probably dozen of sermons, if he has even left the questionable material available, I doubt we'll get better until a mainstream media source gets bored enough to crucify him.

I haven't reverted it yet, as BLP is still an issue, but do we have a policy for requiring sources to be sourced? Burzmali (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof especially in BLP situations. If we are going to say that someone opposes interracial marriage, over 40 years after the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws, we better have solid proof. I would suggest great caution, and either not using it at all, or else start it "According to BET, ..." My advice would be that if you have nothing more than that, to leave it out. I think the BLP issue is paramount.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the BET summary of the candidate had said "Likes pancakes" under "Stuff you may not have know", I would have said it is a reliable enough source; but since the claim ("endorses the viewpoint that interracial relationships are a form of white genocide") is significantly more serious, and concerns a BLP, I would have to agree that the source is not sufficient by itself. Unless we find independent corroboration, it would be prudent to leave it out. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the deleted language you mention differs considerably from what BET said. "Endorses the viewpoint" might mean that Baldwin didn't say it himself, but when asked about someone else's speech or book, said something that favored the speech or book, perhaps not even realizing the full contents. Lots of possibilities here, and since even the BET quote is rather POV (white genocide?) suggest we stay far away from this until there is an independent source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Chuck Baldwin didn't win the endorsements of every major white supremacists by being a friend to people of all races and creeds. The term "white genocide" is a direct quote from James Edwards on whose radio show, The Political Cesspool, Baldwin has been a guest. Without listening to each of the radio shows to find the ones with Baldwin and the ones with decrying interracial marriage, it is hard to make that a definite statement as to his politics, but that's would secondary sources are for, no? Burzmali (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. BET might take the position that appearing on Edwards' show means Baldwin "endorses" Edwards' views.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

SOHH

I recently ran into an article on sohh.com, but I'm not sure if this website would be considered reliable and if it would be deemed reliable if it went through GA, FL or FA. DiverseMentality 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It dont think it meets the guidelines for a WP:EL (fan site, blog etc.,), Let alone, WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of Mystery weblog - Reliable?

OK, I know that weblogs in general are not a reliable source. But the Spirit of Mystery weblog is being written by the crew of a small boat that is sailing to Australia. It is a sort of online diary of events during the journey as experienced by the crew. I've not used it yet in the Spirit of Mystery article, but would like to pad out the details of Mark Maidment's accident with info from the weblog if it is considered to meet RS criteria. What do other editors think about the use of this particular blog? Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at self published source, it sounds like it would be reliable for info about the author, but maybe not about a crewmate. Not sure. Is the info going to be controversial? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Info is not going to be controversial, just exact dates/times. Of course, if these are reported elsewhere then that source will replace the blog. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meets all the requirements of WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ISOGG

There is a reference on the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) using this source from the International Society for Genetic Genealogy. From their website the organization's mission is -"is to advocate for and educate about the use of genetics as a tool for genealogical research, and promote a supportive network for genetic genealogists."

The organization compiles information from various publications and creates genetic trees. That are available on its website such as Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2009. Where it states: ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) is not affiliated with any registered, trademarked, and/or copyrighted names of companies, websites and organizations. This Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree is for informational purposes only, and does not represent an endorsement by ISOGG"

The initial impression I have is that they are a private organization that provides a support network for genealogists. They do a good job of compiling information, however, they do not seem to have an established publishing system, or a system of peer review. For controversial matters, should they qualify as a reliable source. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To all readers, please refer to this discussion on the same subject that's already under way. Causteau (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If a source is routinely considered good enough for peer-reviewed specialist articles then it is good enough for Wikipedia. This has been pointed out to Wapondaponda 3 different times in different forums of discussion. Yes, to take one argument that has been mentioned on another forum, the sources are just the same academic sources as used in specific Wikipedia articles on detailed subjects. That is indeed because this is intended to collect all the information, which is not collected anywhere else. For a phylogeny, collecting all latest information makes all the difference, by definition. So to ignore the ISOGG webpage would be to make the Wikipedia articles deliberately wrong. Wapondaponda's concern clearly has more to do with specific "controversial matters" and therefore I disagree with the approach of questioning an important RS without being very specific about what those controversial matters are. Specific controversial matters should be dealt with as specific controversial matters?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for HBS

This should be a simple question. In relation to the article Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. This article is about the basic "woman trapped in a mans body" sort of story given to explain transsexualism. This particular variant of the idea is not edorsed by the APA, or any professional psychologist or physicians. I have a number of sources on this idea. The problem is that all of them could be considered self published depending on how you look at that. I will start with the strongest one.

1. Ts-Si.org "Why "HBS/TS" instead of TG?" This one seems to be the strongest. Does the fact that a group of people came together and formed a .org make what is published here a RS for this topic. It is one of the most authoratative on the thinking about what is termed HBS. Or is this self published?
2. womenborntranssexual.com This one is much weaker because the website takes the form of a blog. However it summs up the thinking nicely.
3. HBS International "What is Harry Benjamin's Syndrome?" This one is by a .org must like the first.

Searching google scholar brings up only "Unveiling the Mystique of Gender Dysphoria Syndrome"Margaret L. Colucciello RN, PhD[42] Is the closest thing to this found in Google Scholar. In this case the word syndrome I think was used simply to avoid the word disorder and it's stigma. Are any of these acceptable? One may say well if it's not in a better publication it's not noteable... first of all anything in the TS communit takes a long time for mainstream media to get wind of. Second google the term, thousands of hits come up.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. I couldn't find anything on the first that indicated it had a strong editorial policy. It sounds like a controversial issue, so you'll want extra strong sources, not questionable ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

...

please take a look at the situation over at Talk:Sum 41 discography. Basically, there are multiple 3rd party sources that say that this EP is an EP, there are also multiple 3rd party sources that label it as a studio album. But there are 2 PRIMARY sources (The EP, and the Band themselves) that have stated that it is an EP, and not a studio album. Isn't it true that primary sources over-ride secondary source, especially in this case (respond on my talk page please) 70.242.179.192 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Systematic Bias over RSS at Talk:Mitanni

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these reliable sources on the Mitanni article, get called a "troll" and threatened with blocking, article locking, etc. So are all the cited authors who wrote about this, "trolls" as well? Or is there some foul play here that is purposefully trying to exclude relevant information, exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that some modern-day groups do claim descent from them, and these readers probably wouldn't want this relevant info suppressed by editors who think that they personally "know better" than the sources, and that therefore these sources must not even be mentioned. The fact that they don't even have a single source rebutting this peer-reviewed view, is summarily dismissed by saying "Well that's because we know it's so wrong, why would we even bother rebutting it with a source".

This is exactly how we get such vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second on google books or google scholar, to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. But it seems that there are hidden, higher standards than "verifiability" at play, and that is the "prestige" that certain editors give one another, and the "cause" of "anti-nationalist globalism" which regularly denies all published evidence that any modern people could possibly be descended from any ancient people. (So the stork brought them, or what?) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it takes "about one second on google books or google scholar to find copious scholarly books" that illustrate your point, you should provide citations to some of them here. Otherwise, your post looks more like a rant than a constructive attempt to solve an editing problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. DB at Talk:Mitanni has even admitted that the Armenians are likely descendants of Mitanni via the Hurrians, but insists that it shouldn;t be mentioned, and furthermore, he admits that there are sources, but says they don't count because he thinks they were written by "Armenian crackpots" and "Soviets" whom he claims to have "debunked". In response I just pasted the following comment and citation at the talkpage:

As I research more, it appears that after the Indo-Aryan character of some Mitanni names became known in the late 19th century, several scholars wrote on this, and it is still considered by linguists as evidence for an Armeno-Aryan proto-group. Henry Hall (Egyptologist) was one of of several to suggest this, see Ancient History of the Near East from the earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis p. 475 - was he an Armenian crackpot, or a Soviet? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This still sounds ranty. Henry Hall died in 1930, and without more recent sources, there's no reason to assume that he represents a prominent viewpoint today.

Other issues you mention seem to relate to WP:UNDUE. If crackpots believe that the Mitanni are the ancestors of the Hurrians, who are the ancestors of the Armenians, but the scholarly consensus is otherwise, mentioning the crackpot opinion in Mitanni is likely undue weight. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus is otherwise"? Haven't seen a single indication other than bald assertion. RSS please.

Then there's this, but since the author is Armenian, he must be one of the "crackpots" DB refers to:

"The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia, whose chronology is stated by Professor A. Hatch as follows: Subarean basic stratum dating from 3000 BC. Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum dating from 2000 BC. Mosch-Muski-Aryan-Phryge stratum dating from 1176 BC. Hatti major infiltration into Armenia 1200 BC. Khald-Urartean rule in Armenia 9th century BC. Phryge-Armen rule in Armenia beginning 650 BC." [43] Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. I'm not making any assertion what the scholarly consensus is, or isn't. What I'm saying is, unless you have a more recent source, there is no reason to assume that a source from the early 20th century represents current scholarly consensus. If, as you claim, there are tons of sources on Google scholar it shouldn't be a problem to present more recent material.

The quote you've provided doesn't say that the Armenians are the descendants of the Mitanni. It says that the Armenian language has a Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. That's not the same thing as genetic affiliation. In any case, the book you linked to is published by indoeuropeanpublishing.com, a print-on-demand press. This is little better than a vanity publisher, so this book is not a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. The quote I've provided doesn't say the Armenian language has Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. It specifically says (as I quoted above) "The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia". I have provided a more recent source verifying that this POV exists, but you are still coming up with various pretexts for suppressing the sources without even so much as a contrary opinion ever being published. The sources are all either too old, or they are "too recent". Tell me, exactly what age of a source would you like, and I'll try to find it, if there is any such acceptable date range for a published idea you wish to exclude. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in response to your attack on the publishing site, Here's the same 1958 book at the University of Chicago. But I guess it doesn't require any source or reference if your opinion that he's a "crackpot" is just somehow... right... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"anthrpological strata of Armenia"? Ok, I suppose the passage you quoted is talking about material culture, not language. This still doesn't support the notion that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. And, hosting a chapter of a book on a personal website, even one with an .edu suffix, doesn't make a book reliable. The book in question, History of Armenia by Vahan_Kurkjian, was published by the Armenian General Benevolent Union of America in 1958; this is obviously not an academic press, and considering that Kurkjian was the founder of the organization, one may doubt whether the book was subject to a strenuous editing process. Nor, if we can trust his Wikipedia article, was Kurkjian a trained archaeologist or historian. This book doesn't look like it meets WP:RS.

By the way, Til Eulenspiegel, a bit less hostility might be helpful. Interpreting my comments as an "attack on the publishing site" seems a bit paranoid. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, of course we're going to look at who published a book to see if it's a reliable source. That's what this noticeboard is about. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The book in question is not a reliable source, even if a chapter is on a university site, nor does it say what you seem to think it says. This one published by Routledge [44] is, and doesn't support the idea that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. dougweller (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact that source you just gave does support the idea that Armenians are decendants of the Mitanni; The Kingdom of Armenia by Chahin devotes much space to discussing the Mitanni, their relation to the Hurrians, and the Hurrians' relation to the Armenians. The sourece I gave also supports this, but it's funny how you say the source is not reliable AND I'm misinterpreting it. It lists the Mitanni among the anthropological stratum of Armenians, how do you interpret it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this thread is flawed from line one, because there aren't "many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni". Don't confuse this claim with "it is plausible that the Armenians have Mitanni people among their ancestors", because this would force us to mention the Armenians at mitochondrial Eve, just because all Armenians are among the offspring of Mitochondrial Eve. The Mitanni kingdom flourished 3,300 years ago, and if you know anything about genealogy, this means that everyone in Southwest Asia, and probably most people in Eurasia and Africa, are "descended from the Mitanni".

As for the claimed "RSs", there are none known. Witness this revision, which shows the hallmarks of pov-pushing, with "possibly "Armeno-Aryan", origin [...] regarded by many historians as among the ancestors of the modern day Armenians" (pure weasling), garnished with 13(!) footnotes rather than a single quotable RS. For your edification, the 13 footnotes amount to:

"The Mitanni Kingdom was a powerful force around 15-1300 BC and are regarded by many historians as the ancestors of the modern day Armenians." Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches

Johannes Schmidt, Die Urheimat der Indogermanen und das europaïsche Zahlensystem, Weimar, 1890

Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426 (27 November 2003) 435-439

Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, 159-60; Thomas V. Gamkrelidze & Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejtsy (Tbilisi, 1984)

Thomas V. Gamkrelidze & Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, “The Ancient Near East and the Indo-European Question

Mitanni were partly Indo-European and partly Hurrian people, although Hurrian is not Indo-European.TourEgypt; "Mitanni". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 9 June 2008

"The Mitanni Kingdom was a powerful force around 15-1300 BC and are regarded by many historians as the ancestors of the modern day Armenians."

Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches

Johannes Schmidt, Die Urheimat der Indogermanen und das europaïsche Zahlensystem, Weimar, 1890

Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426 (27 November 2003) 435-439

Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, 159-60; Thomas V. Gamkrelidze & Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejtsy (Tbilisi, 1984)

Thomas V. Gamkrelidze & Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, “The Ancient Near East and the Indo-European Question

these indiscriminately mix random urls (allnewsweb.com, touregypt.net... -- it remains a mystery why we should quote those when it is so "easy" to come up with real RS), and sources that do in fact argue for either the Anatolian hypothesis or the Armenian hypothesis (which are incidentially mutually exclusive, but never mind that), and imply that scholars arguing for either of these automatically support "Armenian Mitanni" which is utter nonsense.

Now Til knows all of this, of course, being a veteran editor, but he is also a veteran pusher of ethnic crackpottery. He should also know better, I suppose, than calling me names like "racist" for removing the above clutter of "references", but I suppose after getting away with his approach to Wikipedia for years, he doesn't see any reason not to.

Til at this point isn't an asset to Wikipedia as much as a liability, and if I wasn't his target in this case, I would consider imposing a block on him for his recent exploit. Briefly, he is wasting everyone's time over stuff that has been discussed exhaustively two years ago, and he isn't doing it politely and innocently, but in a manner that really begs that somebody should show him the door. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we cannot verify that the school of thought actually exists in print, because the sources are obviously wrong and thus "unreliable", therefore we do not mention this school of thought at Mitanni as existing at all, am I reading all this correctly? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the Mitanni in the index of Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.) The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Since this is a pretty standard work on Armenian history this might give us some indication of the importance (or rather lack of it) of the Mitanni theory. --Folantin (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... so the fact that no scholars have ever even rebutted this theory, would be irrelevant then. All the ones who do mention it are magically obviated, by the fact that another source does not - hence the sources that do mention it are all wrong, and may not be cited. This really is an unprecedented high standard of verifiability, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What kind of logic is that? --Folantin (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your point. There really is no dispute among scholars that Armenians are among the descendants of Mitanni, via the Hurrians. I say this because haven't seen even one scholar say otherwise, or say "No they weren't" to contradict the experts who say they were. But you found one who doesn't mention them at all, and if I'm not mistaken you are suggesting that this somehow cancels out the ones that do mention it. If this is a new precedent for standards of verifiability, it should be clarified soon, hopefully so as to keep us from all these unfortunate charges of "OR", "trolls", "crackpots", page-locks, threats of blocks, etc. in lieu of actual scholarly rebuttals Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"[E]vidence of language allows us to construct a tentative model of Armenian origins. Related Phrygian and Armenian populations in the middle of the second millennium BC crossed from southeastern Europe into Anatolia. The people whose descendants became the Armenians were the ones who moved the farthest eastward. The latter took their ethnic name [hay] from the Hattian people whose state they overran. They settled down, learning the words for some local fruits and other everyday items from the native Hurro-Urarteans. Other aspects of their culture had the common Mediterranean stamp." (The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I, pp.23-24). --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've given a link to Google Books and The Kingdom of Armenia By M. Chahin - search it for Armenians, it seems to be saying basically what the book above says. The Armenians are not the original inhabitants of Armenia it appears. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Armenians descend from Mitanni, I know nothing about that and I haven't seen any reliable current sources for that in this discussion, but you have to be careful here not to confuse linguistic and cultural descendence with genetical descendence. Those people that moved in from the west and brought their language and culture won't have replaced everyone who has been living there before. Most Europeans speak Indo-European languages now, but are for some 80% descendent from people who lived there before and spoke all together different languages. Similarly, Indians did not 'come from' the west just because part of their languages and cultures did. Of course, this only goes to show that it is really dubious what sense it makes to say that this people descend from that other people. Just my two cents.sephia karta | di mi 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this is simple. It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni. It seems that there may be reliable sources that disagree. So the key is to discuss the fact that there is disagreement, present both views and stop trying to "prove" one side and "disprove" the other. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni." I don't think we've seen any yet. From the sources given in this thread, we cannot even conclude that the opinion that the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni is a claim that is made in any current mainstream scholarship. So I don't think this is a situation where we need to present both views--the alleged controversy doesn't seem to exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barring finding some real sources, Akhilleus has it right. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Read more carefully the cited sources, and you will see just how much it is related to Mitanni's Armeno-Aryan identity. 76.250.9.137 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your main reason of removing Armenians from the top of the page, seem to be mentioning of modern ethnic peoples like Armenians, but "Armneno-Aryan" is not directly saying "Armenians". So you notice same goes with "Indo-Iranian", it is not directly referring to Indians or Persians, but you can still notice it in the term "Indo-Iranian". Do you understand that you were wrong there and that the user Til was clarifing that? "Armeno-Aryan", just as "Indo-Iranian", does not directly refer to Indians, Persians, or Armenians. So you seem to indeed prejudice Armenians here. Why? Just cause you have power as admin, does not mean you should prejudice like that. 76.250.9.137 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese sources

At WP:DYK there has been some dispute whether or not entire articles can be sourced to ancient Chinese sources, such as the Book of Tang, which is about 1000 years old. Although a compilation of older sources and thus technically a secondary source, I do not believe that it meets the requirements of a reliable source. Our policy states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." - In the field of Chinese history, it is modern scholars who have a "reliable publication process" and who are viewed as "trustworthy" and "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Historians of Chinese history go back to this older material, assess its validity, and then present their conclusions to us. We should use that scholarship, not the less reliable material. Please help us decide whether articles such as Wu Yuanji need to be based on modern scholarship or not. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the official Chinese histories — despite their age — generally fit Wikipedia's criteria of reliable sources because, indeed, they were subjected to far stricter peer review standards than modern single-author sources. I don't think their age should make them considered unreliable. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally opening this discussion. As has been pointed out, a number of articles about ancient subjects have used similarly ancient sources (such as Peloponnesian War, which would be inconceivable without citing Thucydides, as indeed the article does) ... some are even featured articles.

I believe it's an overly dogmatic approach to RS to require that modern sources be used over ancient ones (such as the Twenty-four Histories, the text at issue) when:

• the ancient source is the only contemporary, or close to contemporary, source for the historical period, event or person;

• its validity has been accepted by modern historians specializing in the area in question, who themselves cite it as a source, and

• its use in the article is limited to sourcing the events recounted (I would find it ridiculous to cite a modern text on bare facts that is essentially citing the same source anyway).

If there are problems with the source that contemporary historians have raised, they should be noted in the article text and cited to the extent that they compromise the facts recounted (as such, I think we need for the article on the Twenty-four histories to be expanded and developed to the point that anyone clicking on it can assess their validity as sources). Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about it being 'technically' a secondary source, but perhaps not in the same way that we think of a modern secondary source. In some respects ancient texts should be treated as primary sources. It is incumbent upon editors to use a variety of the best possible sources, but also to expose any scholarly doubts as to the strict factual accuracy of those sources in the text of articles (without sacrificing readibility). I'd say that in the case of Wikipedia a savvy reader should also be cognizant of the sources used for articles and should read with a recognition of the limitations of those sources. (clarification added later: by "scholarly doubts" I mean doubts that have been raised in reliable sources.) Dlabtot (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not base an article purely on what ancient sources say... but, I can not concieve of writing an article on ancient history without discussing what the ancient sources say. It is part of writing a good history article. As to whether they are Primary or Secondary sources... I don't really think that matters. Remember that there are appropriate uses of primary sources (and that is one of the reasons why WP:PSTS specifially allows us to use them). A proper blend is best. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sensing a trend here - a responsible blending of modern and ancient sources that reveals any doubts about the older sources and explains their biases to the modern reader? Could that be a summary? The problem we are running into at DYK is with articles like Wu Yuanji and Wu Chongyin, which do not do that. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't see why that is necessary or desirable. We have many articles — indeed, featured articles — that use modern sources that clearly cannot be completely unbiased that do not "reveal ... doubts about the [modern] sources and explains their biases to the ... reader." I don't see why a different standard should be used for non-modern sources. There is no policy that requires it, and it's an unreasonable standard for articles that are not themselves about the historiography of the sources. Not every article that uses non-modern sources should be turned into a historiographical discussion on the reliability and biases of non-modern sources, just as not every article should be turned into a discussion on the reliability and biases of every source that it uses. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd thank you to refrain in the future from selectively quoting me (and inserting verbiage into those quotes that I did not use) in order to change their meaning. It is incumbent upon editors to use a variety of the best possible sources, but also to expose any scholarly doubts as to the strict factual accuracy of those sources in the text of articles (without sacrificing readibility). This applies equally to modern and non-modern sources. And there is a policy that requires it, it is called WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not "selective quotation"; it's analogizing the logic when as it applies to modern sources; in other words, I think your argument was applying a substantially stricter standard to non-modern sources than modern ones; I'm turning the quote around to apply it to modern sources.

As you noted, there should be exposés of scholarly doubt as to factual accuracy, but the vast majority of the facts asserted in the Book of Tang are not only not doubted, but considered accurate. Given that, I think the issue that Awadewit is raising is a non-issue or should be. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: it's ok to disagree. It's not ok to take someone's words, change some of them so that the meaning is different, put them in quotes, and pretend that's what they said. Dlabtot (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. There are perhaps certain statements in every single one of the Twenty-Four Histories that are inaccurate or proven false through the investigative efforts of modern research and scholarship. Some even have a bit of bias and are even censored since every one of them after Sima Qian's Records was sponsored and overlooked by the imperial court (which did not want politically sensitive material to be found in them). But these are not reasons to reject them as wholly false or unusable in regards to presenting basic facts. Modern sinologists more often than not use them as the basic reliable sources for their research of premodern Chinese history. A lot of modern secondary sources state things which other scholars point out are questionable, even after such secondary sources survived the initial scholarly peer-review gauntlet. If that is the case, I don't see how a more recently-published book can be treated any differently from one of the Twenty-Four Histories.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't see why it is desirable to reveal the biases of sources? I would expect an article to do so whenever possible - for any source, be it ancient or modern. It is a courtesy to the reader, as the reader cannot be expected to know that information. By witholding that information, you are denying readers important signposts by which to judge the rest of the information. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One should be careful when using the Twenty-Four Histories; of course they can be used, but they should be challenged with modern research and scholarship. Besides, having multiple sources in an article makes that article more authoritative, since it reaches a wider consensus of sources (remember, not all sources agree on certain things, but most usually do when something is beyond a doubt verified). I had a huge tussle with another member about the validity of certain statements in the History of Ming, specifically in regards to Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. Some modern scholars have completely rejected some statements in the History of Ming as completely false in regards to Tibet, in light of other contemporary sources available to them, such as letters of correspondence and native Tibetan records. I don't think the Twenty-Four Histories should be treated as primary sources like grave inscriptions, personal letters, diaries, edicts and imperial announcements, etc. However, even with secondary sources (especially with ancient ones), they always need to be verified by checking what other secondary sources have to say. Remember, the key here is consensus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, Awadewit, you want to go into every single source's bias or lack thereof in Hillary Rodham Clinton? Be my guest.

Not getting into details about the sources' biases on noncontroversial matters is a matter of prudence. Again, not every single article that cites the Book of Tang should go into the biases about the Book of Tang — that should be reserved to a future expansion of the Book of Tang article itself, discussing its historiography. (That is beyond my own expertise to do, actually.) As for its statements that no one is disputing, getting into details about its historiography is distracting, unnecessary, and inconsistent with treatments with other articles. It's not hiding the biases as you are, in fairly loaded language, accusing me. It's making sure that the article remains on point and relevant. Ouyang Xiu's biases about what is considered faithfulness and what is not is relevant when discussing whether the behavior of such figures as Feng Dao, whom Ouyang blasted in his commentaries for having served 10 different ruling families, was proper (although I would question whether Feng's behavior was proper or not is even relevant; the facts that Feng did serve those different emperors is relevant, but not whether that is proper. With figures whose actions were far less controversial than Feng's, I do not see why a discussion on Ouyang's biases is necessary in every article citing Ouyang. --Nlu (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the more I think about it, the more I think what you're complaining about is neutrality, not reliability, which are obviously highly related, but not identical, issues. A non-neutral source can be reliable in its reporting of facts. A neutral source can be unreliable in its reporting of facts. To take the Clinton example, it would be inappropriate to go into a lengthy discussion on the reliability or neutrality of Fox News in her article even where Fox News might be cited. That doesn't mean that we are hiding Fox News's biases; it means that such a discussion belongs to the Fox News article itself, not in every article that cites it. --Nlu (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are using a poor word choice in saying we have to point out the biases of sources... the word "bias" implies something negative. However, when different reliable sources have different views on a subject, WP:NPOV tells us that we must discuss those different views. So if modern scholarship disagrees with ancient sources, we do need to make note of that fact. And we should do this in a way that does not imply that one is more "correct" than the other. The key word in WP:NPOV after all is Neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If sources dispute each other, we report the dispute. We don't declare one to be biased. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate question being raised here is whether or not we should create articles based solely on ancient sources. From what I am reading above, I think that we cannot, since we need to explain any disputes between the sources or errors in older sources, for example. Awadewit (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That assumes that there are disputes in the sources or errors in older sources for the facts they are cited for. You haven't shown any in the articles that are in question. Certainly I am assuming you are not requiring that any source, in order to be used, has to be shown to be 100% correct. The consistent application of that kind of a standard — to all sources modern and non-modern — would basically mean that Wikipedia should be shut down. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I've heard arguments before that secondary sources can become primary once they are old enough, i.e. historic newspapers, there's nothing like that in our policy. The ancient sources are still reliable in either case. If anybody here has some academic papers that analyze the ancient source and feels they improve the article, then put them in. But otherwise the article can stand without them and should be eligible for DYK. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources cannot be taken at face value. For example, Tacitus, one of the best sources for ancient Rome, talks about the heinous new cult of "cannibalistic" Christianity. You'd look awfully silly if you repeated that on the assumption that it was a factual statement about the Christian religion.

I think perhaps the issue in regards to the Book of Tang etc., is whether or not there are modern sources that go into the same level of detail as these ancient sources. Or do they basically consider these ancient texts to be the definitive histories of the times, with perhaps the occasional caveat? I mean, to what degree do modern historians rely on the sources Nlu is using? Perhaps if we knew that, we would be in a better position to make a judgement regarding the use of these texts as Wiki sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The unreliability of Tacitus's assertion about Christianity being a cannibalistic cult is not really due to its ancientness; it's just because it's factually wrong. Any relatively modern source (say, from ~1900) asserting that cola is a panacea, for example, would be unreliable not because it is ancient but because it's factually wrong and capable of being shown to be factually wrong. Nothing, ancient or modern, can be "taken at face value" without some common sense processing by the person using the source. That doesn't mean that we stop writing Wikipedia articles altogether because we can't be sure that the sources we use are 100% accurate.

Facts asserted in such histories as the Book of Tang is usually accepted at face value by modern Chinese historians unless contradicted by another source that is shown to be more likely to be factually accurate. An example would be Bo Yang's Timeline of Chinese History (中國歷史年表), which, except for places contradicted by the Bamboo Annals, largely used the chronology from a much more ancient source, the Records of the Grand Historian, from the Han Dynasty — and Bo was a historian who was relatively critical of traditional historians' historical views. I reference Bo's historical writings frequently when writing articles here, and I have not seen a single place where Bo deviated factually (as opposed to interpretatively) from the Zizhi Tongjian — which itself followed the Book of Tang except where clearly corrected by the New Book of Tang or another source. (Sima considered the older Book of Tang to be more reliable than the New Book of Tang and followed it more than he followed the New Book of Tang, incidentally.) --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Mind and it's application to Amway

[45]

At Amway there is ongoing discussion about whether or not this site is a reliable source for commentry on the company Amway. The site contains self-published info relating to Amway (specifically this site Amway analysis is used as reference). The arguement against is basically that Hassan is a SPS and is not an expert on Amway, therefor his opinion on Amway and whether or not it's a cult should not be used in the article. Opinions from this board will be welcome. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be a real author and expert on cults.[46] I think using him to say Amway is connected to cultish behaviour is a little to controversial to use his website, though. I would recommend looking for something a bit stronger. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Sleuth

Is Celebrity Sleuth a reliable enough source? I know it's a magazine that publishes photos and screencaps of nude celebrities, but I came across an issue (Volume 11, #1; 1997) that was all heights and measurements of hundreds of female celebrities, and it even detailed its sources, explaining that it scoured through thousands of sources, and rejected all but the most reliable. It rejected, for example, press releases, tabloid articles and studio stats because those were sources for publicity and not authenticity, and listed the seven sources they judged to be most reliable. The following list is quoted verbatim from the issue:

1. Model agency books and rate cards {the measurements have to be accurate, or the client's clothes won't fit};
2. Dress designer/costumer records and recollections {essentially, they'd done the taping for us}, as well as celebrity brassieres personally inspected and photographed by the Sleuth {the best source for these informative items is NORMA'S JEANS, 3511 Turner Laner, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-3213; 301-652-4644; Fax 301-907-0216; send $2 for catalog}.
3. Beauty pageant entry forms {before the P.C. '90s, contest judges verified the forms};
4. Major Hollywood handouts and movie mags from teh 1930's through the 1960's, when virtually every article contained the star's vital statistics (but never her age);
5. A series of authorized actress publications of the Fifties, entitled Photoplay Pinups, Fabulous Females, etc., which were used to promote films and figures;
6. Model releases and data sheets that future celebs filled out for photographers and publications; and
7. Direct quotes from the woman herself {though these tended to be "idealized", so we always notate them as "in her own words" or "she says"}.

So what do you think? Would this be reliable? Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're wanting to use the statistics? If they provided sources for their collation, why not use those sources instead?--Insider201283 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the encyclopedic value of including such measurments. Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reliable and trivial. I woulnd't go add 100s of measurments to actress pages without reaching some sort of consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention that this magazine issue exists could be added to an article about dress sizes or female body shape. But not for individual actresses, unless theyre famous for having certain measurements, i.e. Marilyn Monroe. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerated figures

I need your help for deciding which sources and which viewpoint has more weight. There has been a dispute over realistic estimation of Iraqi Turkmans and Syrian Turkmans for weeks. Some certain editors with a clear and heavy POV are are revert-warring on those articles, with no verifiable source, adding the most unrealistic figure for those articles, proven to be exaggerations by Turkman nationalists such as ITF. Please help us to solve this dispute. Ellipi (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that their only source (apart from a bunch of random urls) is UNPO, which by defination is a political organisation forming of and supporting ethnic nationalists around the world. There is a very huge gap between the neutral estimations by third-party and verifiable sources, which puts the estimation of Iraqi Turkmens as 1-2% (ca. 300-500 thousands) of the country, and these users' exaggerated figures which claim a funny lie of 2 to 3.5 millions. Ellipi (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

UNPO is not a reliable source. I persume with the interest in Iraq, you can check sources from 2008 from google books[47] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done, but my edits are reverted. Ellipi (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would report this to the Wikipedia:FTN. I checked the websites that are used and none of them meet WP:RS. They should all be removed. If the support does not come from there, go report it to the admins and get the article ip protected. Make sure to mention this:[48] (page 11 in the bottom) in Wikipedia:FTN. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll report it to Wikipedia:FTN. Thank you. Ellipi (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Guru Ke Bette

Panthkhalsa (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of spurious claims to the articles like Mazhabi, Hari Singh Nalwa, Udham Singh and Bhai Mati Das. Basically, his edits center around the claims that notable Sikh personalities like Hari Singh Nalwa and Bhai Mati Das belong to his community ("Mazhabi"). Simple searches on Google Books prove him wrong: Hari Singh Nalwa belonged to the Uppal Khatri community[49], while Bhai Mati Das was a Mohyal (this is what the Wikipedia article originally stated). Besides these, the user has been adding a lot of propaganda-style material based on the scientific racism theories (e.g. "Those Mazbhis of lighter skin ranging from white to tan brown, with sharper facial features, tall in height and sometimes light eye colour are considered of Aryan blood. However the vast majority are off darker skin to black complexion with blunt facial features and tend to short in height. These mazbhis are considered to be the peoples from the Dravidan races captured in battle and enslaved by Aryan invaders on the Indian sub continent."[50]).

After I confronted him/her, the user has come up with two references, both of which seem highly dubious to me:

• "Bhai Gurdas warr 11 page 125" -- the user claims that "Bhai Gurdass has written Perra Chandalia", which proves his point. However, googling for Perra Chandlia returns no Google results, and none of the translations available on the net substantiate the user's claim.
• A book "Guru Ke Bette 1st edition 2000 by Jaswant Singh" -- the book doesn't seem to have any ISBN or OCLC entry, and Googling for the title "Guru Ke Bette" (Punjabi for "Guru's sons) doesn't return any relevant results. Googling for author's name will not be helpful, since Jaswant Singh is a very common Punjabi name. If this book indeed exists, it's probably a non-notable self-published book that doesn't classify as a reliable source.

Any pointers? utcursch | talk 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Bhai Gurdass's works qualify as primary source, which is fine for quoting but not for interpretation, and we must use secondary sources. Try looking in google books and if you cannot find these books, take the necessary action. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Norton Internet Security

The only source for the latest build is at the Norton forums, where an forum administrator who goes by his first and last name, posts about the latest build. There are no third-party sources available. TechOutsider (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Is he an expert? If he is, it should only be used for non-controversial info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Expert? Well he works at the company, that's obvious. I don't know about expert. How do you define expert? I have always pulled information about the latest build from him; he posts it publicly. I can't find build information elsewhere. No, it is not controversial info., just version information (example build 16.2.xx.xxx). A link to his posts is here and here.

I think it's acceptable per our guidelines. It might cause you trouble at WP:FAC if you care about that, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would also cause problems at GAN and Peer Review, as well as DYK. Forums are not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy WP:Verify and WP:Reliable sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than that. In this case, Tim Lopez appears to be the Norton employee who posts the latest version imformation on the Norton forums, which I think qualifies him as an acceptable expert per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. As a sidenote, Spoo (a GA) uses forum type posts, where the poster is an expert, but their use is controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is someone acting as a company spokesman on a company-run forum, then it's the same as citing a press release. No problem with using it as a source, as long as it's not "contentious or unduly self-serving", per WP:SELFPUB. It's a primary self-published source in an article about the company's product. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem occurs when there is no reliable source to counteract what the company has to say about its own product. Without reliable sources, the article is not notable. See notablity. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Norton Internet Security has lots of secondary sources. The info should be used with caution, though. I now notice the article is a former GA nom, so it would be good to know exactly what is going to be said with source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is being said about build 16.xxx? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the last GA review, the problems seem to be the way the article is formatted. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to go find a source to counteract what a company says about its own product. What if the company says "we're releasing version XYZ on Tuesday"? Do we leave that out unless some newspaper contradicts it "no, XYZ is coming out on Friday"? Of course not; primary sources are generally the best for minor details like this. And notability is for the article as a whole, not for individual facts within an article. It means we can't make an entire article of nothing but primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Defence Journal from Pakistan

Sample. I don't think this is reliable at all. It is used at Khemkaran. Look at the ridiculous tone that it is written in. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You linked to an opinion piece. Right at the top of the page it says: OPINION. So this certainly could be cited as the opinion of Columnist A H AMIN. But it couldn't be used to single-source a statement of fact. Also (although a bit off topic for this noticeboard), even as statements of opinion, presenting the analysis of only one side of a contentious issue is clearly against WP:UNDUE. Dlabtot (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Defence Journal is a publication of the Armed Forces of Pakistan. If cited, it should be cited as such. Dlabtot (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

General Accounting Office - Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame  : Reliable source?

Are GAO reports generally seen as Reliable Sources ? Specifically would GAO87 be an acceptable source for the results of a questionnaire they circulated among the research community? I ask this because its inclusion seems to have stirred a bit of controversy.

I should probably add that there is a related section on another noticeboard. On that board it was mentioned that it was not the proper place to ask about these matters. I suspect this notice board is the proper place to ask regarding RS. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are a reliable source. How to use them is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of this source has never been questioned; in fact, it was already a source for Aspartame controversy. The issue here is that Unomi wishes to create a new section in the article devoted to his/her distinctively slanted interpretation of this primary source, complete with data-mined tables and carefully-selected quotes, which I and other editors have opposed as a matter of original research and weight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what this noticeboard deals with. There are other noticeboards at the top of this page. NPOV might help. Mostly you have to deal with it on the articles talk page, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Committee to Protect Journalists

I am wondering how reliable we should consider reports from Committee to Protect Journalists. Any thoughts appreciated; I'll comment with more details as I look around and based on feedback. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think material from here can be expressed as opinions instead of facts. (Ex : "Mr.Journalist writing on behalf of the Committee to Protect Journalists argues that so and so is wrong"). Also, if this Committee is supporting a opinion, then when need to keep in mind ( Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations ) : Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper interview source for medical statement.

See Talk:Schizophrenia#loss_of_brain_tissue, which has spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#NPOV. Editors have tried to explain it fails WP:V never mind WP:MEDRS. The problem is that members of the MED wikiproject are now regarded as "pov pushers with a conflict of interest" by the person arguing for the use of this source. So the opinions of neutral editors would be welcome. Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but you can see that the MED forum wouldn't be appropriate. Colin°^Talk

A newspaper article about an unreleased study should not be used for something so controversial as saying the drugs cause brain tissue loss. That is a very strong statement that would require, IMHO, several peer reviewed sources backing it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous document with dubious authorship attribution

I would be interested in views about how suitable this document is as a reference (with the author cited as Vickrey) for the assertion: "Nobel-laureate William Vickrey is considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing, as he first proposed it for the New York City Subway system in 1952". The document header suggests that it was written by Vickrey in June 1992. The document does contain some of Vickrey's "thoughts", however, it is not clear that the information in it supporting the assertion of his being "considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing" was written by him. Indeed the biography information in there, including details of his death in 1996 can obviously not have been written by him. -- de Facto (talk). 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• The document cited does not say "by William Vickrey", but is about him & his theories, as is apparent when you read it. The web site is not anonymous but is put up by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which is a group of transport planners and economists who should know the topic and be a RS. In fact, Vickrey won a Nobel prize on his work for auction theory and congestion pricing. There are plenty of other web sources that attribute the principle of congestion pricing to Vickrey and his seminal work[51]. If we AGF, the problem you have highlighted seems to be around the description of the author in the article, which can be easily modified. Ephebi (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The site seems to be Todd Alexander Litman's. He looks like an expert, but a self published one (in the case of the website). I would look for a better source for anything controversial. Not sure if what's in disputer here is really that controversial, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population AGAIN

Please ascertain that http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=ifaq&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-4&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500#q2 is a reliable source.

Also check that all sources on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population meets WP:RS

It's causing problems: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population#Problem.232 WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I was going to say the world gazateer is not reliable per one man show. But he does seem to be a recognized expert.[52] Why not list Manchester/Liverpool as one thing per one source, and two per another, if that's what's going on. As far as checking on all the sources at List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, are they all in dispute? It would be nice if you could narrow it down. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have some indication that this individual and his website have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, I don't think it meets the criteria. Simply having a book published lends little credibility. Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion already raised earlier on this board

Ghaag (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The indication is that the Time Magazine Almanac uses it.[53] Good enough for Time is way good enough for wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I must note, however, that imho and with the disclaimer that I have not made an in-depth examination, the underlying dispute appears to be a matter of pointless semantics and essentially nothing more than an argument over labels. Give it up. Make the appropriate redirects and move on. Dlabtot (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, almost all disputes are pointless, but since i took on the mediation case, i now must suffer it.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I plead guilty to all charges of pedantry. In this case however, we have a British equivalent of Philadelphia and New-york described as part of the same urban entity. I merely tried to object constructively.

Ghaag (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's like that, then you should definitely list all reliable source intrepreations, regardless of the gazateer result. Some things do list NY and Philly as one chunk (for obvious reasons if you've ever travelled between the two on a train). I recommend finding all ways that things are divided by reliable sources, and listing all of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a Brilliant Idea! A massive list should be created for all reliable sources. Who likes to start? WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Peregrine Fisher, Nvineeth, and whoever else interested should continue debating this so we can have a yes or no. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why not list Manchester/Liverpool as one thing per one source, and two per another, if that's what's going on." - i'll transfer this over to the mediation page, so they can discuss.

"are they all in dispute?" - yes, the other party against Ghaag does. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont' understand what Ghaag is. Anyways, "Multicentric urban area" needs a source. http://www.statistics.gov.uk%7Cuk/ is a deadlink. Central Statistical Office is a reliable source. The www.scb.se sources are deadlinks. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia sounds reliable, but I don't know anything about it, and serbian stuff is sometimes in dispute and needs extra care. "Metropolitan area definition is the same as the city proper" doesn't seem to be a source, it seems to need a source. glasgow.gov.uk is reliable. esa.un.org is reliable. "Figure represents total for Zagreb County and Zagreb City" needs a source, it isn't a source. This is a quick glance. Hope it helps. As said above, if multiple reliable sources disagree, it is not up to us to argue which is better, but to list both. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"if multiple reliable sources disagree" - http://www.world-gazetteer.com is not concluded to be reliable yet.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion based on my wikiexperience. Nother more, nothing less. Maybe someone else will look into it. It seems like Dlabtot agrees with me, although they seem to know more about the dispute. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is a self published source, so that may have some effect on the mediation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

May I have been misquoted here? [54] is the official web site for the British Office for National Statistics.

Ghaag (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the link is just malformed, their reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A few sources for Disturbed's genre

A quick query: are the followed to be considered reliable sources for Disturbed's genre:

[55] [56] [57] [58]

I myself can't really tell one way or the other. Any input much appreciated, cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

heavymetalhog.com and heavymetalresource.com do not meet our RS criteria. Imho, neither does about.com - their reputation is certainly not one of fact-checking, accuracy, or tight editorial control. The Las Vegas Review-Journal is a reliable source and Jason Bracelin's column in it is reliable for citing Jason Bracelin's opinion. Of course, micro-labeling a band's genre is necessarily a matter of opinion, not fact. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About.com is sometimes a reliable source. In this case they do seem to be reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

I don't post here often so I apologize if this is the wrong forum. I just got in an edit war with a user over the links http://understanding.infantilism.org and http://www.infantilism.org on the Paraphilic infantilism page. My take on it is that the links violate WP:EL as they are not of a neutral point of view. The other editor's defense of the link was that it was about "understanding" and that its POV should not be silenced. I feel that these links are clearly biased and they do not lead to material of an encyclopedic nature. Since we just got in an edit war I'd like it if somebody else could step in here. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased against what? WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view the only part that comes into NPOV status says it should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. The site does not advocate that people should be infantilist. It describes why infantilist like being infantilist. To violate WP:EL's section the would have to be an opposing view that it is not giving weight too. --Roguebfl (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to apologize to those monitoring this page for issues regarding references. This dispute is about an external link. I, for one, almost missed this discussion entirely. Some mention of it on the affected article's talk page or on the other discussion, on Themfromspace's user page would have been helpful.

Themfromspace has concluded that the link to understanding.infantilism.org gives "undue weight to minority views". (Or, at least that is what he wrote before.) He has been asked repeatedly to be specific about what underrepresented majority he is concerned about.[59][60]. If he's willing to be specific about what views he thinks are being left out, a compromise can probably be reached.

That Themfromspace would engage in an edit war over this link while repeatedly leaving a link to non-English wiki in place casts doubts over his intentions [61][62].

On the matter disclosure, I'll point out that I maintain understanding.infantilism.org, and avoid maintaining the Wikipedia article's external links to avoid conflicts of interest. This is why I haven't joined in the actual reverting. I am grateful for Roguebfl and all who stand up to deletionists who have overstepped their function. BitterGrey (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the United Nations a Reliable Source?

One of the editors involved in a review of the Sustainability page is strongly of the view that this page should verify statements using sources not connected to the United Nations wherever possible - see for example this post

"current science sourcing seems better... it also gets rid of the governmental political corporate aspect also that is baggage of U.N. presented material"

To please this one editor we've made a real effort to keep UN citations to a minimum. Trouble is, the United Nations has for decades been the central co-ordinating agency for all of the global-level planning and monitoring of sustainability. The above post specifically asks us to use news sources and recent scientific publications in preference to comprehensive international studies such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) prepared under the auspices of the UN. This just isn't going to work in the article.

I think it would help a lot to get a clear answer to the above question: Is the United Nations a Reliable Source?--Travelplanner (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem consistent. Would this mean that the BBC is only a relaible source for issues relating to the position of the BBC??--Travelplanner (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On issues like Israel and like US foreign policy and even American history, where the BBC has a distinct and controversial POV, I would say "Yes." THF (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase 'United Nations' could mean many things. The General Assembly and Security Council issue resolutions, the Secretariat provides studies, the ICJ issues opinions, and so on. In general, these things need to be examined on a case by case basis. This Noticeboard does not issue rulings, and we certainly are not in a position to issue a blanket statement that the UN is or is not a RS in every instance. Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's much more helpful. Clearly a UN resolution states the position of the UN, what we're mainly talking about is studies under the auspices of the Secretariat or the UN Development and/or Environment Programme etc. We're not looking for a "ruling" or "blanket statement" but this seems to be a proper place to discuss the question - which more accurately is "Is a report published under the auspices of the UN a more reliable source than an individual scientific study or media report"? It's my view that the UN source is more reliable; there are many thousands of scientific studies on issues related to sustainability, most of which never make the grade for inclusion in a UN-sponsored report.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't grade sources as 'more reliable' or 'less reliable'. A source is either considered reliable for a particular citation, or not. When reliable sources contradict each other, we look to our WP:NPOV policy for guidance, and include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, without according undue weight to minority viewpoints. Dlabtot (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, I don't mean to suggest that some sources aren't more authoritative than others on particular topics. But these are editorial judgements that editors must reach on article talk pages. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

UN break 1

The UN consists of many sub-bodies. Some are political, some are humanitarian, some are scientific (or broadly academic). In any case where you may want to use a publication from a body of the UN as a source, you'd be safe in stating that "UN body X says Y", because publications of UN bodies are reliable sources for the positions of the UN body. In cases where a UN body has commissioned a scientific or academic report on a subject, and there is little contraversy surrounding the outcome of the investigation, then the outcome could be stated without explicitly stating that the source is a UN body publication in the article (but the source would still need to be referenced, of course). The same is true for any political body, such as a nation, that commissions a scientific or academic report the results of which are relatively uncontraversial - for example a report from a statistics ministry. However, where there are conflicting reliable sources on a subject, it's best to clarify where each conclusion originates from. In the specific case you mention, a scientific report from a UN body seems to perfectly valid "current science sourcing", so long as the source is stated if the conclusion is contraversial. Such reports tend to be literature reviews, which are excellent secondary sources. I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors on whether UN bodies such as the World Health Organisation, that publish scientific reviews, have just as strict a peer-reviewing process and position of political independance as a reputable scientific journal. That's the impression I have, but I could be mistaken. However, I would think that the independance, fact-checking, etc. should be considered separately for each of these bodies, as some will be more reputable than others. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's right. They're basically reliable. If it's opinion, then as always state it's opinion. If it's a scientific study and non-controversial, just state it as fact. If it's controversial state its source in the prose. If other reliable sources contradict it, include both and state who said what. I think the same can be said for the WHO and other similar orgs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind that every UN body exists solely because it has been given a mandate and budget from a number of participating nation states. It has to be very careful about what it says - as if it were to mislead or be complicit to invention it risks losing that mandate. Having said that, it also has to be incredibly conservative about its phrasing and how much it says lest it compromises any of its nations. E.g. it is ultimately diplomatic. Thus they will be rigorous in getting to an accurate statement, although this is a different sort of rigour to, say, scientific peer review. Observers, advisers or national parties to UN agreements may emerge with more pointed comments to suit their positions - which may make for better press but may be less diplomatic or accurate. Ephebi (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the premise stated in your first sentence, but disagree with the conclusion you reach from that: see, e.g., Durban and UNESCO ca. 1984 (and QED). THF (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those are great examples - e.g. where the parties were unable to reach consensus this is obvious and clearly not definitive. And it underlines how the choice of wording is extremely important. Ephebi (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it's also fair to say that all research gets a budget from somewhere, that the budget often comes from national or commercial entities with vested interests, and that the ability of the researchers and publishers to not be swayed by those vested interests should always be in question. Personally I think that WP:RS should make a clearer statement about how to assess the reliability of publications from national and international bodies such as governments, UN bodies, NPOs, etc. It's something I've asked about on the talk page recently but not had much reply to. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Imho those types of publications should generally be treated as primary sources. But of course one must evaluate individual cases. Dlabtot (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that publications from such bodies would only be treated as primary sources if they were primary sources, such as statements. Otherwise, for literature reviews and so forth, I think the usual criteria for reliable sources should apply: reputation for fact-checking, degree of independence from the subject, etc. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary is a different issue from reliable vs unreliable. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually, a literature review would be considered a secondary source. However, you're saying that it should be considered a primary source if it originates from a national/international body. So clearly the issues are related. As I see it, if for example a supposed secondary source originates from a tinpot despot and is clearly neither independent or fact-checked, then it's not a real secondary source, and is more like a primary source. But I wouldn't see literature reviews and similar publications from most UN bodies that way, I'd see them as usually being reliable, secondary sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, I believe one must proceed on a case by case basis and avoid overgeneralizing so don't take what I say as more general than I mean it. However, my point is that government and (less so) inter-governmental bodies are subject to political pressures that are not always congruent with fact checking or even good faith. This applies whether you are talking about Uganda or the United States, the Soviet Union or the Hanseatic League, the UN or the World Bank. Dlabtot (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And my point was that all reliable sources are subject to such pressures, to a greater or lesser degree. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source, or at least no way to establish that it is. So whether we are assessing the reliability of scientific journal articles or scientific articles published by UN bodies, we need to consider the specific publisher's reputation for fact-checking, peer-review, and political independence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

UN break 2

I'd like to focus the discussion if I may. The following has just been posted on the Sustainability talk page: My favorite comment on the page is probably the first one ... ``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) This fits pretty nearly with what I have been saying... and I do believe a concerted effort needs to be made at telling where the source is from... a kind of intro... or disclaimer... or before each use of the ref in the article ... beyond the specific area in the article that is built around the very U.N. M.E.A. information. Bottom line ...the U.N. is funded... many times from corporations and political special interest groups. As a primary source it is not really effective or good except to source itself as information it is presenting. There is a specific question here as to whether the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (1360 scientists took part) is a RS. And the more general one about over-representation of the UN in the article. Much of the debate about sustainability, rightly or wrongly, has centred on or emanated from the UN Sustainable Development program. Is this a RS? How do we decide these issues other than getting opinion from "outsiders" like yourselves? Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You can try a request for comment, or bring it up at related wikiproject talk pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to look for reliable sources pertaining to whether the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has a reputation for authoritive and trustworthy authorship in the subject of sustainability, for fact-checking and peer-review, and for independence (i.e. the degree to which it is a "third party" to the subject area). Those are the criteria of a reliable source, and the only way to determine whether it meets those criteria is by examining other reliable sources that describe the reputation of the source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• As an example of a source describing the reliability of the MEA (called the MA in the report), this report from the UK's Environmental Audit Committee says: We commend those responsible for the MA for producing the most complete and up to date study of the importance of the environment for human well-being and the current condition of the Earth. Although inevitably aspects of the MA were based on incomplete evidence, the assessment still provides a most robust analysis upon which to base action to tackle ecosystem degradation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• This article in Science takes the conclusions of the MEA as it's assumptions, and concludes that: Achieving a sustainable world depends on a full understanding of the connections between ecosystems and human well-being and the drivers and responders to change. The MA has provided a road map; now, we need to start the journey.Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• This article from the American Enterprise Institute is surprisingly favourable towards the MA, given that it is as Peregrine Fisher terms it a "Bush" source. It doesn't question the science or suggest UN bias, although it does note the gaps in data - which the MA notes itself. Its criticisms are primarily logistical, seeing the report as too long and indirect and not providing immediately useful tools or suggestions for institutional reform. It says it prefers another approach, but that the conclusions of the two approaches are not incompatible. Having said all that, I don't consider the AEI a reliable expert source for the reliability of science sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is really a WEIGHT issue rather than a RS issue. The relative weight of the UN report in the article depends on the credibility of what's being offered up as other points of view. If there is legitimate disagreement, then that should be noted. If everybody agrees with the UN except Lyndon Larouche and Louis Farrakhan, there's no problem with an article relying heavily on the UN. If the UN position is disputed, then the other points of view need to be considered, and there's no reason to favor the UN view in the article. THF (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be weight or other issues, but it's a reliable source. That's all this noticeboard can tell you. The rest should be discussed on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But the article shouldn't fully rely upon it, as there are at least some partially dissenting notable views out there: e.g., [63]. THF (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV, you should include both sides according to their prominence. I'm sure the Bush side doesn't like the UN side, and that should be included as a notable view. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue I have had with over reffing the M.E.A. aspect can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - some of the refs... which were just pretty blank and did not explain themselves have been removed from the article after much protest and defense of them by the team. Another problem on the article has been a team effort in editing that in my view is tightly controlled... mostly, and at least one of the several team members has been directly involved with the U.N. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 which seems like a C.O.I.... then to actively edit for it. I have asked other team members about their involvement... and only one has said they were not involved. Whether some of them work for the U.N. I do not really even care... but because the article in my view has been slanted toward that group.. disclosure would be nice so that others can sort out c.o.i. possible issues. So this brings up other questions. The article is linked repeatedly with other articles that are U.N. focused... so it goes way beyond what could be coincidental in my view. I am not against the U.N. in particular or any one... but the over reffing to it seems blatantly over the top. Another issue I know that this page suggested a R.f.c.

Note the comment by a team member above... Much of the debate about sustainability, rightly or wrongly, has centred on or emanated from the UN Sustainable Development program. end quote, G.T. above... editor from the Sustainability article. This I think says volumes, as to the main editors over relying on one of many sources with a rationale that to me does not add up. There is no shortage of hard core science based studies and institutes that publish and discuss at length Sustainability issues. The U.N. cherry picks info. mostly from the greater science world. The U.N. may be a reliable source in context of it being the U.N. presented material and opinion in the article section about the Millenium assessment aspect and source that section to itself or this http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx ... but to focus over and over in the article seems very much not a good idea... as this over weights it and U.N. material also very unevenly in my view. This is nothing new in the article... these concerns, which I brought up months ago directly. They have been ignored. This seems odd to ignore this editing aspect, unless there may be a concerted effort by the team to do so... and edit with a U.N. view in mind. Cheers skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

UN break 3

OK my understanding of the above advice (much appreciated) is:

• A large organisation like the UN needs will generate different types of information; political statements, consensus decisions, scientific reviews etc. Editors will need to make judgements as to whether a specific UN report is a reliable source for a specific statement.
• In the specific case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this is a reliable source. The relative weight to give to this source is an editorial judgement.
• The topic talk page is the right place to have the rest of this discussion.

Is that the gist of it?--Travelplanner (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you nailed it. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If there are ongoing issues over weight or COI that can't be resolved on the talk page, you could seek help at other venues (but not here, because this page is only for RS discussions). Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)