Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Full stripping of unsourced articles

Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content otherwise looks reasonable then I think such stripping on a large scale would be disruptive. However, there is a lot of unsourced cruft and speculation out there, especially in less-visited articles; if the text already suffers from other flaws (ie. It doesn't look plausible or neutral) then I won't be shedding any tears. Is this activity confined to a particular subject area?

Sadly, we're not going to build a better encyclopædia by leaving flawed articles with long-term tags. It would be nice if those favouring deletion could put more effort into finding sources first, but removing unsourced content will often be better than the status quo. If any other person really mourns the lost text they always have the option of going back and find a source for it. I realise some may not like making that effort, but building a high-quality encyclopædia inevitably takes more work than just building a big pile of text. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that stripping entire articles is a bit drastic, although you're right--a strict interpretation of the policy is removing all unsourced content, even if all the content is deleted. I've found that articles that are poorly sourced need improvement in all areas, so the solution is for editors to dedicate themselves to these articles. I've also found that those of us who are committed to doing that are few and far between on this project. The temporary solution is tags, which should alert the reader that the article they're about to read is crap. My advice is be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and work on these articles to bring them to a higher quality. Christine (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We occasionally have to strip libelous content very quickly, especially when there's a complaint, and it's good to have a policy that allows for that in these situations. But it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all helpful, thank you. Quadell, or anyone else, do you have a policy page link that suggests something along the lines of "it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing"? The articles I'm thinking of are around myth/folklore, no BLP or liable involved, in an local area I know absolutely diddly squat about. I'm not sure when uber-zeal becomes 'disruptive editing'. Cheers Span (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge any assumption that simply putting up a label saying "this content is flawed" - without actually fixing the content - is inevitably better than removing the flaw. Tagging has its place, but it's not a substitute for solving the problem; removing unsourced content is a solution. (Adding a source would be a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What's missing is the time dimension. The addition of tags establishes a start-date for a good-faith cleanup. Straight-away slash and burn doesn't do that. Of course, it is still better than having to use AfD: there's a preserved history. Is there an easy way to bot-notify all prior contributors to an article that it's been put on notice? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb for articles I'm involved with editing is that if someone adds uncited material and I can't supply a citation for it myself, I give it six months tagged as needing a citation before I remove it. (Assuming, of course, that there's no BLP or other issue that requires immediate removal.) That's long enough to give other users plenty of time to fix it if they can, but short enough that it doesn't turn into indefinite retention. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so?Span (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on two counts. First is the removal of "all unsourced text". This suggests that all text must be sourced, which is not the case. Second, this suggests that the editor would be removing content without even a cursory search for sources, and while such removal is acceptable (I'm not opposed to it), it's not preferred (I don't support it). cmadler (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content has been tagged for 6 months and nobody else has found a source, then taking it at face value I could hardly object. However, I would be concerned about pointiness, and if the deletion is selective in any way - maybe it only covers certain types of content or certain articles - I would be concerned about a hidden agenda (or, at least, an agenda which hasn't been mentioned in this thread).

I would prefer that sources were added, or if an agreeable source can't be found then I would prefer that the text be changed to fit what sources do say - however this can be quite slow work. Those who care about WP:V cannot work as quickly as those who just want to put lots of text into blank spaces. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the article, it's very possible that no one is actually working on it. I've got articles in my watchlist that have had {{refimprove}} templates for years. But no one is actively working on these articles. The fact is that we simply don't have enough editors to try to fix everything. Fortunately, we don't don't have a deadline.

A common practice is to 'draw a line' in the sand as far as new content goes. So if someone adds something new to the article without a source, I'll usually try to find a source and add it myself. If I can't find one, I'll add a {{FACT}} tag to it. If, after a few months or year or whatever, no one has added a source, I'll remove the statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires that ""all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If the content had previously been tagged by somebody else, I think that's a pretty clear challenge. Hypothetically, if anybody were deleting really obvious stuff like "Germany is a country in Europe" or "The sky is blue", that would be disruptive, but it's unlikely that the deletion is of such extremely obvious content. Hard to say without more case detail - who is deleting what?

Requiring a would-be deleter to demonstrate that content seems wrong is, I think, putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. We can't build a high-quality encyclopædia by giving a free pass to any content which passes a "meh, it looks plausible" test. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles have {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} templates. That doesn't mean that anything specifically is wrong. If there's a particular issue with material, then the {{verify source}} can be used. If someone is deleting out unsourced but valid material soley for the lack of sources, they they either don't understand our policy on verifiability and/or are being disruptive. As for burden of proof, see WP:PRESERVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We still seem to be arguing about subtly different things (for instance, I had in mind things like cn tags rather than a whole-article tag). I would like to emphasise, again, that it's difficult to have a detailed discussion without knowing the details of the case.

As an aside, WP:V contains neither the words "capable" nor "verifiable". If we're going to haggle over policy detail, I think it's best to stick to wording that's actually in the policy. For instance, "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". That's good, clear wording and I cannot fathom how somebody might conclude that it's "incorrect'" to remove unsourced content. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I was responding to the original question which was about "Full stripping of unsourced articles".
2. Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "verifiability" rather than "verifiable". Either way, my point's the same.
3. You need to read the entire policy as a whole. I see this a lot, editors inadvertently focusing on a couple of select phrases while missing the big picture. To put a fine point on it: Only material that has been challenged (or is likely to be challenged) actually require cites. If you find material that is both unsourced and you honestly believe is wrong, that's one thing. But challenging material simply for the sake of challenging is WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE and that's what the OP seems to be about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you're right that verifiable doesn't appear in the policy. The reason for this is that the word was changed to attributable as part of a (failed) attempt to merge WP:V and NOR into a single policy called WP:Attribution.

But Quest is 100% right: the policy requires that it be possible to supply a citation. That is the plain meaning of the -able suffix, and it is the meaning that the community uses. The policy does not require that anyone have already typed up the name of the source into the article. And the only community-approved solution to the presence of verifiable encyclopedic material that is one of the four types that must have an inline citation is to boldly add the citations yourself, not to delete it on the grounds that the other editor didn't get it perfect on the first try. (Non-encyclopedic material, such as errors and trivia, should be cleaned up in compliance with the last half of PRESERVE, which is titled "Problems that may justify removal".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no cut and dried solution to dealing with an article that is virtually unsourced. One thing I advise is checking for copyvio - quite a few of these are just lifted from elsewhere. Checking isn't necessarily easy so you have to be careful you aren't looking at a copy of the article. If there's no obvious copyvio problem, then a general template may be the first step. If you are at all familiar with the material you may find some unsourceable stuff, or obvious OR or pov - not unusual in unsourced articles, but that's a different issue also. I try to add a couple of sources if it looks easy to do so and I'm interested in the article. Then there's the time scale. If the article looks like a real problem, 6 months, let alone a year, may be too long and I see no problem in removing anything obviously dubious earlier - but only if you try to source it first and fail. Having said all that, there are times (not many) when the best thing to do is turn it into a stub almost immediately (but do try to ask at an appropriate Wikiproject if there is one, or if others have edited it recently, definitely discuss it with them). Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses. Span (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. --Lexein (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters

I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.

1/ Glasgow based Celtic have developed a strong fan base since their foundation in 1888. No source. Is that acceptable?

2/ However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, Kenya and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic.[4] This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. No source for South Korea or Mexico. Honduras source comes from an agent brokering a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic. [1].Kenya source comes directly from Celtic FC [2]. Japan source comes from a sports marketing company - not sure what there relationship to Celtic is [3]

3/ in June 2011, new signing Adam Matthews, who had been linked with Arsenal and Manchester United, described Celtic as being "the second most supported team in the world" The statement that Celtic are the second most supported club in the world comes from a player signing for Celtic. Is that good enough? [4]

4/ Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi ... The Celtic jersey is now the most popular in Nairobi, outselling the likes of Man U and Arsenal. The source for this is again the club, i.e. Celtic. Is that acceptable. [5]

5/ Noel Gallagher AND Liam Gallagher are listed as Celtic Fans. The brothers are in fact fanatical Man City fans, but a reference says they have a "soft spot" for Celtic. Is that good enough? [6]

General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's precisely the kind of unhelpful comment we can do without. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mattun--none of the things you listed can count as reliable sources, and all the information relying on it should be removed. Claims such as are made in item 1, unsourced, cannot stand either. Thank you for bringing this to the general public's attention. You'll have noticed, no doubt, that this board receives very little traffic, unfortunately--I wish it were different, but I hope that some more editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign Independent

Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other editor, and it looks like a conspiracy website, carrying 9/11 truth material. I'd say it's not RS - something which Nightscream has already decided, given that he's deleted the material added sourced to Sovereign Independent. Obviously, I support that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look reliable to me. I note that the web site devotes itself to the kinds of things mainstream sources refuse to print, which should set off alarm bells right away. Also, the article is written as an editorial. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Vsevolod, I had not removed it, I just summarized it. I did, however, just remove just now. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes - sorry, my mistake - I was going by edit summaries. (And btw, thanks for signing for me a day or so ago...(>_<)...)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail in race-related matters

I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used --Hemshaw (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin".[7] I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for a WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago. And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: [8]. Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's reliable. Like I said, editors wish it wasn't, because it covers subjects they don't feel worthy of an encyclopedia. That said, it is sensationalist, and shouldn't be used for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine, you seem to be saying some people don't like it because it covers sensationalist topics, which you yourself admit it doesn't cover so reliably.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher's point is that the Daily Mail falls under our policy as a reliable source, but that it is also sensationalist. As such we should not use it for BLPs for anything that is controversially. I agree with that, and I agree with Andy the Grump evaluation of this particular article. I note that the article contains a wide variety of statements that are inflammatory and the tone is very far from objective. For the purposes suggested by the OP, I think this article does not meet our standards of reliability, and we shouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the approach we should be taking. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail where it comes to anything contentious about BLPs and even more so if we can't find a reliable source saying the same thing. (I'll also note that I wouldn't trust some of its stuff on Atlantis, etc either, someone there seems in love with that sort of cult archaeology stuff). There are times even with the most reliable sources that we have to take a more finely grained approach and focus on a specific article or writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mail doesn't make everything up, of course. It's just that if you can't source something controversial in the Mail to somewhere better, you should always be a little concerned, especially where it concerns immigration or science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Second most purchased paper in the UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content." Ha! You clearly don't read the Daily Mail or live in the UK. Span (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a very good source for what the Daily Mail has said and that is about it. Even then, its notability is debatable if it doesn't appear anywhere else. To reiterate a point made above, very few Wikipedia editors will argue against quality right wing British Newspapers like the Times and the Daily Telegraph, who tend to check facts and separate leaders and columns from news. The Mail may stay the right side of the law and the now obviously flawed watchdogs most of the time, but their position on race and other issues is well known. For the benefit of US editors it is usually said that in the US newspapers strive for neutrality and TV news is often partisan and that in the UK it is the other way around (not entirely true but it is useful), so imagine the Daily Mail as having the same veracity as say an opinion piece on Fox News. Although that may be unfair to Fox.--SabreBD (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the above statement by Spanglej is not a personal attack, for now I shall assume good faith.

Perusing these page particularly, I have seen multiple attacks against Fox News, and Wall Street Journal, and other right of center leaning in their opinion content, stating that they are not reliable sources within their news content. Those attacks very much are, IMHO, part of IDONTLIKEIT.

Imagine if editors were out to say that the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Times were not reliable sources because their commentary/editorial content were left of center. The community would not stand for it; so it shocks me when it is allowed to continue against right of center reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this board is to determine a consensus of editors whether a source is a reliable source. One does not need to source whether a source is a reliable source. Here we are to look at a source, match it up against the guideline of what makes up a reliable source, and form the consensus.

Would it matter if Blog X had hundreds of other blogs saying that it is a reliable source, or one strongly political leaning journalism professor?

No, not really.

That being said, on contentious BLP articles it's always best to find multiple reliable sources on contentious content. Therefore, the question that should be raised in the article in question's talk page is, is the content supported by more than one reliable source, that isn't a reproduction of the same source (i.e. multiple papers posting an AP article)?

If the answer is yes, then it should be kept; if the answer is no, then per BLP the content should be flagged, or removed until it can otherwise be supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are merely asserting that the Mail meets WP:RS? Fair enough, that is your opinion - which seems to be in the minority here. The material being cited is contentious, and the reliability of the source is questionable. WP:BLP policy is clear - in such circumstances, the material should not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand BLP policy, and please re-read my last posting. I stated quiet clearly, that per BLP policy that contentious content should be supported by multiple reliable sources to ensure accuracy.

That does not mean that the Daily Mail is any less a reliable sources even if the wording is inflammatory or sensationalized; even if this opinion is in the minority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this particular area (race/immigration) the Mail has been shown to pervert its sources to suit its political ideals, so it should not be considered a reliable source for this type of reporting. Since the tidbit in the article in question is precisely one of this kind, it follows that another, less politically biased source must be found. (And heaven forbid we cite any of their columnists as sources of facts, see Melanie Phillips, for a sample). FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters. I know some "dontlikeit" but the fact is that the number of libel suits against it is similar to the other UK papers -- even The Times errs. As for adjectives used? All the UK papers use stronger adjectives than Wikipedia likes. Opinion columns should be treated like opinion columns from any source, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mail is not 'fine for factual matters'. They frequently report things as facts that aren't. Hoary has already linked this [9]. Have you read it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. It depends a lot what the facts are about. See the article in New Statesman linked by Hoary at the end of his post above for some shocking examples of "fact reporting" in the Mail in the area of immigration. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the area under discussion at hand here, but the Mail's Phillips on evolution: "For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory. To go even further, as some scientists do, and make the leap from evolutionary theory to the claim that this somehow explains the origin of life itself clearly fails the test of logic. [...] Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together." Note the "subtle" writing that starts with "For many" but then 99% endorses that view, leaving 1% for plausible deniability of merely being "journalistic" reporting of others' ideas. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard

The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: [10]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pambazuka News

Pambazuka News, published by Fahamu since 2000, is a pan-African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing: contemporary commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa. It is designed to be a tool for progressive social change.

Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Wikipedia? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This editor, skipping the talk page has a Specific issue with a specific comment from a person more than qualified to make the statement. the section refers to an opinion which years ago we (who edit the article for years and are very familiar with the history or Africa and the opinions and scholars). balanced this section by representing a controversy with the topic. I have seen nothing writing on the Arab slave trade cite that makes it false history, unreliable history, junk, unscholarly, fiction, or unreliable. two source, one of them the no2 website on Arab slave trade (after Wikipedia)Google rank] is not a blog and our personal hatred of different views does not make something trash to be deleted at whim. In this article the quality of other references are far lower yet only this specific comment is targeted by this new editor to a page I have worked on for over 5 years. Pambazuka News is a well respected African based opinion on many matters, as opinions go why are African opinions not coming from BBC and CNN all of a sudden RS issue? RS has become a place to throw out anything from a minority news group.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it is good enough all across wiki, and as i said there are TWO references. And no it is not a SPam factory, I think beyond personal views you will have to prove that it is. BBC on Fahmu [BBC Fahmu] and here is another reference to them as a credible info source. [Al Jazerra Pambazuka ] So how is this a bloggers site? And here is ALL AFRICA All Africa on Fahmu] so please prove it is a bloggers site and unreliable for an opinion made by an author on Fahmu who is a UNESCO winner for work on slavery. Now All Africa who is reliable beyond doubt, saw the article suitable enough in quality to republish it [All Africa republishing article]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That All Africa link is just a repost of material from Pambazuka News. Shii (tock) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, now why would they do that if it was a BLOG? Does a credible news agency repost blogs? I dont think so. One of the biggest new agency on Africa saw it news worthy, notable in content from a author who seems to know the topic (as i have seen no junk or false history in any of the arab slave trade, to reprint it in their journal which i subscribe to. And republishing is common with news groups who get sources from other credible sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet

Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.)  --Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that for the material being cited (the meaning of the Armenian word Kaçkar), they would necessarily be seen as reliable. Travel guide writers aren't necessarily experts in the languages of the area they describe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Lonely Planet reference. In fact, we do not need an English language source for a simple translation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Armenian can confirm that "Խաչ քար" means "cross stone". In general, there is no requirement that we use English language sources – it would create an unacceptable systematic bias. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – In fact I have undone all of Kuzanov (talk · contribs)'s edits here and on the Georgian Wikipedia. This does not seem to be about sources but about some kind of ethnic pov-pushing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, how well do you speak and read Armenian? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask. Is there some text you would like me to translate? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, some of us don't have an 'elementary understanding' of how to write Kaçkar as "Խաչ քար". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a more relevant point. The article claims – now supported by the Lonely Planet source – that the Turkish name of the mountains, "Kaçkar" is derived from the Armenian name "Khachkar" (Խաչքար). This requires more than language skills, but I believe we can trust Lonely Planet on this part of the etymology. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my take on this: Unless the source in question is patently not reliable, the editor who removes sourced content should bear the burden of bringing a better source. If they cannot do that, but just remove sourced content, in my opinion they are just destroying other people's contributions. Lonely Planet has good books and although they may not have the scholarship of secondary sources for language issues, they usually rely on such sources. Unless someone has a better source to prove the contrary or to prove the same, a reference from Lonely Planet should not be removed. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We should not use travel guides as sources for linguistics, history, etc. If there's no better source than LP becomes even more questionable. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet's guides are not reliable sources at all. It's contents are based on user contributions to their website. It's for adventurers travelers that don't mind having to deal with some misinformation, and not for writing an encyclopedia.

And yes, we need a reliable source for that translation. It's not uncommon for misconceptions to appear in what some place's names means or where did they come from. --damiens.rf 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller & damiens:Of course better sources exist, but how would wikipedia be improved if we'll have to wait that someone brings scholars citations? Secondary sources in history and geography are niche and relatively expensive products. A minority of people have access to those publications and the wikipedia improving process will subsequently get delayed. And why could people delete valid contributions just because they are sourced by LP? As I stated above, LP can safely be deemed a tertiary source, to be used if there are no other sources that say otherwise. Furthermore, LP is owned by the BBC, which is RS. Do we have to remove references from BBC altogether now?

I would expect that someone become fastidious when an article is about to reach B or Good Article status, but what is the point to stay there and remove referenced content when the article is just a stub or start with 2-3 references?

It is easy to remove material, much more complicated to find a book and source the contribution. It seems like allowing people to delete perfectly valid contributions will give free hand to all of those who don't add content, but simply delete what doesn't please them. Let's not forget that content is the most valuable piece in wikipedia: let's preserve it with more care. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a deadline. --damiens.rf 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Damiens.rf that Lonely Planet is not a reliable source for a translation. To me this is a simple issue--if an editor does not speak or read Armenian, I don't believe they can evaluate the google translation. A much better source for this kind of translation would be a dictionary, and I expect that most major uni libraries would have one at hand. I disagree that BBC's ownership of LP has anything to do with either's reliability, our policies do not base RS decisions on who owns the source. The notion that the editor removing badly sourced content bears the burden of finding a better source is not supported by any policy of which I am aware, in fact, we have WP:BURDEN which puts that burden on the editor wishing to restore content. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a dictionary would be a much better source. And not only does the BBC's ownership not have anything to do with this issue, I'd also note that there are parts of the BBC website that I would consider a reliable source and other parts that I would not want to see used. (I know we are not talking about the website, but I'm just pointing out that the BBC name doesn't automatically give everything using it an imprimatur of reliability). I try to find sources whenever I can, but I will remove stuff that is both dubious and badly sourced where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. You managed to convince me that a dictionary would be a more suitable source that Lonely Planet. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MarksFriggin.com

Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. --Lexein (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Still looking for an assessment. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's clearly a fan site. Where do we need quotes from Stern's show? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, it's just another media outlet, and primary source, where Stern or guests say things about themselves - that's what I'm talking about, and Marksfriggin provides (secondary source) independent verification of what was said. That's my meaning. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we need quotes? Stern may like it, but the guests? There are BLP issues here and I'm not happy about using a fan site, even if Stern or others do like it. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes are occasionally useful when guests or Stern talk about projects they're in; useful stuff in Production sections of film, TV, and book articles. (I'm not talking about gossip, only primary source stuff). Hm, what BLP issues? I'm talking about quoting (or paraphrasing) what Stern and guests directly say about themselves, not what one says about another, or gossip. Where I've spotchecked Marksfriggin against recorded audio of the show, his quotes or paraphrases have been dead on. It's like quoting/paraphrasing people on any TV/radio/podcast show where audio is recorded. What's the difference, as you see it? Believe me, I'm not a reckless editor: I would only seek to use Marksfriggin narrowly where it supports a person's statement not documented elsewhere in the media, and not for controversial subjects or where BLP would be an issue. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to recorded video, I would suggest citing the source directly. Spot checking to verify the web site is kind of ORish. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes news post used as source in Big Boi article

A Tiny Mix Tapes post (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/big-boi-names-his-next-solo-album-daddy-fat-sax-honor-great-service-he-received-white-castle) is used as the source for a section of the Big Boi article on Wikipedia, purportedly explaining the title of his upcoming album "Daddy Fat Sax: Soul Funk Crusader." The section in question:

"The album's title originates from when Big Boi and André 3000 would visit a local White Castle in between recording/writing in their earlier years before ATLiens (1996), because of an employee known as Daddy Fat Sacks, for his habit of including multiple extra sliders in every 10-sack that they purchased, as he was a fan of their music.[8] Upon hearing of his death after visiting the same location after completing Sir Lucious Left Foot, Big Boi decided to name his follow-up solo album after Daddy Fat Sacks, but intended to use "Sax" instead of "Sacks" as he is "planning on a doing a bunch of sax samples, tenor, soprano, and probably have at least a couple sax players come into the studio for the next record".[8]"

From the humorous tone of the article ("...Daddy Fat Sacks had passed away in a horrible chicken-ring accident. Distraught, Big Boi bought 50 sliders and returned home, where, after eating 30 burgers in one grief-fueled sitting..."), lack of any sources elsewhere online to corroborate this information, and TMT's established penchant for inserting bizarre, humorous anecdotes into their news stories (further reading: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/david-bowie-says-buy-station-station-again-and-ill-bring-back-tin-machine, http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/doom-heads-europe-little-tapas-brings-ghostface-london-get-fishscale-and-chips), I think it is safe to infer that this is not a reliable source.

Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable music webzine. It's been accepted by Metacritic as a review source, and I can cite one example in which it's been accepted in a discussion regarding its reliability (WP:Peer review/May 2008#Ghosts I-IV) As that discussion pointed out, 3rd party sources have referenced Tiny Mix Tapes as a source of information ([11]). Also, the article in question is from their interview with Big Boi, and since other sources have mentioned the White Castle bit ([12], [13]), what other doubt could there be about this article? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic source

This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, you mention a particular book. What is the name of the book? Who is the author? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My, bad. The book is Coronary by Stephen Klaidman: Stephen Klaidman (2008). Coronary. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780743267557.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The sheer number of these claims seems to move them into the realm of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". That said, this published book does seem to be the best source we have so far, and the fact he makes these claims is certainly highly relevant to the article, just leaving them out would not be helpful. So I'd recommend writing "In interviews for the book Coronary, Corapi states that ...". Don't specify that these claims are grandiose, just write them. Klaidman seems to be a former NYTimes and Washington Post reporter, so I'd believe Corapi did in fact make these statements to him. If we have similarly reliable sources that say the statements are or aren't true, we can add that too. Otherwise we should leave it as his statement for the book. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would the following be a reliable source for refuting the claims? [14] I wouldn't use Corapi's actual service record (which is the linked document and source for Bendell's refutation); just Bendell's commentary about halfway down the page. I've been uncomfortable with using this site due to its look and layout, but see that POW Network is used as a source in at least 20 other articles. Bendell does layout the "translation" of the military record very well. For example: According to an analysis of Corapi's military records by retired Special Forces Officer Don Bendell, Corapi attended Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in 1967; Administrative schools at Fort McClellan, Alabama and Fort Knox, Kentucky and went on to serve as a clerk-typist in west Germany. Corapi mustered out of the Army in January, 1970 as a Stenographer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No! That's a personal web page clearly made to attack Corapi. Even if we have an article about the author of the page. For highly controversial statements attacking a living person like the ones made on that page, we need highly respectable sources, not personal web pages. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel even stronger recommending that if I knew exactly how Klaidman phrases these statements in the book. Are they stated as facts: "Corapi was a Golden Gloves Boxer" or as statements from an interview subject "Corapi says he was a Golden Gloves Boxer" Corapi: "I was a Golden Gloves Boxer"? I'd like to hope it's the latter, in other words that Klaidman doesn't vouch for the truth of these statements either, merely that Corapi made them. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Boxing thing comes from an older version of Corapi's bio(since deleted) Here is the quote from the book: "He signed a commitment to serve in the Special Forces, but in a helicopter accident in the Canal Zone he he reinjured a shoulder that he'd originally hurt playing football and ended up in Heidelberg as an administrative assistant." Corapi's actual military records show no training of any type beyond the Army's "secreterial school", no orders to Panama, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood, then, didn't you write that these claims came from an interview given to the author the Coronary book? I thought that meant they were published in the book. If they're not backed up by a reliable source of some kind (at least stating that Corapi made the claims), we shouldn't write them. If all the book says is that he served in the Canal Zone and was injured in a helicopter accident, I wouldn't hesitate to write that, that's not an extraordinary claim like being a Golden Gloves champion, a millionaire, and a Green Beret. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these claims came from him, in sermons, on his website, etc. Most of them have been debunked and the story has devolved over the years. For example, originally he was telling people that he was a Green Beret who served in Vietnam and his whole unit was wiped out and that he was spat upon in the airport, etc. When people looked into his history and saw he was a clerk-typist in Germany, his biography changed on his website to say he was a Vietnam-era vet and went through Special Forces training. As more of the story gets out he changes it. For example, there is no record of him ever selling real estate in Los Angeles, where he claims he made millions. He's built his career on lies, unfortunately there is this one source where he makes these claims that is not self-published or a blog/forum/taped sermon, etc. I wanted to leave it out, just saying he was a clerk in Germany; other editors want to include the whole sordid mess to show his pattern of lying/deceit, etc. Then we have a follower or two who want to say he sailed the seven seas and wears a chestfull of medals but it was all top secret. I guess my point is, the canal zone/injury is complete fiction; this makes me distrust the source with regard to pretty much anything else other than the medical malpractice lawsuit where Corapi got a few million, such as him being a millionaire realestate agent to the stars, drug dealer, pulled over in a ferari with enough dope to send him to prison for 40 years, and seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. Interesting to note, every chapter in the book has footnotes/endnotes, except the chapter on Corapi. The article is heating up because Corapi's order found him guilty of misconduct (living with a prostitute, sexually harassing female employee, drugs, and having millions of dollars in cars, boats, etc while supposedly taking a ow of poverty) and he is trying to walk away from the priesthood.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge

I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: [15]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [16]. According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these articles sources have been removed in the current version. This includes several two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once. I don't plan to make another attempt. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, how to we fix it? If no one here knows, we can take it up at the move board. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt

Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.

So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George ^talk 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page over there, the writer sandwiched the quote in between lines about Mein Kampf. It is more than reasonable to read "it" as "Mein Kampf" in this scenario.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A mention of our "Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt" debate here may well be helpful to bring in the recourses of other editors. However I would prefer not to continue the debate over two forums. So I would respectfully suggest we invite interested parties to join us on the relevant talk page and move on from there. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really a RSN issue, I don't think (no one is questioning that AFP is reliable, it's just that some users are trying to put their own spin on the AFP content), but I've weighed in at the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Roscelese. I don't doubt that AFP is a reliable source, I'm just not sure if it's reliable for the sentence being cited to it. If anyone is interested in weighing in, the discussion is here. Outside input is always welcome. ← George ^talk 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in Malayala Manorama

Citation used: Malayala Manorama, P. Kishore (25 July 2011). "IT Growth Slows". Retrieved 25 July 2011.

Article: Technopark, Trivandrum

Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.

Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum#Reliability_of_Newspaper_Report_as_Reference

Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.

Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS(talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011.
Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".

Publication	Dated	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010
The Hindu	Aug 17, 2010	1,387.8 crore	2,192.26 crore	2,412 crore
Times of India	Nov 3, 2009		1,853 crore
Hindu Business Line	Jun 24, 2008	1,568 crore
Thaindian - report from IANS	March 27, 2009	1,750 crore
Kaumudi online	Oct 22, 2010			2,930 crore

Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.

Publication	Technopark: 2007-2008	Infopark: 2007-2008
The Hindu	896.75 cr	247.05 cr
IT mission	1,200 cr	368.55 cr

Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. --Samaleks (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I could not understand the newspaper citation, as it was in the local language. But, going through the article and its talk page it is advisable to use the report from the Government regarding the state's IT exports. Please wait till new export figures are officially announced by the government. Local newspaper report may not be accurate to the last decimal all times. So, going by the context of the article, use the citation from government. --Freknsay (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for violence in Bihar, India

The following is a paragraph from Yadav

Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that "[with the rise of] backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, [with] even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically."

MangoWong keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:

• Ghosh, Srikanta (2000). Bihar in flames. APH Publishing. pp. 4, 9. ISBN 9788176481601.
• Pathak, Bindeshwar (1992). Rural violence in India. Concept. pp. 59–60, 67, 98. ISBN 9788170223191.
• Thapar-Bjorkert, Suruchi (2006). "Killing Fields". In Yuval-Davis, Nira; Kannabirān, Kalpana; Vieten, Ulrike (eds.). The situated politics of belonging. Sage studies in international sociology. Vol. 55. SAGE. p. 142. ISBN 9781412921015.

The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).

There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue

I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that Sitush could have made an effort to defend his/her sources on the article talk page before bringing it here. All of these sources look off topic for the Yadav aricle, and the material looks all cherry picked and an exercise in giant generalizations from individual incidents. I had tried to get Sitush around to defending his/her sources and material, but find myself here now. If someone is going to bring things here before defending them on the article talk page....-MangoWong (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a dispute about the reliability of any individual source (most of the sources cited state the opinion of their authors and are automatically reliable for that), but a WP:SYNT or WP:UNDUE dispute. Wrong noticeboard for that issue. Frankly, something like WP:INDIA can probably help you more, because most other Wikipedians have no idea whether such-and-such Indian is worth citing in that article or not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well FuFoFuEd. There's a technical issue too here. Sitush seems to want to use a quote from a certain A. N. Das. I did try to investigate who this guy is, but could not find much. I had requested Sitush to establish whether this Das was a professor and what his field was. Sitush seems to be refusing to do that. I had also investigated the other sources and material and.... Let's leave that since you have said that this may not be the most useful venue. Does it fall upon me to establish that Das is a professor and establish his competence on the issue?-MangoWong (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop wriggling, Mango. You queried the reliability of all the sources. It is quite likely that every time you do so in future then I will raise the matter here because there is no talking to you, is there? You simply do not understand the policies but perhaps this way you will learn (with my apologies for wasting the time of everyone else). We have confirmation that they are reliable for the purpose used, so now we can go back to the talk page and sort out your other issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Das at GScholar (note the N. and sometimes even Nayaran). Not that it matters, since the paragraph specifically says that it is Thapar-Bjorkert who quotes Das, and Thapar-Bjorkert is reliable per the analysis of FuFoFuEd. This guy was in fact an academic but it is not necessary for people to be professors etc to be reliable - you are misunderstanding WP:RS and, as FuFoFuEd says below (& I have said before to you) there is a competence issue of sorts. Numerous people keep trying to explain, across numerous articles, but you will not listen. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, from now on, you would be attacking my competence in anything I do or say. So that you can do things like these [17], put in rubbish refs like [18], and falsely claim that I deleted links from the Dennis Rader article [19], even when I did not. No buddy, I am not going to let you do it. And FuFoFuEd did not seem to have said anything about the reliability of the sources for that article. Per WP:BURDEN I think you still have to establish WTH this A. N. Das is.-MangoWong (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Steele

MangoWong recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. There's a paper edition and editorial staff, appears to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The links are dead now, but that's not a reason to remove them. MangoWong did not seem to have removed any text, only footnotes in that diff. Btw, The Spokesman-Review has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked three of the spokeman links, none were dead, but one was malformed. I agree, however, that that removing a deadlink is not the best practice, better to tag it a such and give others a chance to fix them, if you cannot yourself. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks. I can fix deadlinks etc but there is so much flak flying around regarding MW that I thought it best to get some sort of input on their claim of the paper being a dubious source before taking things any further. I have quite a long list of problematic edits to go through, unfortunately, and am likely to be pestering various noticeboards in order to deflect warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have strong views about Spokesman-Review. I had deleted it only because it looked like a second rate source to me. I have searched the archives of WP:RSN for it and could not find a single mention. Another thing is that the Spokesman-Review appears to be operating its net version of the paper through blogs. Looking into its web address, I spied a …../blog/…. Even then, as I said, I do not have any strong views on this particular source. I had invited discussion on this on the article talk page [20]. But my invitation has been removed inexplicably. I still can’t understand why that comment was removed. ?????? (Any guesses???) I think this issue could/should have been discussed on the article talk page first. Anyway, it does give more confidence to get opinions from the RSN. I have no problem if the Spokesman Review be reinstated. However, I have also deleted a number of other links from that article. I am not very sure, but maybe someone seems to think that all of the sources should be reinstated. Since we are already here, it might be worthwhile if I could get a review of those sources/links too [21]. My reasons for deleting them can be found in my individual edit summaries. Some of them looked like advocacy groups and some of them seemed irrelevant in the sense that they were linked, but were not saying anything that the article says. And why are folks talking about me removing deadlinks? I myself do not like to remove deadlinks unless I see some other problem with them. One may note that Sitush may seem to keep saying funny/sinister looking things about me. I am having a content dispute with Sitush on some other articles. So, one may look at comments from both of us in that light…..MangoWong (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you should spend some time investigating a source before you just delete it expecting others to defend it. Most if not all newspapers have blogs today, blogs written by very staff of the newspaper, and usually just as reliable as the rest of the newspaper; see Blog#Blurring_with_the_mass_media and WP:SPS. As for www.splcenter.org, see Southern Poverty Law Center. If you continue in this "delete first" manner, you'll likely find yourself in trouble for WP:COMPETENCE issues if nothing else. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you seem to critique me a bit too strongly, I take your comments seriously and am likely to go easy on blogs etc. from now on. I used to have a "shoot at sight" type attitude towards blogs. But I will relax it now. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note: I just noticed the deletion of your comment now: it looks like I made a mistake; either that, or the server somehow messed up, but that usually only happens when edits are within one minute of each other. Apologies, then, since It was likely me messing up. I'm going to re-add your comment now. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Official websites of football clubs as exclusive sources in articles on said clubs

I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, so I'll try for here.

Several teams (examples include Barca, Madrid, and Inter) use the official club websites as sources, and have done so for years.

Not only that, but they have turned those 'official' sources into exclusive sources for some sections of the articles. In seasons past I have inserted match results into articles using non-official sources, only to see them changed. The official sources are also the only ones that are allowed to be used for transfers. In both cases, these official sources might be slower or contain less information than reliable third party sources, and yet the other sources get shut out.

Should we continue to use 'official' club websites at all? They are not neutral third party sources by a long shot. True, they're only used to source raw numerical information in most cases, but there are other sources, reliable third party sources, that can be used.

If we do decide to continue to use the 'official' sources, is there consensus for disallowing their exclusivity?

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on an article talk page? It would help to know what the reverter's concern was about the use of non-official sources. I consider a website to be a reliable source for factual information about that website, so I see no problem with the use of 'official' club websites for such information. But prima facie I see no reason not to use unofficial stats, at least until the official ones are available. Brmull (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This affects most of the top flight clubs (that is to say, almost all of the ones that actually source match results). I don't remember the reason that was given back during the 2010-11 season, but I do remember that it came across as being bullshit. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that the official sites should not be used for fetching information for the article. Offical sites of the football clubs may contain peacock terms to describe the club and may contain exaggerated contents. Care should be taken in maintaining the NPOV. Unofficial sites can also be used, if it is a valid source. Discussing in the article talk page is a better idea, as the scenario differs in each article. --Freknsay (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that independent reliable sources are preferable to "official" sources. As Freknsay pointed out, official sites may use peacock terms, but beyond that, "official" sources may go so far as to include or omit informaiton based on the light in which it portrays the club. FYI, we've been having a related debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Head coaches who never coached a game (that's American football). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For something like match results, its not a huge deal -- both sources are likely to be accurate. However, a reliable third-party source such as a newspaper is preferable both as a matter of principle and as a practical matter (the club has an incentive to lie about an embarrassing result (granted few clubs would be foolish enough to try that) and a newspaper's very raison d'être is being accurate about these things, and general failure to do so would imperil its existence, which isn't true of the club. However, an unreliable third-party site auch as a fan blog is, in my personal opinion, worse than the club's official site. Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about fan blogs, we're talking about BBC sports and those sorts of sites. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Birthday Massacre

I've been looking at The Birthday Massacre, making some minor edits, and I am struck by the plethora of video interviews used as references--besides tons of MySpace and other websites. I've placed a refimprove tag on the article, but there is so much of it (and so little other referencing) that going in to edit is a gargantuan task. Does anyone have any suggestion, or is anyone feeling the spirit move them? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifehacker

Is Lifehacker considered a reliable source for software? Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Publisher" on a Weebly site

This is really about a "further reading" section, but this is the closest noticeboard that I can find, as the issue does deal with reliable sourcing.

I've started removing Weebly blogs when they fail appropriate guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and so on. I removed one book from Corset and Neo-Victorian whose publisher site was a Weebly page. The "publisher" happens to be the sole author, meaning these books are self-published. Since the book is not about the author, they cannot be used under WP:SELFPUB. According to WP:Further reading one of the considerations to be taken when adding a book is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source. This book does not meet WP:RS. The only purpose for including it would be to advertise this and other rather expensive books by this author, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

The book in question is "Waisted Curves" from Aegis & Owl Publishing/Sarah Chrisman.

I removed the book, and was reverted and told my edit was unconstructive. I removed the book again, pointing to appropriate guidelines on the reverting user's talk page, and he reverted me again, calling me a single purpose account (even though I've been here since 2006 and have worked on a variety of articles). Could we get some consensus here? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Um... First, WP:RS does not ban self-published books... it merely limits their use. Second, WP:Further reading does not require that the books, websites, etc. listed pass WP:RS. Third WP:EL explicitly allows "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The same applies to print sources under "Further reading".

As for WP:NOTPROMOTION... you say that the only purpose in including it is advertising... Hmmm... is that just your opinion, or do we have some evidence to suggest that the editor who added the book to the "further reading" section has some sort of connection to the author? Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And this book does not fall in the limits of when self-published works are allowed (the book is not the subject of the article giving information about itself). The book also does not fall into any of the other examples for appropriate books that the "Reliable" section gives (such as historical documents). WP:ELNO #5 excludes "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." My rational behind removing weebly sites (which are technically blogs) is #11, excludes blogs and personal websites except those by a recognized authority.

I would like to be clear that I am not accusing Andy Dingly (who reverted me) of having any connection to the author or using the site for advertising. However, its placement (by whoever) matches the MO of other advertisment based additions I've seen in the past. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Already addressed here: User_talk:Andy_Dingley#.22Unconstructive.3F.22

The editor is carrying out a 'bot-like bulk edit removing any content that pattern-matches a URL indicating that a web site (of any content quality) has been hosted through Weebly. This claims justification through the no-blogs policy of WP:ELNO.

The page here Neo-Victorian is one of four pages that cited this book. It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life. I consider it an appropriate cite on two of these pages, including Corset itself. However I don't see it as sufficiently relevant to the historical aspects of costume, so I haven't re-added it to Victorian fashion or Victoriana, from where it was also removed.

If this book cite didn't include a URL, there would have been no issue here. The editor is auto-removing on the basis of the URL, not on the basis of content. It is simple camouflage to start changing their story after the fact.

This book is self-published. That is not the same thing as WP:SELFPUB. If the book has relevant content (and I've read it, the editor in question here hasn't) then it is a reasonable cite (and if it doesn't, then it isn't). This is nothing to do with the publisher's chosen web platform. Nor is the publisher's site a "blog", as WP:ELNO quite reasonably cautions against.

Finally, the idea that a book is unsuitable under Further reading because it's "too expensive" is simply farcical. Particularly when this is not a terribly expensive book, and for a hand-bound book these days it's positively a bargain. Some readers (and with probably quite a large overlap to neo-Victorians) simply appreciate quality and judge this by slightly more subtle means than regexing a URL string. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that those article do not cite the book at all, it's just advertised in the further reading section. It's inaccurate to the point of misrepresentation to say that they are citations. And you are twisting my words: I said that it was inappropriate to advertise these books which happen to be expensive -- we're not here to make a profit for others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, the entire point of an "External Links" or "Further Reading" section is to list books and websites that weren't used as cited sources (in fact, if we used them as citations, we are not supposed to list them again under FR or EL). Is your objection to listing the book itself, or are you really objecting to the inclusion of a link to a website that sells the book ... if the latter, what if the book were listed without including the URL link? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But external links and suggested further reading materials are supposed to be held to similar standards to reliable sources, with exceptions being offical pages, historical documents, stuff by the article's subject, etc. This book is none of those. The only difference between this and linking to my friend's Star Trek fansite in the Star Trek article (for example, it's not happened) is that my friend wouldn't be making money off of its inclusion.

I came across this book because I'm sorting through inappropriate linking to the Weebly site. However, even if the link to Weebly was removed, this book is essentially a print version of a random Neo-Victorian fashion fansite. Just because the author is charging more than a most fansites does not change that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

'This book is none of those.

You know nothing of this book, or of the subject matter of the articles connected to it. All you have done is to reduce editing to a scripting process, assuming that anything and everything using a particular web platform is "bad" and must be expunged. How do you think that "decisions" made on such a robotic basis are really defensible? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)