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

AllCinema.net

There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference.[1] However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page,[2] they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. —Farix (t | c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times has a disclaimer page, too. The presence of a disclaimer page does not prove that they don't engage in fact-checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the same search on the IMDb, there are many many wiki citations that use the IMDb. This page alone leads to a lot of them. The text of the WP:RS specifically mentions IMDb, and I would be happy to present arguments that that sentence should be reviewed and modified to allow the IMDb to be used to substantiate that a film exists, its date, cast, crew, and plot summary information. I do realize that this may have been suggested many times before, but here it is again. (08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

AllCinema.net looks crazy dangerous to me by comparison. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

AllCinema.net doesn't publish the origin of the data they are using, but it doesn't appear to be user-generated content, and from inspection, there are some clear differences from the Kinema Jumpo database and the Japanese Movie Database. If the information is in doubt, it could be cross-checked against those sources. Anyway despite your faith in it, IMDB is pathetic on Japanese content. For example, if you know who Rentaro Mikuni is this photograph on IMDB is worth a laugh. You won't find mistakes that bad at AllCinema.net. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by P.J.Cohen

I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996

I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit

• the author is not historian
• the book title is an accusation
• there are serious doubts who was the book true author
• Neutrality is a sacred Wikipedia credo

Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)

In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.

"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".

There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?

From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138

A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.

From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222

Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...

From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml

Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby.

From: http://balkaninstitut.academia.edu/MiroslavSvircevic/Papers/1620686/Philip_J._Cohen_Serbias_secret_war_Propaganda_and_the_deceit_of_history_Texas_A_and_M_University_Press_1996

Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration.

--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you are using Carl Savich's right-wing blog serbianna.com as a basis for criticising Cohen... lol. And anonymous "customers" on Amazon? Please... Can we keep this to criticism by academics? In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is used widely on WP articles about the Balkans). And he supports Cohen and his book, debunks the 'ghost writer' conspiracy theory and actually states he stayed with Cohen for a couple of days helping him with his manuscript. He notes he is not a professional historian but says that despite this the book is 'very good'. I have linked the blog post here [3]. And the only credible disinterested quote you have noted above is that of MacDonald, and it's a passing mention that the book is controversial. Controversial to whom? The Serbian Institute is unlikely to be able to avoid bias itself, being made up of Serbs. And I'm not Croatian.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is published by a University Press, which more or less makes it citable on Wikipedia. We don't get a neutral point of view by just citing neutral books on political topics; there are few, if any, such. We get NPOV by citing reliable, non-neutral sources, covering all views on the topic separately.

Churn and change (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Churn and change: this book was published by a well-regarded scholarly press, and so meets Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. If other reliable sources (including professional reviews published by newspapers, scholarly journals, etc) have criticised the book and/or provide different perspectives of events, this should be taken into account when making use of it. However, hostile Amazon.com customer reviews and comments on various websites obviously do not rule this out as a usable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No 'we' didn't forget to search RSN archives, and we could all do without the dismissive and exasperated tone. The single review you produced (not the consensus of several editors that this noticeboard says can generally be relied upon), which you provided when I brought this book to RSN 18 days ago has been questioned by several editors, including myself. This questioning has been on the basis of the support given to Cohen by a former member of the Cambridge history faculty (Dr Marko Hoare) who has stated the book is 'very good', and who has debunked the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs listed above. Now two other regular contributors to RSN have suggested it is OK and taken a different view from yours. We have editors other than yourself expressing a view, and I'm not seeing a consensus here that it isn't reliable. I believe it at least requires more discussion than your dismissive comments above, and I encourage all editors that regularly contribute here to make their views known (and why). Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to elevate Hoare in a blog post above a review in a peer reviewed journal? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not expected to do original research when checking credibility of sources either. The explanation of guidelines says WP:Attribution: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Texas A&M is a fairly well-known university; what its press publishes has gone through scholarly vetting and can be cited in WP. As a first cut, we apply the general guidelines and they say a book published by a university press like Texas A&M is admissible as an RS. A higher bar can be applied only if there are so many better sources that including this, and its rebuttals, make the article way too long. Per the guidelines, those sources all have to be scholarly articles or books. Lack of space in the article would be a valid argument for excluding an RS and including only higher-quality RSes; perceived inaccuracy would not be. If you think the stuff is all wrong, you should get references which say so and include that as well. That is how we get to NPOV, not by making right and wrong judgments for ourselves, and using that as a first filter. If including all that makes the article unwieldy, fine, you have a valid argument to make on the article's talk page as an issue specific to that topic. WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions "well-regarded academic presses" as reliable. Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar. I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness; here we need to assess issues using general guidelines, not by using subject knowledge to decide correctness. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo, no I'm not. I'm pointing out that Hoare, who is a topic-specific published academic, takes a different view of the book. Given he is reliably published on the subject, his blog comments are also reliable. That's what the policy says. The motivation for editors trying to get rid of this book from WP is highly suspect if you follow the talk pages on Ante Pavelic and Pavle Djurisic. Unable to find WP:RS that challenge Cohen, editors have resorted to this. It's incredibly transparent. I agree that Texas A&M is reliable unless proved otherwise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• • There are serious objections to the book content and the most notable is the one that the author has no academic credibility in Balkans studies then that it's a commissioned propaganda book. The author (Cohen) was decorated by Croatian late president Tudjman for this 'achievement'. The book 'reviewers' are exclusively Croats, the book borrows too much from the similar books written by Croats. Peacemaker67 simply parrots the phrases like 'the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs'. We are here to weigh all objections to the book quality. Some of them too serious to be overseen especially those listed by Serbian scholar Dr. Miroslav Svircevic. As to the Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar.: Who published book makes no contribution to this discussion nor tells us about the book author and his academic achievements. The bar was apparently very low, otherwise the book would be rejected. The publisher is, just as any company, interested primarily in profit. Both me and Peacemaker67 are Croats. My primary intentions are purely academic with no idea of re-writing history of Ustashe. Pavelic and his Ustashe brought only shame, misery, and suffering to Croats. I'm the one who is not fighting Serbs on Wikipedia, and, in Croatia, not voting Pavelic's HOP. A very bad thing is that the most notable authors (WWII, Ustashe and Independent State of Croatia) like Martin Broszat, Mehachem Shelach, Slavko Goldstein, and Bogdan Krizman are replaced by this propagandist and the likes.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have already pointed out that I am not a Croat, if you don't stop stating this as a fact in the face of my statements to the contrary, I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm Australian and have no genealogical or ideological links to the Balkans, I have a professional interest as a result of spending 6 months there during the 90's. Juraj, by his own admission, is here to stop what he perceives is 'the rewriting of history' Your list of most notable authors is quite strange, I mainly use Ramet, Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts, Hoare, Lemkin, etc in Balkans articles I edit. None of them are rewriting history. Broszat isn't even published in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Carrying over the debate here is rather pointless. I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Budak brought an Amazon review, criticism from Serbianna (a Serb nationalist blog), and a review from the Balkan Institute of SANU. Not at all convincing. The peer review brought by Fifelfoo states explicitly that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
          • ...and then goes on to say "....but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs" before concluding that it's a shoddy book. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
            • But that is cherry picked. If a UP publishes a book, you can be pretty certain there are reliable academics praising it. I looked and found a positive review by Charles Ingrao, history prof. at Purdue University. There is this review slamming Cohen: [4]. The book is in the Pentagon's digital library on 'Confict in the Balkans.' It is in the bibliography of Richard Holbrooke's To End a War; unlikely he included it just to criticize it. Holbrooke wasn't an academic but was clearly an influential figure. In his book The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, p.30, James J. Sadkovich, once an associate professor at the American University in Bulgaria([5]), cites figures (not opinions) from the book. In a footnote in Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s some authors (couldn't make out which ones) state the Cohen book has important points but is unbalanced by a missionary zeal. A report by a research team at Purdue, headed by Sabrina Ramet, cites Cohen as an account of "Nedic's government written from a critical perspective." (I think Ingrao influenced the report; nevertheless it is an independent source since Ingrao wasn't part of the team and the citation is a direct one). If anybody needs the behind-paywall articles, please ask either at my talk page or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. This is why we have guidelines. Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality. But it cannot be ruled out based on our ideas of whether it is right. Churn and change (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN?

I guess so, but it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are for most things, but for some specific events this book is the key source. I certainly don't use his opinions much at all, just factual stuff he presents. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken Churn and change's advice and asked for access to the review by Ingrao in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1997. Here are some relevant bits:

His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion.

and

Cohen's final task is to explain how Serbia could have been so successful in

selling its twentieth-century heroic myths to the international community.... Except for this last theme (which includes an expose on the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society that MiloSevic founded in 1987) much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point, such as in exaggerating the popularity of Serbian pre-war fascist parties (which garnered a paltry 1% of the vote against Stojadinovic's government list and Macek's

united opposition) or in minimizing the popular Serb opposition to the March 1941 Tripartite Pact. Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild.

This provides a counterpoint to the review referenced by Fifelfoo, and was part of the case made by Churn and change which concluded that WP policy means that Cohen can be used for facts and opinions (with in-text attribution of the opinions). In several other fora, including at Talk:Chetniks here [6] User:Antidiskriminator has now declared that this discussion in fact means that Cohen is not considered reliable. That was not my impression. Can we get some clarification? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• A propaganda pamphlet It is clear, from the book title, what were the author's (who is the author?) intentions. A number of fundamental questions must be answered at the beginning. The book was written by a man without any background in the WWI and Balkans studies. Moreover, he is handicapped by lacking knowledge of the Serbo-Croatian language. The English language used in the book shows the style and the vocabulary of an non-native English writer. I convinced myself in it after comparing the first and the last editions of the same book where are pages with rewordings apparently aimed to fix earlier bad language work. So, which way this book was written and who really wrote it?
  
  Now, let us ignore who wrote this book. The book was, initially, published by a respected publisher. We scholars are poor people, heavily relying on publishers help which regularly ends with the copyright transfer from the author to the publisher. We are lucky if we got some money coming from the book sale. In this case, the book copyright holds the author (or "author") and the book is on sale at $4 for the new print. Who really pays for its four printing, manufactured in the USA, copyright 1996 by Philip J. Cohen?
  
  Let us marginalize question who pays for manufacturing it in the USA. How about the content? Cohen (or someone else) is heavily at disagreement with the WWII and the Holocaust studies. The Serbs are portrayed as a people who embraced their conqueror, the German Nazis, as a God-sent ally, whose common goal was to exterminate the Jews. Many of the Nazis' orders and proclamations, translated into Serbo-Croatian, in the occupied Jugoslavia Cohen interpreted as the Serbs' proclamations and orders. His accusations thrown against the Serbs cannot find a ground in the mainstream Holocaust studies nor even in memoirs of those who survived the Holocaust in Jugoslavia. Just read Eichmann Trial testimonies (Saltz, Arnon), or Gutman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, entry Serbia, Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews, etc. Alleged suffering of the Jews in the Kingdom of Jugoslavia and under Serbian rule rejects Alexander Arnon saying that only latent anti-Semitism was present in Croatia, out of all regions of Jugoslavia. H. Saltz was a military officer and physician in Belgrade. --Sunil of India (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • G'day Sunil. I'm afraid most of what you have said strays into WP:OR. Your characterisation of the book in respect of being at odds with WWII and Holocaust studies is not consistent with either of the scholarly reviews provided here. Your allusions to possible ghost writing have been contradicted by a former Cambridge history don who assisted Cohen with the manuscript. Your comments about Cohen's lack of Serbo-Croat language skills has also been addressed by Hoare. Memoirs and testimony are generally WP:PRIMARY. Can you elaborate on what WP policy basis you believe this book does not meet the requirements of WP:RS? Perhaps if you were to take Churn and change's comments as a starting point. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sunil of India for this valuable comment. I did believe that this book was published by that publisher. Now I see it is a self-published book. The Google book search is clear. It says: Copyright © 1996 by Philip J. Cohen; Manufactured in the United States of America; All rights reserved; Fourth printing, 1996--Juraj Budak (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Please, get a clue. The copyright resides with the author, not the publisher. That doesn't make it a self-published book. The title page says Texas A&M University Press, College Station, as noted by the RSN editors above. Strangely enough, Texas is in the US. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day RSNers, I know you don't usually do this, but given the contention Cohen has caused here and at related article talkpages, could we please have a formal close of this discussion by one of the RSN editors who provided their opinion? I respect the fact that the consensus was not resounding, but this will go on for ever unless we get some formal advice recorded and the matter closed. That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have expressed a strong and firm view on the text in question, and adhere to my view. As such I am unfit to judge where consensus lies on this issue as I have already been persuaded. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• On another note, Hajo Funke of the Free University of Berlin and Alexander Rhotert (currently head of OSCE in BiH) have made extensive use of Cohen's work and they support the Iron Cross event too[7] (Unter unseren Augen: Ethnische Reinheit: die Politik des Regime Milosevic, p.52)

. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

They used Cohen as source for Iron Cross assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?

≤In reference to this discussion at WP:DRN, I believe there are two issues a neutral 3rd party comment could help with.

Firstly, The following source is used to justify a claim made in Argentina's modern sovereignty dispute that the population was expelled:

Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.

The issue I have with the particular claim made, is that the claim is cited to a document referred to as the Akehurst Memorandum, which referrences the historian Goebel. If you refer to the Google books link (I have the original text this is just a convenient way to share it), rather than confirming the claim made by López, it confirms the claim currently cited in the article ie the claim made by López fails verification. See Self-determination#Falkland Islands for the current text.

This isn't disputed, however, I have two editors arguing that checking the claim made by an author against his cited sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN and we should simply use the source attributing the claim to López. The argument is this is needed as a "rebuttal" to claims made in neutral academic sources, Goebel included, to present the Argentine POV. Am I wrong in suggesting we shouldn't use this source to verify that claim, since the source asserts a claim not made by the original author but one that is attributed to that author. Hope that makes sense.

Secondly, the same editors assert that it is a reliable source for the following claim:

“ On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British. ”

The argument here is that the title of the work shows the reasearch is based on British sources egro the statement is supported by reference to the same dicussion in López (the one that fails verification). The attributed source, Goebel, refers only to the garrison. Am I wrong in suggesting that given the source is making a claim not supported by its citation it is unreliable for that particular claim? Thank you in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If I've got this right, López does analyze British sources, and does conclude that the population was expelled. It's just that you have also analyzed the same British sources, and concluded that López's conclusion is obviously unwarranted. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an academic publisher. Likely to be an appropriate source. Have you read the whole book? It would seem that it could be a good source, but which statements it could support would be a matter for serious consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The other editors would be justified about their OR and SYNTH objections; we should not critically evaluate sources ourselves via cross-checking against their primary sources. As User:Itsmejudith points out the publisher is reliable, publishing scholarly and academic works. The source is RS. If the author's contentions are not mainstream, they will need attribution, and possibly rebuttal. Churn and change (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a neutral 3rd party opinion so I will try and restrict myself to responding to questions posed.

In answer to WhatamIdoing. Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.

Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Quote

“ On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... ”

Emphasis added

ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.

Quote

“ Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833 ”

The statement attributed to Goebel is not made by Goebel. Goebel is well known as a source in the Falkland Islands dispute, so falsely attributing a claim to him is very strange. Anyone familiar with the subject would know that Goebel doesn't make this claim. For reference there was a garrison and a settlement but only the garrison left. So no, I didn't analyse the same British sources and come to a different conclusion, being familiar with the cited source the claim struck me as odd and when I checked I found it did not reflect Goebel.

Goebel is a WP:SECONDARY source, I can if requested give you the two WP:PRIMARY sources, eye witness reports which corroborate both Goebel and the source below. The two reports both Argentine and British corroborate one another as well.

Another neutral source

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

“ Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. ”

“ Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina ”

Empahsis added

Neutral academic works usually debunk this claim made by Argentina. Hence in answer to Churn, the view is not mainstream but is being used here to criticise the mainstream view. I would be grateful if you could expand as to why you consider this WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm not doing any research and drawing conclusions, there I would agree with you it is inded WP:OR. However, I really don't see fact checking as WP:OR but I'm quite willing to be re-educated. In my own writing I always try to cross-check facts against multiple sources to ensure I represent the range of opinions in the literature.

In answer to Itsmejudith, yes I have read it a long time ago. Like most POV sources, and it is a POV source, its use requires careful thought and in particular attribution of claims. López is not a neutral academic but a former Argentine ambassador, who was involved in the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. When it comes to WP:WEIGHT I think it falls down in that the claim isn't verified by the cite and it contradicts mainsteam opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR. On WP edits are not done or reviewed by experts and so we rely on secondary sources with our doing just basic 2+3=5 style fact checking. We depend on publishing houses to do thorough checks (through editorial oversight or peer review). Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your second issue: On WP we present all facets, including minority views, but not the fringe views of a tiny minority. How many minority views can be included depends on, in practice, the length of the article. We take highest-quality sources first, write what they talk of, and then go down the ladder to other sources. This particular source is an RS; it is likely not a high-quality one, and maybe it doesn't represent mainstream opinion. In that case, if you really have sufficient higher-quality sources (which would be books and articles in and by even-better academic journals and publishers), you fill the article with those. I took a quick look at the article, this particular section has just two short paras. So, to the question of being a fringe claim. Maybe Argentina's stance is so off-the-chart we can equate it to a fringe-minority view and not mention it. May be so. I searched and hit upon pretty fast the statement you reject: that Britain expelled Argentinians in 1833. The source is Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University and the page is 306. I am not going to argue Risman is right; the issue is likely highly nuanced with many credible sources having their own POVs. But that source does make any claim the view is fringe (a claim you have not made; I am just covering all possibilities) an exceptional claim needing exceptional evidence. The sources in the article don't seem enough; Mary Cawell together with publisher A. Nelson don't seem much of a source; Harper is a good source but her book is on "Scottish emigration" and touches on Falklands very briefly and in a different context. So, yes, I do think you have to include this view, if not from the RS you mentioned then from the RS I did, and include rebuttals from other sources. If you have trouble accessing the source, send me a message, or ask on the WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request board. Churn and change (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research. Per Itsmejudith, the publisher is a scholarly publisher which says it submits manuscripts to external review prior to acceptance. That's a good sign. I'd suggest the only way to not accept this text as being part of the scholarly literature is if reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals (with an appropriate journal coverage area) tear it to pieces. So off to the book reviews: JLAS noted the book existed, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00011998, but it is their policy to do this with all books received. No review I could find. So the next step is what do other scholars say regarding the work in the literature, do they give it any attention? If many scholars tear it apart when writing on the topic, then that's a sign it probably isn't acceptable (unless other scholars use it with praise in scholarly publications). Treat as a scholarly work unless criticised with vitriol in other scholar's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification of source citations is common sense, and is a violation of neither OR nor SYN. How the hell would we ever decide which sources are reliable and which ones are not if personal judgement never came into play? Policy forbids us from including OR in an article, but it does not prevent us from using OR to decide what sources are best to use. And Firefloo, no one is talking about using personal judgements about facts that are clearly in dispute. Rather, WCM is suggesting discarding a source because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point. Just because a publisher is generally reliable doesn't mean that everything they publish is RS. And that said, it appears that Lopez's work is academically insignificant, being cited by all of one person, ever. And who is Lopez, anyway? As far as I can tell, he is Argentinian, and has only written this one book. Aside from that, I can't find any scholarly works, or even a website. Is he a professional historian, or just a random guy who wrote a couple of books? In the forward to the book, he is referred to as "Ambassador Oliveri Lopez", although this book is the only place on the entire internet where Lopez is referred to as such. So who is he? And finally, do any scholars whose reliability is not in dispute echo the claim that Argentinians were expelled from the island? If this really is the case of a single unknown author making an extraordinary claim, then that would qualify as insignificant in my book. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

One can use OR and SYN as criteria when one wants to add sources. But an edit that removes a source somebody else added, based on a claim of having found an inconsistency against its primary sources, is OR and SYN. What is obvious and blatant to an expert isn't so to lay people. And often these words are just bandied around to stop debate. Churn and change (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If a minor scholarly view-point is only represented in one single text, you can dismiss it under WEIGHT and NPOV—regardless of the reliability issues. If a minor scholarly view-point is still of significance, then you can include it, at the very end, and attribute it appropriately, "In the scholarly publication X, the former minister for wallaby reduction issues depicted Y as Z." Neither of these impacts on the sources' reliability for a scholarly claim. There are plenty of scholarly perspectives that we routinely ignore for good and proper encyclopaedic reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are responding to my earlier post. Yes, I agree, though I would use the term 'fringe' rather than 'minor' on what gets excluded. But see my post on why this isn't obviously a fringe viewpoint. I think the appropriate thing is to attribute and add the opposing viewpoint. If you go to the article you will see the subject is Argentina's claim on Falkland, specifically their claim that Argentinians were expelled from Falklands in 1833. Maybe the claim is indeed fringe, but at least one Yale professor thinks not and has published stating so in the Yale Law Journal. The "obvious, blatant, completely false" string of adjectives I discount. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If a strand of analysis is minor to one or two academics (or a larger number, say, in Napoleonic war studies), such that it has no impact in the wider literature it is legitimate to not include such minor studies. If another source makes the point better, then purely editorial decisions regarding source quality or source clarity should lead to the dismissal of a source (even if that source is scholarly in nature in terms of reliability). There are plenty of reasons to ignore sources other than on reliability grounds, but, the source indicated in this thread is actually fairly reliable due to possessing an academic publisher of an appropriate kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to separate the point a source makes and the source itself. The source may be ill-cited, but the point itself may be repeated in other sources. That makes the point a minority view worthy of inclusion but not the source (which I think is the case here; I am basing that on the fact that I got to another source claiming the same thing in just a few minutes of search; maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so). As to "impact on the wider literature" that seems the definition of 'fringe.' Churn and change (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! A source may be unreliable (as the review demonstrates below, this one is unreliable due to hostile reviews in peer reviewed journals of an appropriate topic). A claim may be put both in reliable and unreliable sources. A claim may be put in multiple reliable sources, but editors may choose to use one instead of another due to WEIGHT or the expressive and argumentative qualities of Source A over Source B even if both are equally reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How, pray tell, do you know this truth: "because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reiterating what was suggested, rather than suggesting it myself (you'll find in my post its an attributed suggestion). The page on which the claim is made is not available when I look through Google books, so I can't hunt down the citation entirely on my own unless I feel like finding a library that has the book (my own does not, unfortunately). Back to the fringe claims, on top of the fact that all of one person cites the Lopez book, I've also been unable to find any scholarly reviews of his book. It seems to be a work that's entirely ignored by the rest of the historical community. In any event, if Goebel really did make this claim in a secondary work, then we should be citing Goebel, and not a book that claims to be echoing him. As to the issue of fringeness, why not just include the Yale Law Journal, attributed, and leave out Lopez? And finally, I answered one of my own questions: Lopez is a "Permanent Representative of Argentina to the Committee of Representatives of the Latin American Integration Association", whatever that means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a review here behind a very-expensive paywall. There are some scattered citations in Spanish and French (Qubec). I agree—the Yale article is what should be used. I suspect there are more since I came across it pretty fast. As to the author being Argentinian, the other source cited in that article is from a Britisher of Falklands origin, so I guess they want true balance. Somehow I don't quite feel like going in and editing the stuff. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have access to this work. Peter Beck, an appropriately qualified academic, tears the work in question to shreds, "Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…" "readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma." On the basis of this overtly hostile review, I would say that there are excellent reliability grounds for considering this work to not be reliable for history, due to the vicious criticism of its methodological, theoretical, interpretive and explanatory failures. Also, this review suggests using Escude's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Replying to Someguy1221—None of what you have said affects the fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a scholarly publisher that sends manuscripts for external review. None of what you have said affects the fact that this particular text has not been dismissed by scholars, yet was published in a scholarly mode. The reliability of the text is adequate, and at the low end of scholarly texts. Your suggestion that the text's claims lie outside of the mainstream views (which you cite from appropriate scholarly sources) affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. Your suggestion that the text's claims have not been taken up in a field where these claims are regularly evaluated affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. In the humanities, citation frequencies are very, very, very low. Works are frequently not cited because of the modality of publication. Unlike, for example, the instrumentalist social sciences who attend to qualitative business issues, the humanities are not citation metrics fixated. The standards (such as the the Australian ERA exercise) indicate that humanities fields base their qualitative judgement on esteem factors. The fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a small, low esteem publisher may indicate that the source be WEIGHTed out of inclusion, but yet again does not impact on its reliability. Secondary sources, such as a scholarly published work, are capable of processing and evaluating both primary sources and other secondary sources, there is no need to chase "Goebel," on a reliability basis—and regarding WEIGHT and FRINGE I think that you have already made excellent arguments evaluating whether the text should be used on WEIGHT or FRINGE grounds. This is no reason not to cite Lopez (1995) on reliability grounds, but, again, are good reasons to dismiss or remove Lopez (1995) and its claims on WEIGHT grounds. If you believe that there's a significant scholarly narrative covering this terrain, and if you believe another source with superior quality exists that exemplifies this better, then write it out of that source, and merely note this source also exists in the footnote regarding the write up. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I seem to have kicked off quite a debate.

I noticed Churn is referring to a statement that the Argentinians were expelled in 1833. You have to be very careful in evaluating statements like that. There were two separate populations in the Falklands at the time. There was an established settlement that had been there since 1828 formed by Luis Vernet. There was also a garrison and penal colony that had been there less than 3 months. The garrison had mutinied, murdering their commander and that mutiny had been quelled by the ARA Sarandi with assistance from the British schooner Rapid. The orders given to the captain of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio were to expel the Argentine authorities but not to molest the existing settlement. The garrison was expelled but the settlement was encouraged to remain under a British flag. As regards the settlement itself this had been established by Vernet after he sought permission from both Argentine and British authorities and he played the dangerous game of asking both to provide resources to protect his settlement. The Argentine authorities at the time did not have the wherewithall to support him but the British could and did. You will often see sources commenting that the Argentines were expelled referring to the authorities in the garrison but this is often confused with the settlement. The source you mention is not incorrect but can be used in a misleading manner if not interpreted carefully - this is one of the pitfalls of working in a controversial area.

Just to make it plain, the Argentine Government claims the settlement was expelled to be replaced by British settlers, it is this claim that is criticised in the neutral historical sources.

There is also a problem to me that I'm not sure I've entirely put at rest. I didn't chase Goebel as I seem to have given the impression, its just that I'm very familiar with Goebel. I saw in López a statement attributed to Goebel that I know he didn't make. I'm not sure I follow the argument here, are you suggesting that if I'm aware that a source is falsely attributing a claim to a cite I should not act upon that knowledge. I find it hard to accept that I'm just supposed to ignore my a priori knowledge and experience and accept an edit I know to be untrue. I realise it is WP:V not WP:TRUTH on wikipedia but surely the statement fails verifiability per WP:V if Goebel makes no such statement? I have a hard time seeing the flaw in my logic here. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Yale prof clearly says (p. 306): "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders. " That is rather clear. You may say that is wrong. Perhaps. I would say it isn't particularly neutral, but not a fringe POV (because of the credibility of the author and because I hit on it in just a few minutes of searching, meaning there are probably more articles stating the same thing out there). The statement can be added to the article with attribution. If you think it is wrong, you should do some research and dig up secondary sources of equal quality which say so and include them. You can possibly weight the anti- sentiment more if there are more sources on that side. You can't bar these based on your research and synthesis and expertise-based analysis of the source. Churn and change (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you refer to p.300 of the self-same reference, "Indeed, within three months, two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison", which chimes with what I point out. Its not that unusual for references to apparently be self-contradictory when the language us imprecise. When referring to inhabitants does he mean garrison or settlement? The author has phrased his comments in a manner open to interpretation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have clear apriori knowledge that history will only begin when the proletariat abolishes the capitalist class as a class and then proceeds to abolish itself, while eliminating the value form. I don't edit wikipedia based on my apriori knowledge because WP:V rejects the concept that editors can know by themselves. Similarly you have no capacity to read truth in Goebel. Truth is irrelevant, because your truth, and my truth, and the truth of Fred up the road conflict with Jane's truth. We reject editor's prior comprehensions of the truth and demand sourcing. The flaw in your logic is your epistemology, as if you have the capacity as an encyclopaedia editor to make informed judgements about the truth value texts in comparison. You don't have that capacity as an encyclopaedia editor—if you edit on that basis you will eventually be removed from this community. If you wish to edit an encyclopaedia on the basis of the truth in your own mind, go find another project. There are good reasons to reject reliable sources, many discussed above, none of which relate to editor's own comprehensions of "the truth." There are good reasons to reject Lopez (1995) as reliable—but only because an appropriate scholar Peter Beck demolished any scholarly pretense that Lopez received from being published by a scholarly press in the article at doi:10.1080/00358539608454322 . Notice how we had to rely on a reliable source to tell us to reject Lopez? Notice how the critical elements of the rejection of Lopez were:

• Beck's own reliability
• Beck's work being a review of Lopez, not a similar work on the same topic
• Beck's demolition of Lopez's methodology, not Beck's criticism of the content of Lopez.

We can feel free to reject Lopez's content because appropriate sources have told us that Lopez is faulty scholarship. And to reiterate, there were many reasons before the discovery of Peter Beck's review (doi:10.1080/00358539608454322) for not using Lopez—none of which were to do with reliability but were to do with WEIGHT, editorial judgement, etc. Now that we have Beck's review we shouldn't use Lopez because we can demonstrate Lopez is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again in wikipedia we have WP:V not WP:TRUTH. If I were to write an article, attributing a claim to Goebel but another editor checking my work found I had falsely attributed a statement that Goebel did not make, then that would be citation fraud or at best a genuine error to be corrected. The article would fail verification. This is nothing to do with my comprehension of what is or is not truth, Lopez's statement fails verification - ie its either citation fraud or a genuine error all the same. Why do I have to accept a sourced claim from a book that fails verification, when its not acceptable in articles. And again no I'm writing on the basis of the truth in my mind as you put it, I'm writing to reflect what sources say. Simply put WP:COMMON would indicate that if you find a claim in a book that is in error, you shouldn't propagate that error. I knew the statement was false but I checked the named source to confirm it and it was that I acted on. You seem to be arguing that if I find a genuine error in a source then I cannot object to its use - is that really what you're arguing.

And in another way, the original author was in error he quoted the text as if this was Lopez's own research but as noted in the quote, Lopez claims this was in fact based on Goebel's research. The attribution of the statement was misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. But actually, the approach that I started with and Fifelfoo carried on with, is the best one for WP, especially when you want input from uninvolved editors. What are the external indicators of quality: publisher, author, reviews? If all those seem OK and the source is relevant, then it's worth discussing how to use it. At that point if you believe the source to be in error, then by all means point that out. It's moot in this case though, because Fifelfoo found a damning review (not balanced by any favourable ones) and I agree with him that that rules out any further consideration of its potential in WP history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is I did point out it was suspect, I did point out that Goebel should be referenced. (In fact, it turns out Lopez refers to another author Vieyra who in turn refers to another author Akehurst who refers to Goebel, so it may well be a classic case of Chinese whispers in sloppy research). When I raised concerns I was accused of WP:OR and WP:SYN for basic fact checking and those same editors refused to discuss my concerns hiding behind those accusations. Really I still don't see how checking facts is either. I find the comments that I am not allowed to check claims made in a source for accuracy to be distinctly at odds with WP:V. What is it that I'm missing here? Lopez refers to Goebel but Goebel says something different. How is that not failing WP:V?

No source is inherrently reliable. If a source that would typically be considered reliable is shown to NOT be reliable in a particular instance, then they are no longer a "reliable source". OR is in regards to content added to an article, not to determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. I would be best if the repudiation of accuracy in a particular source were also published in a reliable source, but that is not essential. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Were you referring to "any random source" as not inherently or de facto reliable? Agreed. But even established news sources make mistakes. This does not make them unreliable after that. We've recently seen authors and their articles go from reliable to unreliable (Jonah Lehrer), but not the host publications as a whole... --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to newspapers, very rare instances of inaccuracy do not tarnish the overall reliability, simply the particular articles that are inaccurate. With regard to authors, rare and sporadic errors do not tarnish the overall reliability, just the particular errors. With regard to a specific book, a single erronious claim probably does not inherrently render the whole volume unusable just the specific claim that is shown to be inaccurate and any content built around or based on that inaccurate claim (unless for example it was the basis of the premise for the whole theory). Once regular or systemic errors rather than rare and sporatic, begin to appear, then the over reliableness of the newspaper/author/book then come into question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the editors involved in the DR and ended up here after editor Churn and change left a comment on that section. I agree with Fifelfoo that the Lopez book can be safely ignored as a resource and with Churn and change that the Yale source (Risman, 1983) is a much more reliable one. I 'd also like to point out that there are several other sources stating the same that Lopez's book does, like Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989) - Cambridge University Press and The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute; Laver, Roberto C. (2001) - Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (both can be seen in the DR/N page along with the corresponding quotes) The issue here is not the source used to back the statement, rather than Wee will simply remove any mention of such statement because he believes it to be untrue. I and other

editor have repeatedly pointed out that this behavior is WP:OR and WP:SYN, as have various editors here too. Luckily this is enough to put this discussion at rest and get back at improving the article that started the debate along several others. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

See [8] Laver doesn't support the claim that the population was expelled, his point is that the garrison was forcibly expelled.

See [9] Bulmer-Thomas doesn't support the claim either.

I'm happy to take feedback but having read Risman, I consider his comments sufficiently ambiguous to not support the claim that Gaba p is wanting to make. I don't have a problem with the source reliability but it doesn't support the claim Gaba p is claiming. It can be interpreted that way, equally it can be interpreted to mean the oppposite.

I also point out that despite the accusation being levelled at me, I haven't removed the Argentine claim from the article. I'm presenting it from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear god he just won't stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN. There are now at least three editors who think the statement should be included and properly sourced: Langus, Churn and change and me and two editors just here that told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN (not counting Langus and me who have told him that countless times now, which would make that four editors) He keeps rejecting sources based on his own WP:OR+WP:SYN and behaving as if he WP:OWNED several articles. He will never agree to add the statement "XXXX historian/author claims the settlers were expelled in 1833" without referring to the contradicting claim as a "documented fact" (thus disregarding the first one as just a claim), because he is convinced that the first one is not true. He will systematically delete any mention even resembling that first statement, unless the contradicting statement that they were not expelled is presented as the "truth" backed by "contemporary sources".

I ask the editors here: isn't the statement at least worth being mentioned (given that at least three sources back it up, not counting Lopez of course which has been discarded) or is Wee correct in wanting to completely obscure such a statement based on his own research of primary sources?

Also, regarding Carlos Escudé, I refer to this recent article of his where he states: "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right." I would greatly appreciate the editors here speaking their mind on this topic. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled. Thats what the article says. This isn't what you want to say and the sources you wish to use don't support you. Trying to claim that editors are supporting you - look at DRN, NPOVN and at RSN they don't. They support the edit that is there NOW. The constant personal attacks really don't do you any favours. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the sentence I added: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British." I sourced this statement with Risman 1983 (presented by Churn and change) and Bulmer-Thomas 1989 who says:

"The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833."; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3.

I believe the statement to be properly sourced and relevant enough to be mentioned. Wee reverted it on sight, the edit was gone in less than 5 minutes. Gaba p (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're being deliberately mendacious with that edit. You're trying to use it to rubbish the historical record to boost a sovereignty claim by using ambiguous language that can be known interpreted in more than one way. You would have known it was objectionable in the context of the article in that the Argentine claim is already mentioned. Yesterday WP:DRN concluded your edit was not sustainable, mine was and this is simply WP:TE by moving your argumentative and confrontational approach to a new venue. The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't. Get over it, drop the stick.

Your entire approach to editing is flawed, you seek cites only to support forcing the Argentine POV into articles. No thats not how its done, you reflect the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature and you report on the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective. 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How am I using ambiguous language when I'm stating exactly which authors sustain the claim? You were told by two different editors here to stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN and yet you keep at it. This is not a fringe theory nor is it a minority claim, it's the claim of a country properly sourced by several authors and historians and thus needs to be mentioned. You can't just unilaterally decide it's an "untrue claim" and delete any mention of it from WP.

"The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't. Get over it, drop the stick." <-- perfect example of how Wee has already made up his mind about what happened in 1833 and is using his own believes to bias several articles. Once again: please stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to respond any further to your vexatious argument in multiple places. Your edit isn't appropriate to an article on self-determination for which the Falkland Islands is a footnote. The edit warring and tag teaming has to stop. You're welcome to have the last word as usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now beyond the scope of this board. I strongly advise that each of you take two or three days off and think about how you will try and get consensus for the benefit of the encylopedia. If that is beyond you, then it will have to be DRN. Come back with any specific sourcing enquiries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Judith, I agree it had nothing to do with RSN. I've just taken the self-same issue to DRN and it came down in my favour. You and others confirmed my suspicion that Lopez was unreliable. However, he's picked up a new stick and is now starting all over again. He's following me from article to article and its getting wearing. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Slight tangent

Off on a slight tangent, you seem to criticise my use of Mary Cawkell on the basis this is a British source? I would suggest that basing criticism on nationality is a dangerous route to go down. Nevertheless I could switch to Gustafson just as easily, who is a neutral source, which has received considerable praise in peer reviews for the unbiased approach he takes to the subject see [10]. Should I be switching to this as a source? Thanks in advance Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is lifenews.com considered a reliable source?

Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

lifenews.com is probably reliable for the views of "pro-life" advocates. But this does not look like a notable criticism of PepsiCo. If mainstream media sources beyond the "pro-life movement" have reported on this criticism, then it can be included using those sources, and this source could optionally go in there too. Otherwise, leave the whole point out, for notability and balance reasons more than for verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that lifenews.com is probably not RS for this issue. History2007 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

LifeNews consistently subordinates facts to propaganda in the pursuit of its (stated) agenda. It's only reliable in the sense of verifiability for the views of people with that agenda, and for due weight purposes it cannot be admitted at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable in this context, but seek a better one; it is borderline. The site in question is both an advocacy site and a news aggregator; the statement in question is a report of criticism of Pepsi, which exists. I would be careful of using descriptors in the source, since that implies fact, and the source is not impartial; they are assumed to overstate the importance of protests. I would also add that, even if the reports are WP:RS, if the only news source is lifenews , the section would be excluded by WP:UNDUE , even if it is not disputed that the protests happened.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

David B MacDonald re: Serbophobia

1. Source.

• MacDonald, David Bruce (2002). Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6466-X.

[11]

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment

3. Content.

Anti-Serb sentiment or Serbophobia is a "historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs", otherwise described as a "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs". The use of the term has been controversial, as some sources state it is a myth used by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić during the Yugoslav Wars in order to show an unbroken history of hatred and violence against Serbs by the Croats. Some controversy with the term "Serbophobia" purportedly corresponds to its interplay with perceived historical revisionism practiced by the Milosevic government in the 1990s, and the contention that Serbian writers constructed the "myth of Serbophobia," as "...an anti-Semitism for Serbs, making them victims throughout history."

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ingrao produced a 2009 Review Article (a kind of historian's field review, or analysis of the current state of literature in a field) for the American Historical Review which is kind of the Nature of the American historical profession. The review article is located at doi:10.1086/ahr.114.4.947 and is behind a pay wall, so you should go ask the source supply people for a copy. I have a copy of the AHR in one of the libraries I can access, so I might take a peek to see if it condemns this work. If it doesn't, then it is a standard scholarly work and subject to the normal weighting concerns that any work is in an area of scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this stuff, who are the source supply people? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request can often supply materials for genuine encyclopaedic purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked. I'll bring back if I am able to get access to a copy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I got access to a copy here [12] (turns out it was freely available) but it only makes one mention of MacDonald as a footnote and is not critical of him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Centre for Peace in the Balkans

1. Source. [13]

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment, but other articles as well.

3. Content. Varies, usually op-eds by a range of contributors, but also posts links to what are mostly reliable news sources. Obviously, if a news article is linked there, we can go to the actual news source, but I'm focused on the reliability of the op-eds, particularly the anonymous 'analysis' ones like this [14], but also the articles by Michael Parenti here [15] and Diane Johnstone here [16].

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion articles are only ever a reliable source about their author's opinion, and should not be used to reference statements of fact (per WP:RSOPINION). In regards to the use of this site for any purpose, does it have permission to have reproduced those opinion articles published elsewhere? Per WP:EL, sites which violate copyright should be avoided as links or references. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About the unsigned "analysis" pieces: The web site belongs to a small Toronto NGO (The Centre for Peace in the Balkans) but its about page fails to list any identifiable individuals (like who's director or editor). So I think the unsigned pieces should be treated as anonymous WP:SPS. That is to say, useless as WP:RS for anything except the web site/NGO itself (which doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, so that part is moot). Tijfo098 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

why are 3rd party sources the current default source for wikipedia's uses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources

looking specifically for a historical wikilink that shows why this is.

when it comes to helpfulness for most people, secondary source is likely the way to go with 3rd party sources being the worst one. the longer the accuracy chain gets, and the more steps in the process, and the lower down you go, chance of mistakes and inaccuracies increase, among many many more significant and possibly less obvious reasons why 3rd party sources are the worst one to rely on.

maybe when it comes to wikipedia, 3rd party is the least worst for its purposes. it could likely be that 3rd party sources are the most available and for wikipedia's purposes (a website i rarely go for quality info), this makes sense. wikipedia had long been blocked via https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef as proof that there are 100x an order of a magnitude more helpful sites to get content from in every single topic.

im not looking for a comment, even a summed up one; im looking for a link to the verifiable source/content/talk of why this is, just out of curiosity and bewilderment.

Waveclaira (talk)

You may have misunderstood what we mean by "third party sources". They are basically the same as "secondary sources". For example, in American politics, the websites of the Republican Party and Democratic Party are primary sources, and they are also the two sides in the conflict. A book by a professor of political science is a secondary source, and also a third-party source. That's the kind of source we should generally be using for politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. "Third party" simply means that the source is (a) not just Wikipedia itself, and (b) not just the person editing Wikipedia, who is the only source for something. That is a pretty basic requirement most times. (There are of course exceptional situations, where a work around is required concerning a living person. But the basic principle is normally adhered to in one way or another.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Conan chronologies

I tried reverted back to the article to the original version from some auto-confirmed user who edit the sources are to make them reliable and notable, however, User:Shooterwalker (talk) believes they are unreliable, are the edis factual or is this user wanting start a talk about why they aren't sourceful, if they are resourceful, please notify the user--GoShow (...............) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Need an opinion on reliable sources at Conan chronologies

I posted something to the original research noticeboard, and got a few comments stating that the whole article might be of questionable notability. I got some passing support for cleaning up the original research, so I took that as enough reason to WP:BOLDly remove a lot of original research.

(The diff is here. I removed such gems as the editors' assertion that "a completely consistent timeline that would accommodate every existing Conan story is impossible for several reasons...", "The strongest point in favor of this chronology...", "it represents the ultimate expression of their tradition to date", and other opinions that evaluate the merits or weaknesses of the sources being mentioned.)

At least we're making progress. An editor restored some material, this time cited to sources. But none of the sources appear to be reliable. This includes:

• Amra the Lion published by "a group of indie film makers in San Francisco"
• Robert E. Howard, an angelfire fanpage about the author of the Conan series
• The Barbarian Keep, another fanpage. (Note: it's not clear to me, but some of this stuff has been re-published by the estate of the author, which might lend it some credibility, but still makes it insufficiently independent.)

I'd appreciate some other opinions checking in on this. At this point, there's a mild edit war going on in removing/restoring these sources. No one is clearly in the wrong here or acting in bad faith. I just think we need a third opinion from someone who is accustomed to evaluating the reliability of sources, and can explain it properly to those editors. Or to me, if I'm missing something. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

an editor had restored the content with an edit summary Kindly note that the websites linked to are actually online versions of sources that in most instances previously appeared in print. The editor would need to actually cite those previously published sources and not personal blogs, unless the blogs are verified accounts of people who have been previously published in the area of Conan scholarship. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

and books self published through Lulu, dont count [17]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I've found this one a little frustrating, in part because some parts are obviously OR/RS to me, but also some of the confusion about what the original sources are. The current revision uses a few primary sources (which I guess are reliable to some degree, but only to describe what's in them, not to interpret them or provide an independent assessment of notability). The only two secondary/third-party sources are still

• Two self-published websites (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). Am I missing something about those two websites? Because they both look patently unreliable to me, nor do they have anything to establish that they're transcribing from a more reliable source.
• "REHUPA". Its self description as an "Amateur Press Association" doesn't give me much comfort.

There's also a lot of editing going on at the page, so I'm doing my best to understand what's been fixed, and what hasn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the examples at all but just as a general comment about fan websites, a critical point to look for is how it is structured. Is it just made of un-moderated user content, or is there some sort of editing and sifting? If it passes that test then a stricter test is whether the website is ever cited anywhere else in a serious way, although I guess for a subject matter like this, things can get a bit circular. Anyway, not all fan websites are necessarily un-useable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the links. (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). There's nothing that indicates any level of fact-checking or moderation, although I'm sure fans have come to talk about these websites a lot. And yeah, at best, I think we're looking at a circular/insular community that cites each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

K. K. Bhardwaj - writings on Hemu

I am about to attempt a clean up at Hemu, a biographical article concerning the 16th-century Indian emperor. Kanwal Kishore Bhardwaj is presently cited in the article and has written Hemu: Napoleon of Medieval India. Mittal Publications. 2000. ISBN 9788170996637. It is possible that he is the same K K Bhardwaj who has also written on a range of socio-political subjects, as indicated by this set of search results, in which case he would seem not to be a historian as such. This assessment is in fact stated in the foreword to his Hemu tome - see this page - but the writer of that foreword nonetheless commends his research.

I can't see that Bhardwaj's Hemu has been cited by others - see the GScholar results here and here. There are a lot of pseudo-academic "historians" published in India whose works we know not to be reliable but who are lauded by their friends etc. And the hero subjects they write on are usually inspired by aspects of nationalism and/or religious fervour. I guess the same applies the world over, but India is usually my thing. Can we treat Bhardwaj as reliable as a historian for matters relating to the life of Hemu? - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh National Pedagogical University

Is Kazakh National Pedagogical University's website a reliable source about old turkic inscriptions ?--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Philology" is listed as one of the university's research strengths, and Literary criticism and linguistics scientific research institute is one of their research organizations. But I can't find any publications listed at their site. Kdammers (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I mean this sub domain of main site and here are the references used in articles . I think these references are enough to call the website RELIABLE. I want to be sure.--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"The user is claiming that the name Turan occurs in Turkish inscriptions based on the fringe website above. However, the website above contains much distortions that are not found in WP:RS journals and books. Even the inscriptions that are claimed to be "Turkic" have not been verified by any serious academic institution. Unfortunately the user above has been pushing Turkish nationalist fringe theory in Persian wikipedia. One of the people he is quoting is Amajolov which is part of the same institution (actually a major figure and head): [18] Аманжолов А. С. Тюркская руническая графика (методическая разработка). А.-А., 1980., Аманжолов А. С. История и теория древнетюркского письма. Алматы, 2003. However, just to show the source is extremly fringe: http://s155239215.onlinehome. us/turkic/31Alphabet/Amanjolov/ AmanjolovBiographyEn.htm "In 1957 A.Amanjolov graduated the M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University (Institute of Eastern Languages at the Moscow State University) with a major in "Türkic philology ", remained for a post-graduate work, and in 1963 successfully completed master thesis with a theme "Verbal inflection in language of Ancient Türkic writing monuments" (under professor V.M.Nasilov). In 1957-1960, and also since 1964 he was doing research work in the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. In June, 1966 the Ministry of higher and special education of the Kazakh SSR sent him to the Kazakh State Women Pedagogical Institute to the Faculty of the Kazakh Language, where he worked as a lecturer, docent, professor, and dean till September 1979. .Amanjolov is one of the leading professors of the al-Farabi Kazakh National University, in 1979-1995 he was a dean of the General Linguistics Faculty, and since April 1995 he works as a professor of the General Linguistics Faculty." But here is what thinks about Sumerians!! http://s155239215.onlinehome. us/turkic/31Alphabet/Amanjolov/AmanjolovSumerEn.htm "The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages. The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and materially affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments."!!" So this factuly of Kazakh philology department (affiliated to the institution above) is claiming that Turks resided in the Middle 5000-6000 years ago. So he is saying Turks resided in the Middle as Sumerians..not really mainstream. Many of the former USSR countries are now ridden with nationalist propaganda which has not been taken seriously in Western academic circles. Any institution that has factuly claiming Turks have been in the Middle East 5000-6000 years ago is a fringe institution. I would also point out Kazakh faculty source was also dismissed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Issyk_kurgan&oldid=271420276

So there is a lot of nationalist fringe theories being proposed by academics in Kazakhistan (as well academic of other former USSR countries). So it is obvious that the website is fringe as any academic institution (with highest members) claiming Turks lived in the Middle East some 5000-6000 is not for Wikipedia but fringepedia.--Espiral (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on French language source

I'd be grateful for input at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Mali_online_newspaper_.28in_French.29_-_is_it_an_RS.3F. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies should go here now. I read French and my assessment is that this is a mainstream online newspaper. Not just an aggregator but good for reporting about Mali. You asked whether it was good for establishing notability, what article does this apply to? Notability of what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me then - it's for establishing the notability of Yaya Coulibaly. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good for that, and you have other sources to back it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard essay

Is the essay at [19] RS for stating that Murray Rothbard directly connects Bismarckism to "right wing socialism" in an essay, or is an editor correct in stating

"However, when he uses the actual term "right-wing socialism" is he is referring to moderate "real" socialism, such as the revisionist wing of the SPD in Germany, Fabians in the UK etc. He nowhere says Bismarckism, for example, is "right-wing socialism."

The quote from Rothbard directly is:

Historians have long recognized the affinity, and the welding together, of Right-wing socialism with Conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in Fascism and National Socialism: the latter fulfilling the Conservative program of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, theocracy, and a right-wing collectivism that retained and even cemented the rule of the old privileged classes.

The Rothbard essay is also printed in several books - so the site used (Mises) is not the issue, only whether the Roghbard opinion belongs in an article on "Right wing socialism" or not at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why this is here (I speak as the other user discussing this issue). No one at that page is saying the source should not be used or has disputed that the source is good for a claim that Rothbard connects Bismarckism, and other things of the genuine right, as traditionally understood, to "right-wing socialism". The issue is about whether Rothbard is saying Bismarckism is "right-wing socialism"; and whether Rothbard is using the phrase "right-wing socialism" to refer to something different - ie the right-wing, relatively speaking, of the socialist movement proper (which he says, yes, can find common ground with conservatism) - from the term as defined and used elsewhere on the WP page itself, where it's presented as referring directly to the inherent quasi-socialism of the conservative right wing (as viewed through the eyes of the libertarian right). The problem is not an RS one, but a wider problem of a compound term with multiple uses and meanings, which depend on who's using it. N-HH talk/edits 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Pray be accurate - your position was that Rothbard made no connection, whilst I submit that using his precise words, he does make a direct and explicit connection, and that he is absolutely RS for ascribing his own words to him. And further that when one says something is a combination of the direct topic and another topic that the information may be used in the article about the first topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard explains what he means, "Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the "withering away of the State" and the "end of the exploitation of man by man."" TFD (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Pray be accurate - your position was that Rothbard made no connection". Really? What, I wonder, did I mean by saying, in my first post raising the topic on the page:

• "the Rothbard piece ... follows the broad libertarian point of saying that socialism, paternalist/traditional conservatism and fascism are all cut from a similarly collectivist and statist cloth"

Or here, in a follow-up:

• "I didn't say the source couldn't be used or that fusions or even simply closely related things cannot be referred to, nor did I deny that he was making a connection between what he calls right-wing socialism and other things including conservatism"

There it is, in black and white, TWICE. As it is in black and white that Rothbard said, "The affinity between Right Socialism and the new Conservatism became very close" ... "the Fabians collaborated closely with Tories". That is, he defines them as, and starts from the premise that they are, discrete concepts and groups, but argues they have become increasingly close. He does not define Right-wing socialism per se as Conservatism. Sorry, but this calls into question your whole reading of both others' arguments and sources on this page. Not a topic for RSN, but quite a problem. N-HH talk/edits 08:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC

Sigh. As usual I'm here because a tendentious user won't accept an archetypically reliable source. Is the BBC reliable for the statements removed here? The user in question claims we need a primary source because news media are all biased, which is so exactly the opposite of how WP works that it's laughable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right in thinking that BBC is a reliable source. We neither prefer primary sources, nor do we require the secondary sources we use to say what primary sources they have used. I've reverted the edit in question and welcomed the new user. --Six words (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote should be specifically ascribed to the person being quoted. If it is part of an article, then it is likely far too long to avoid plagiarism problems as well. It is a tad long to not be a copyright violation, unfortuneately, without a very clear attribution. Collect (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on whether the material needs to be paraphrased - I can't quite tell which quotes Collect is referring to - but as to the reliability question, yes, news pieces from the BBC generally meet our reliability threshold. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The material seems to be quoting 'BBC News', rather than a named author. I'd say that it certainly needs paraphrasing, and ascribing to the opinion of the BBC, but as a source it seems perfectly reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a reliable source. I agree that paraphrasing would be preferable to quotefarming. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think quotes are best over superficial change of copyright-protected text - (communal consensus) Wikipedia:Copy-paste#Can I copy and paste if I change the text a little bit?.Moxy (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case the words need to be specifically attributed in the text to the person who wrote them. Simple. We either attribute quotes, or violate copyright. And excessive length of a quote is also against practise. Collect (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't 'attribute the text to the person who wrote it'. The source doesn't say who wrote it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The "quote" does not appear in the cite. Not even remotely in the cite. This represents a problem. This suggests that the cite does not support the quote as given. I checked a few google hits -- and guess what they cite? Wikipedia. [20], [21] etc. etc. In short -- we appear to be quoting Wikipedia in the Wikipedia article. I suggest that since there is no reliable source for the quote as such, that it likely should be excised, no? The BBC article could possibly be used for "But some commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated." which is in the BBC article. Collect (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what the problem is. The material now in quotes was originally added by an IP here [22] - presumably intended as a summary of the BBC article. Someone has noticed that it is largely a copy and paste, and rather than paraphrase it, has enclosed the lot in quotes. What is needed is for the material to be properly paraphrased, and then attributed to the BBC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrased. The BBC is an excellent source for this sort of thing, and it doesn't take much work to use it properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Three specific and a general question regarding primary sources

General

Can primary sources generally be used for descriptive purposes?

A

• 1a. Source: Reich, Wilhelm (1980) [1927] Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis German title: Die Funktion Des Orgasmus. FSG ed.: ISBN 0374516413.
• 2a. Orgastic potency
• 3a. For example: can a section be added to the article discussing research methodologies based on Reich's own work (primary source)? A quote from the book of information that could be incorporated:

"The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from: 39-42) This can be embedded in a context based on reliable, secondary literature.

B

• 1b Source The Discovery of the Orgone: Vol. 1, The Function of the Orgasm (1942) [1940, Die Entdeckung des Orgons Erster Teil..] ISBN 1986 0374502048 FSG ed.
• 2b. Orgastic potency
• 3b. The section "forms of orgastic impotence" from the archive, can this be included, when intended as a further description of the theory (omitting medical advice, etc.)?

C

• 1c these journal articles
• 2c Orgastic potency
• 3c One editor noted these concern "primary" sources, implying they cannot be used to discuss the status of the concept orgastic potency. Is that the case? (this question does not concern whether they are new enough in relation to WP:MEDRS).--Gulpen (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For A and B, Sections and content should not be based off only primary sources:

WP:FRINGE: Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.

WP:FRINGE: The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.

WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

On C The Journal articles from of the American Psychoanalytic Association are't reliable for the current status, how could they be? 2 are 40 years old and the other is 70 years old. Plus, American psychoanalytic assocation. Also, Psychoanalysis is a fringe subject, so the journal is not reliable for saying what is mainstream.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hellnotes as a reliable source? A Patch article?

I've had Hellnotes held up as a reliable source and I'm not entirely certain that the site would be considered a reliable source. [23] The journal seems to have won a Bram Stoker Award in 2004 and been nominated, which makes me lean towards yes but I'm still slightly dodgy enough on it to where I thought it'd be best to ask. The reason is that it's been mentioned in relation to an AfD for Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story and while it would still be far too little to keep the article in question in my opinion, it would be good to know for future reference. I also want to ask whether a Patch article would be usable as a reliable source. I've never liked using the site as a reference, as it's one of those sites that a lot of people can submit to. The article in question also pertains to the same AfD and doesn't appear to be written by a staff writer. [24]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CPT

Is the description accompanying this photograph a sufficiently reliable source for making an in-article assertion that the photograph depicts what its publishers claim it depicts? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, but this seems a moot question given that the article also cites two reliable books to support this (Loewenstein's book is essentially an extended essay about his views towards Israel, but it can be assumed to be factually accurate for statements such as this given that it was published by a prestigious university press). If any reliable sources dispute this photo's authenticity, that should also be noted. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically this. It's not a reliable source on its own, but sources that are reliable accept it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm intentionally limiting this question to the first source. Loewenstein's book asserts that there was similar graffiti, but it's synthetic to make the claim that the picture depicts an example of it. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Loewenstein's book asserts that the Christian Peacemaker Teams released an image of graffiti that said "Gas the Arabs." This is a photo by the Christian Peacemaker Teams of graffiti that says "Gas the Arabs." (Additionally, Loewenstein specifies Hebron, and independent sources confirm that the Abu Heikel family, whose house CPT says is the one graffitied here, lives in Hebron.) I fail to see the problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Loewenstein's book directly supports the photo citation. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Loewenstein's book only supports the contention that such graffiti existed, and that pictures of it were taken. It's synthesis to claim that this particular picture is the one Loewenstein was refering to, and Loewenstein's text doesn't support the assertion that the graffiti was perpetrated by settlers. Anyway, wrong forum. RS/N is to establish the reliability of sources, not whether sources are being used correctly in-article. Come visit us at the article talk page if that's what you want to discuss. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless we have a very good reason (like another source) to actively believe that Loewenstein was describing a different instance of the same graffiti, nothing prevents us from assuming that the graffiti that fits the exact description and whose details are corroborated by secondary sources is the one Loewenstein described with that description and those details. Even if there is proven to be a second house with the same graffiti and that's the one Loewenstein describes, I'm not even sure that would rule out the use of the photo. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you really just unhat this section so that you could make an irrelevent comment to point at from the article's talk page? Oh, yeah, you did. That's kinda sleezy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of the criteria for RS on Wikipedia is context and whether "sources are being used correctly in-article" is part of context.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Whine if you like - you cannot close your own discussion (because isn't it funny how the discussion just coincidentally turned out the exact result you wanted even when the other two participants said the exact opposite?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth Request For Comment

This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages:

• Colin Larkin (writer)

I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that:

Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site.

This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section.

• All Time Top 1000 Albums

I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that:

By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth.

In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that:

In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic.

This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that said link is currently blacklisted for spam abuse and that requester writes for the site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Irving

is Washington Irving , a scholar to classic islamic history ? he wrote this book : "Washington Irving (1897), Mahomet and his Successors & Spanish Legends, Volume III, New York & London G.P, Putnam's Sons" and in this book he claim that aisha and ali were enemy together.--Espiral (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a good source. Nineteenth-century history books are generally iffy anyway where better research is available, and Irving wasn't even a scholar of this subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thatgrapejuice

• Source: Website http://thatgrapejuice.net/ (music review website)

Just 103 Wikipedia pages link to thatgrapejuice.net Also see http://website.informer.com/thatgrapejuice.net

• Article Misha B (UK/singer)

• Use in article: various

In February 2012, it was announced that Bryan had signed a record deal with the Relentless Records. [[25]]

She began writing poetry, moved on to rapping and then progressed to singing. [ ]

That Grape Juice said that she boasted 'originality in abundance'.[ ]

Home Run was released for digital download on July 15 in the UK, landing in at 11 at the end of its debut week[ ]

she performed an acoustic version of the song live...... on the 17 July 2012, for Ustream [ ]

I believe its reliable in context, but is it still just a blog...what is the relaxed independent opinion ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is “the UK’s #1 Urban blog”. As describes in its "About us", so no. Not RS. Problems with these sites is, even if there may be some editoria oversite and possible fact checking (and we really don't know), more than likely the author wouldn't pass criteria for use as a blog can be written by just about anyone in the business or out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau

This is in reference to several discussions that I have seen and not any one particular article. Are BBB ratings considered reliable enough to reference in an article? The page for Better Business Bureau has a neutrality flag. Andrewman327 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Their ratings should be reliable, yeah. The only issue I can think of is if they ascribe any ratings to companies that have not officially gone to them to get rated. An example would be with films, where people get concerned when a film is labeled as Unrated, when that could just be because the film director decided not to get a rating because the rating would be biased against them. The documentary Bully comes to mind in that regard. The BBB also has this issue (along with past corruption issues), so some companies choose not to go to them to get ratings and they get castigated for it, even when they might have legitimate reasons not to go to the BBB.

But that's neither here nor there. In short, yes, it should be perfectly reliable and certainly important enough to include. Silverseren^C 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the 'neutrality flag' on the Better Business Bureau article page was because the lede failed to reflect the article body in that it made no reference to the controversies the bureau has been involved in - though that seems to have been rectified to some extent. More to the point, the bureau is actually almost useless as a reference for anything it might usefully be cited for. Contrary to the impression that a lot of 'citations' have given , the bureau doesn't actually evaluate businesses - see for example the disclaimer at the bottom of this example: [26] "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing service". The only thing they are 'accredited' for is "a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints". On that basis, I'd suggest that they are possibly 'reliable', but only for a statement that they have got a vague assurance regarding something which is presumably a legal requirement anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that's very helpful.

While there might be exceptions, I struggle to think of a situation where a BBB rating would be relevant or appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Far more often, I suspect that their rating would be used to slant an article one way or the other.

On the one hand, a high BBB rating could be used to try to suppress criticism of a company, under the misguided cover of providing spurious 'balance'. As AndyTheGrump notes, BBB ratings are based substantially on how well a company handles complaints raised through the BBB. This is only a narrow view of a company's customer service processes, and offers no information whatsoever about a company's ability to successfully or correctly carry out their core business. (The BBB cannot assess complaints handled successfully by the company before they were escalated to the BBB, nor can it enumerate the complaints that were never brought because a company does a good job, for instance.) It doesn't address discriminatory hiring and firing practices, nor workplace safety, nor adherence to environmental regulations, nor their interactions with other businesses.

On the flip side, a low BBB rating could be used to 'punish' a business in our articles, perhaps largely because they didn't pay their bribe membership fee to the BBB. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about an organization or article subject's interaction with the BBB, I'm not sure there's any reason to bring the BBB into our articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal

Hi,

Does the fact that this book was published by Brill Publishers and got a good review in this journal make it a reilable source to be used in articles related to New Atheism and its criticism? How about articles about New Atheist. For example the book discusses largely about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and their works. Can I use the stuff mentioned in the book in those articles? Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The book counts as a reliable source. It appears to be academic in nature and written from a serious point of view. That does not mean that it should be the only source referenced in an article, or that it is necessarily right. But it certainly passes the WP:IRS guidelines.

Not so fast there guys. Yes, the Book appears to be a legitimate publication from a notable academic in the field, published by a company with editorial oversite and fact checking, but we don't do blanket assesments. You have not provide context with what claim it is supporting. Without that there can be no straight answer. If you make a claim not supported by the information or you attempt to lift fact or stitch together facts from bits or words...no. Please be more specific with questions please.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not finished reading the book. So far, I am trying to rephrase what the book said about what Dawkins mentions in the movie Expelled. The book is saying this:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

The question is given the credits of this book, can I use what is mentioned in the Richard Dawkins article.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We are going to use commentary on a quote mine like Expelled? I hope not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on the talk page of the article, the book is a collection of individual essays. The particular essay in question was witten by Steve Fuller, both a willing participant in Expelled and an ID proponent, and hence fails the "third-party" criterion of "reliable, third-party, published source". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I have read here it would at least be suitable for a "Further reading" section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Slate article about Republican tax policy

Source: This article in Slate Magazine

Article: Republican Party (United States) (see this talk thread)

Content: Basically the whole thing. The fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated support for raising taxes on those who pay no income taxes. Secondarily, the statement that this position is the new GOP orthodoxy. ("Which it is.")

Comment: Obviously the title and byline are sensationalistic and probably POV. It has been contended that this source is opinion and therefore not reliable for its facts. I disagree and believe that it's analysis, not opinion, but even if it's opinion, the facts are reliable because they're supported by quotes and hyperlinks are provided to the original reporting. Have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs)

Well, the author David Weigel is notable, for starters. That ramps up the importance of the article. I think it should be usable with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To repeat what I said on the TP, attribute the claims to the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why attribution might be necessary for the statement that the position is the new GOP orthodoxy, but why is it necessary for the fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated their support? In that regard the source is simply compiling other reliable sources; there's nothing "opinion" about it. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It probably isn't neccessary in that context, but (if I recall correctly) that's not what was said in the edit you originally proposed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece or news blog. Its a straight news story. As long as the claim is made with proper context this may be used to source a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is most assuredly not a news story. It's an analysis, fraught with Weigel's own interpretations. Whether it is citeable is debatable (it absolutely needs to be attributed to him, specifically, but I'd tend to believe that it can be included), but calling it straight news is flat-out wrong. Horologium (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, we can discuss that issue on the talk page. --Nstrauss (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the statements by Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ: some (Binkernet, Horologium, TheTimesAreAChanging) have stated emphatically that attribution is required, but unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen an explanation as to why. Can someone please take a stab at an argument? --Nstrauss (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is pretty standard political analysis. It isn't academic political science, it's political commentary. We would normally attribute. There is also the WP:RECENT dimension. After a year, will this point seem so important, so incontestable, so challenging? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that analysis pieces like this one are perhaps not the same as news reporting but they still shouldn't be put in the same hopper as opinion articles. Typically there's some factual content that I believe has been vetted by editors as well as some synthetic commentary or analysis content. If the factual content is well sourced then why should it not be citable without attribution? (Re WP:RECENT, that's an argument that should probably be raised on the talk page, as it doesn't bear on the reliability of the Slate source.) --Nstrauss (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First glance. Second glance. Third glance. It is an "opinion article" as used on Wikipedia. Opinions should always be ascribed to the person or group holding the opinion, and not stated as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia101. Collect (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a blog. It is not an "opinion piece". It is not an editorial or Op-ed. It is not an analytical piece disseminating a report, a graph or a document. The article is: "Republicans for Tax Hikes - Republicans have finally found a group they want to tax: poor people." By David Weigel. Weigel is a Political reporter for Slate. The section is found in the Home/Politics section (I believe that means it was featured ). I can't even find anything that would suggest Slate is a partisan publication. This is a straight political report. It may be used to reference fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not always. The inclusion of the word "rarely" at WP:NEWSORG implies that there are exceptions to the rule. Plus, there are evidently some people who disagree with your assessment that this is an opinion article. And even if this is an opinion article the statements by the candidates and the WSJ are of course facts, not opinions. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual elements of a reliable source opinion piece can be stated without attribution, unless the fact is challenged elsewhere. In the latter case one would return to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The material is, however, opinion in the case at hand, and this is not one of the "rare exceptions." As always, where opinions are involved at all, best practice is to always cite tham as opinions and not cite them as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a intrinsically difficult area. I'm just listening to Paul Mason on [Newsnight]]. It's intended as serious commentary. In the Guardian [Timothy Garton Ash's columns are on the level of scholarship. Gary Younge's work is serious reportage. Zoe Williams is serious when commenting on government policy. Marina Hyde is only maintaining a slight distance from gossip column territory. Hadley Freeman is an airhead. It's a continuum and the paper gives you no help in drawing lines in the sand. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I must be missing something. How is this opinion? I read it. I checked out the author and the publication. It isn't Huff post or the Guardian. Is it partisan? How are you arriving at the conclusion that the piece should be treated with attribution as with an opinion piece?

1. It is a signed opinion piece in the Politics section. It is not a list of facts, but interpretations by the writer. 2. Weigel writes opinion columns such as Can canvassers from David Koch’s Tea Party group beat Democrats on the ground?, Today on the Great, Pointless "Crippling Candidate Gaffe" Beat , Meet the Guy Who's Re-Weighting Polls to Show Romney Way Ahead of Obama and the like. If you do not see these as "opinions" rather than "facts" I fear for the future of Wikipedia. 3. He posts specific and clear opinion in those opinion columns like Can we trust a president who merely says he's "in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply"? I don't know if we can., Well, either Romney is betraying Ryan's great idea ("we need this debate, and we will win this debate"), or voters aren't hearing enough of it. , If you want more 1980 mythbusting delivered to your door, consult Nate Cohn. , So, I'm not surprised to see many conservative talkers calling on Romney to stand by the comments etc. 4. the article in question says For decades, the "lucky ducky" number, the percentage of Americans that pay no taxes, never rose above 30 percent. The Bush tax cuts pushed it over 30 percent, but not too far over. Then, in 2008 and 2009, the economy collapsed. The government responded with, among other things, new tax deductions. making clear that in his opinion the Bush tax cuts caused the increase in the "lucky ducky" number - which is a matter of opinion and not of fact found in reliable sources. Thus the author routinely writes opinion columns, this is an opinion column, hence must be treated as an opinion column - the opinions should be ascribed to the author and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Simple, and not especially onerous I should think. Collect (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It is not a signed opinion piece and NOWHERE on that article does it state that. IN FACT the bottum of the article clearly shows his title: David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. It is not an opinion or an analysis, but the reporting of an interview from the Wall Street Journal in this case. You are however, making an interpretation without demonstration and are using an opinion of what you think. The titles of article are not an indicator of being an editorial or opinion. And I checked and they are as well articles not editorials. Stick to the facts and not what we think. The context is accurate to what is written.

The paper asked Huntsman if "the half of American households no longer paying income tax—mainly working poor families and seniors—should be brought onto the income tax rolls."

He agreed, crediting the GOP's current front-runner for vice president, Sen. Marco Rubio, with the insight that "we don't have enough people paying taxes in this country."

The Journal called this position the "new GOP orthodoxy," which it is. When he announced his presidential bid two weeks ago, Perry told a room of conservative activists and bloggers that "we're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax." He was following on Bachmann, who'd just told the South Carolina Christian Chamber of Commerce the very same thing.

This article is a Relibale Source to reference these facts and I find nothing showing the author as an editorial writer for Slate.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Israel's Tribes Today (2005) — Steven M. Collins

Hi, is the much talked book, Israel's Tribes Today (2005) by Steven M. Collins a good source to be used on articles concerning Asian history? 117.207.55.94 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not even close. It's pure fringe blither. The author is not an expert in the topic and the book has not undergone any sort of scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The electoral commission

A user has tried to insert into the BNP article a more up to date membership total, the source used is the ellectorial commisions BNP submited membership accounts. It has been susgested that this is not RS, so is it RS or not? There is no eividacen this has been challenged ir that any one has said the number are fraudualnt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The commission I think just takes the annual accounts it doesn't validate numbers. So the commission is a reliable source, but the BNP accounts may not be ----Snowded ^TALK 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"We verify that those we regulate comply with the rules and we take undertake fair, thorough and proportionate investigations so that voters can be confident that those who fail to comply are held to account." from thier website.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

could be, but remember the BNP have been playing all sorts of games with their accounts and the recent donation/legacy which saved their bacon is problematic. Its far from clear that membership figures fall within that - I couldn't see anything specific when I checked. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission posts parties' returns on its website. It does not edit them. It does not guarantee their accuracy. It does not check them, unless there is a suspicion of fraud, and even then, it will be only be able to carry out a minimal forensic audit of finances. Given the thousands of organisations that are registered, it is not feasible for the EC to check every detail of a party's return; it relies on the responsible party official to file honestly. The rules the EC verifies are for the regualtions for registration and financial accountability only (e.g. to prevent parties appearing as others, to check electoral spending). Emeraude (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission is clearly referring to party finances,[27] and makes no claim to verifying the membership numbers which the chairman has chosen to present. Curiously the auditors qualified the accounts, which means that even self-reported financial information is unreliable. Unsubstantiated, self-serving first party statements are never reliable. Instead we should use the membership numbers published in The Independent. TFD (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What source does the independant use, also the independant source is 2 years out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ferdinand porsche

ferdinand porsche was born in liberec czech republic which makes him a czech NOT austrian-german like your page states. he might of lived in austria and germany later in his life but he was czech. just wanted to point out your error.

Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Arab Nyheter at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)

The passage in question is 'According to Arab Nyheter news agency "Al Jazeera has reported that Saudi security authorities arrested a suspect bird, who worked for Israeli intelligence (Mossad) and was flying in Saudi airspace to gather information on the country." [18]'

Is Arab Nyheter a reliable source for reproducing faithfully what Al Jazeera might have said? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

xin.msn.com

Xinmsn is an online source largely used in articles about Singapore TV serials, movies and such. Is it a reliable source? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put the link in the header. And if you don't have a content question it is not really possible to help a whole lot, but at a glance I see nothing wrong with that website, but you would need a specific article or link being used for a specific statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, kinda sorry about that, this is my first time posting here, so i don't really know the dos and donts. My question is, is xinmsn to be trusted? Can the info be generated by any average Joe? Because it don't really look professional and trustable, yeah.... Usually the content this source supports are things like semi gossip and stuff like that, you know, celebrity news. Don't really think its an rs. But if others say so....Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The site itself is only a host site it seems which aggregates information form numerous news sources. I random check of various article shows that many are attributed to the news source not an author so it may have some effect on RS. But if the article is from a well qualified news agency of note with a good reputation, I see no reason the stories themselves can't be used but we only use one source and this really isn't it. Like Yahoo news hosting a story from the Associated press. A good thing to do would be to trace any article use on the site back to the source for varifiability etc. But I persoanly wuld use it as the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the current top story on the site [28]. If you used this it would not be cited to xin.msn but would use the url as the link. The story's source is Francis Whittaker and MSN.com. A check of the name shows the author to be credentialed. Francis Whittaker - International Content Editor at MSN London, United Kingdom | Writing and Editing Current: MSN International Editorial Solutions & MSN Ireland, International Content Editor at MSN, Writer at Freelance Past: MSN EMEA and MSN Ireland, Content Editor at MSN, Great British Food and Speciality Food Magazines, Editorial intern at Aceville Publications Ltd. [29]--Amadscientist (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of BioMed Central

Hi. I added a fact with verifiability into the green coffee article. Specifically:

Japanese researchers, studying green coffee bean extract consumption in mice, concluded that it "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver."

This content was removed by another editor, claiming to violate WP:MEDRS. To my eye, the source (BioMed Central) appears reliable and it apparently publishes hundreds of peer-reviewed, open-access journals, including the one in question "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine". I have re-added the material above, but would like to hear other editors' opinions on the matter. Additional context... The green coffee article is small and a popular sub-topic seems to be the purported health impact of consuming it. There are several other studies represented and cited in the article. Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine is an open-access journal which charges researchers around $2000 for every single article they publish. Institutions which are "support members" get a discount of 15%, and some prestigious institutions are support members. So the researchers have to shell out money from their budget to publish. Their impact factor, per their own website, is 2.24 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmccomplementalternmed/about). In a list of top 60 free or partly free journals: here, they don't make the list (the list is based on more than impact factor, and you can probably quibble about the way they rate; nevertheless it is a rough guide). In the not-all-that-accepted-by-mainstream field of "Integrative and complementary medicine", they are ranked sixth by this site: http://openbiomed.info/2011/07/integrative-complementary/ I can pull up more official numbers and figures, but this seems at best a medium-quality journal in a low-rated field. Yes, the field has its fans, but it just isn't mainstream. As to your specific question, I don't believe a source being an RS is a yes/no thing. There are degrees to reliability, and you can use these indicators to evaluate how reliable this source is compared to the rest in the article, and those potentially available for use in the article. Churn and change (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the journal or publisher, the article is not reliable for medical claims as it is a PRIMARY medical source making therapeutic claims. SECONDARY medical sources, being systematic reviews of experimental publications are necessary to make therapeutic claims on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

BioMedCentral is not actually a source; it is a portal for academic journals. The source you are actually citing is BMC Comp and Alt. Med. and is a PRIMARY SOURCE, not a secondary source. It's prestige as a journal is not great, but not negligible, but nevertheless, as a primary source, there may be contradictory studies, we wouldn't know from this paper.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A journal is neither a primary nor a secondary source. That determination depends on the article. Primary sources are discouraged for a variety of reasons—incomprehensibility to lay people, possible cherry picking giving undue weight to minority or fringe views, unconfirmed conclusions which could be statistical flukes or experimental errors—and so on. I am not able to see any blanket ban on primary sources for anything in the med-rs guidelines, but may be I missed it. Churn and change (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that you could NEVER use a primary source, but the study would have to be not just a good study, but worthy of being mentioned by name in the article (for instance, the discovery of the structure of DNA, widely held to be a seminal paper), and attributed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While the exclusion of primary sources for making therapeutic claims sounds good, is it actually mentioned in the WP:MEDRS guideline? Churn and change (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Second sentence of the lede (a therapeutic claim being a medical claim), second sentence of Assess evidence quality. This kind of cherry picking is why we have MEDRS in the first place. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How does one get from there to the categorical statement primary sources are not acceptable for therapeutic claims? WP:MEDRS has lengthy guidelines on when and where primary sources can be used for medical claims. Editors should research the claim to see if it is cherry picked; reach a consensus on whether what is cited is obvious from the source; and ensure it has sufficient coverage to be worthy of inclusion. I also don't see anything special about "therapeutic claims" in the guidelines; they are the same as any other medical claim, which means pretty much anything pulled from a medical journal. WP has the WP:MEDICAL disclaimer in place of explicit policy on treatment claims. Churn and change (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback. Note that I'm not attempting to make a therapeutic claim. My claim was that research was done, published, and that the researchers concluded something. To my mind, a medical or therapeutic claim looks like "Substance X may help you lose weight.*ref*", while a non-medical claim would be "Researcher Y studied Substance X and concluded that it may help you lose weight.*ref*". A worthwhile distinction? Applicability of WP:MEDRS aside, the primary source issue is the more important principle. Noted. --Ds13 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This, "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver." is a therapeutic claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, can't see your distinction. EVERY research article available on the BioMedCentral portal has research that has been done. There are thousands of research articles, most making points of extraordinary specificity, and alternate views of a larger argument. If you want to add what the medical literature claims to Wikipedia, you might want to include "review" in your search, to get review or compilation articles instead. Determining what scientific consensus actually is for Wikipedia purposes is a little more complex. Good luck.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Source in Restaurant Stakeout

I noticed this posting on the Realityblurred website was used as a source to add content into Restaurant Stakeout regarding whether it is really "reality" or not. However, I am highly skeptical as to whether it is reliable source and wanted some other feedback. Thanks, SassyLilNugget (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. This is just a very elaborate fan site from a credentialed journalist as an indepentent review of these shows. It appears to have no real editorial oversite or fact checking judging by its disclaimer: "disclaimer: "The materials on realityblurred.com's web site are provided "as is.". This is self published material: "[R]eality blurred is produced, owned, and operated by Andy Dehnart, at least until someone offers me enough money to sell out." The most the contents of this site could be used for is in referencing information about Andy Dehnart. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Voice of Russia

There is a problem at the Battle of Aleppo (2012) article wether VoR is reliable source or not.

Two users (User:I7laseral and User:Sopher99) claimed that the VoR is not a reliable source. This was the VoR's article that was problematic - [30].

Now, they claim it's not reliable because some "non-neutral" words were used in the article, namely "merceneries". However, number of sources reported that there are actually number of merceneries involved in the Syrian civil war. Check the Free Syrian Army article and foreign combatants. Croatian and Serb merceneries are fighting within ranks of the FSA for example. This was confrimed by high-ranking Croatian general. Thefore a word "mercenery" was used for a reason.

Now, as for Voice of Russia, it is a government owned multi-language broadcasting service. Just to make a note, BBC is government-owned as well, which doesn't mean it's not reliable. VoR is being broadcasted in 33 languages and it was established in 1929 (83 years ago). VoR is member of the European Broadcasting Union and the International Committee on Digital Radio Mondiale. So it is very prestigious broadcasting service.

--Wüstenfuchs 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

-Voice of Russia is a propaganda news-source (or rather one which filters out facts to support the Russian government's view).
-The other thing that I had a problem with was the use of "liberate". (by the way there are no mercenaries in Syria, there are foreign fighters (but not hired))
-Voice of Russia constantly takes the Syrian government claim's as fact, as oppose to normal RS which just takes claims form both sides as unverified until witnessed by their own reporters. Sopher99 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not propaganda news at all. The term liberate is just a term. And no, VoR doesn't constantly takes claims as fact at all. They made their own report. Also there are merceneries, Croatian general and military circles in Belgrade (in Serbia) confrimed there is a lot of Croatian and Serbian veterans in Syria fighting for money. Snipers are braging to earn $2,000 daily due to "rich foreign donators". Who are does foreigners I can't say, I can only assume they ment Saudi Arabia or Qatar (see the Free Syrian Army article). --Wüstenfuchs 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So the Syrian army weren't killing rebels they were only singling out the dozen mercenaries in the whole of Syria? Thats a laugh. Sopher99 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No. VoR: "Dozens of insurgents and mercenaries have been killed or wounded." --Wüstenfuchs 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can be clear here: VoR should not be used if there are more neutral sources that cover the same material, for the same reason we prefer sources from the NYT, WSJ, or the like over those from the Adbusters or the Washington Times. a13ean (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no any. They are the only one to discuss the subject. --Wüstenfuchs 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the relevant points are probably not worthy of mention. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For example the Guardian published an article about high number of foreign fighters and way they entering the country. That is very relevant for the article. VoR published this article about plans of the Syrian Army which is relevant for the article as well. The number of newspaper publishing certain story doesn't influence importance of an event. Also, the number of foreign journalists in Aleppo is very small and one report therfore doesn't mean the whole case is irrelevant. --Wüstenfuchs 20:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the number of sources that verify something does impact upon importance in the Wikipedia sense. I have no idea how many journalists are there nor how one quantifies "very small", but the usual suspects generally have the bigger issues covered, eg: Reuters and AP, as do the major newspapers/TV etc. VoR is far from being reliable in this context: you need something better. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nalwa as a source for Hari Singh Nalwa

Is Nalwa, Vanit (2009). Hari Singh Nalwa - Champion of the Khalsaji. New Delhi: Manohar Books. ISBN 81-7304-785-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) a reliable source for historical information in Hari Singh Nalwa. The article subject is controversial and the author not merely shares the name but heads the Hari Singh Nalwa Foundation Trust. A profile of her can be found here.

I am particularly concerned about POV pushing - the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims. The source is used extensively in the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...and? Why is it important to you that one religion is offended by a figure from another religion? It is not POV pushing on the part of the author. POV pushing would be a concern over an editor....say, coming to the RS/N and making a statement like you just did. There is no claim for context.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information. I would still use it with caution and not for large chunks of discussion, but it seems to be fine for sourcing on this figure. Talk page will determine inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Amadscientist, I've undone your closure of this. As far as I know, this noticeboard is not set up so that one person answers and the matter is done. By definition, noticeboards are for multiple people to comment.

For example, I'd like to point out that your statement doesn't make sense. You say that "being linked to the foundation....gave the person...more context to being reliable for the information." Perhaps you're misunderstanding Sitush, but the point is that the author of the book in question is the head of a Foundation whose purpose is to say positive, great things about the subject of the book. That almost certainly makes it unreliable except for very basic facts. For example, if Microsoft publishes a book, it's not a reliable source for anything other than very clear internal info, like number of employees, the name of the head of the company, it's yearly profits, etc. It wouldn't be reliable for claims about much of its history, how good it is compared to other companies, etc. So, I have to say that we should strongly consider removing the source for only the most uncontrversial information. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You may note that I made it clear that the source has limited use, however, yes...the book was made more reliable than just having been written by a random author that is not a historian. Assumption that the book just says nice things is just that, an assumption, but the fact is the author has some link to a foundation involved with the historic figure and this is as appropriate a use as any other religious foundation writing a similar book. It isn't going to be something that should be used for large chunks but still has value. (By the way, I re-thought the closure and came back to re-open, although yes, the closures with these types of issues are done often) This looks like a religious fight, but have at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush please elaborate on:

(1) Who you do you believe is POV pushing. Explain how you believe the author has violated this Wikipedia policy. Are they posting their published book information on Wikipedia?

(2) How is this subject "controversial"?

(3) Define "Sikh hero" and how that relates to an RS.

(4) Explain why "this man" does not go down well with Muslims and how that relates to RS.

(5) As an "expert" in this area, are you aware that many Sikhs share the same name?

(6) And finaly, please give the claim being made that this is being used as a reference for.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The author cannot infract WP policies and I really do not understand where you are coming from with this because I've never suggested that the author was editing the article. Perhaps you have not bothered to refer to it? The POV pushing, if any, comes from WP contributors selecting certain sources to reflect a POV. This has been common on Indic history and caste articles, and also on those relating to current events. There is evidence on the article talk page that such issues have been raised over a period of many months, if not years. Hence, it is a controversial subject.

Similarly, I do not understand what you are getting at with your third or fourth points - they seem to be some sort of irrelevant debate concerning semantics.

I do not claim to be an "expert" in Sikh history, although I have a fair amount of experience in Indic articles and their POV/sourcing issues. The endogamous nature of many Indic communities gives rise to potential issues when it comes to reliability: a lot of "bigging up" of history goes on, whether written down or transmitted orally, and in fact I rather think that the majority do so. Alas, many British Raj authors took those community histories as fact, and those authors too are regularly considered to be unreliable. Nalwa clearly has a close association with the subject, is probably herself a Sikh, represents an advocacy group that promotes the subject of our article, etc: these are all substantial alarm signals. Although she is not a trained historian nor, it seems, translator (she relies a lot on Persian texts etc), she is, of course, theoretically a valid source for her own interpretation ... but that does not mean much at all here. Your comment that "While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information." is almost the exact opposite of how we usually evaluate.

As for your sixth point, well, it is being used for numerous claims, although slightly fewer than 24 hours ago because I have removed some copyvios (I'll reinstate in non-copyvio form if appropriate but am not wasting my time doing so until the reliability is ascertained). - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Amateur research, not reliable for history unless there are a number of positive reviews by academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Damaging rewrites?

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

---

Note: I posted this at one of the relevant wikiproject talkpages, and someone suggested I should also mention it here.

I'm concerned about these edits - the user seems to be completely rewriting large chunks of numerous articles (usually character and plot sections), often eradicating references, eg and eg.2. There are also potential WP:TONE problems. Can someone look into this, or take and describe it better wherever needed? (It looks extensive, and I have no experience in this topic area). Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Source reliability

On Talk:Jesus Seeking opinions on sources I posed a question to obtain opinions, and I though I should also ask here given that people here are really familiar with sourcing issues:

• Bart Ehrman: 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press

• Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61 (statement is about himself vs others)

• Michael Grant Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications

• Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 William B. Eerdmans Publishers

• James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) ISBN 052104460X Cambridge University Press

• Richard A. Burridge Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Publishers

• Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press

The specific statements made by each source are on the talk page there, as well as the clarification that there are no opposing sources at all that dispute what these sources say. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Reliable Sources for 'Criticism' Purposes

Hi,

I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book "Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What one article does is not an excuse to do so on a different article. This is a broad stroke question asking for a blanket answer. We don't do blanket answers on RS/N. This is a matter of local consensus at the article. Please discuss with editors there and collaborate towards a consensus. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not asking for blanket answer. I am targetting two specific cases:

1. Do you find the criticisms posed by a 20th century missionary on Muhammad a reliable third-party source?

2. Do you find Steve Fuller's criticism of Richard Dawkins a reliable third-party source? --24.94.18.234 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion for WP:NPOVN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)