Archive 75 ← Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 → Archive 85

CIA world factbook as a source for statistics and demographics

Recently I have noticed the CIA world factbook being used as an authoritative source about demographics and population statistics in articles - I have noticed it in articles about Latin America, but I am sure it i used elsewhere. I don't personally consider the CIA factbook a reliable source for demographics in Academic contexts and my gut instinct is that it shouldn't be considered one in wikipedia either. But maybe other people have different perspectives. In a Latin American context it is problematic because it applies racial and ethnic categories that are not recognized as valid in the countries to which they are applied. For example it for Mexico it breaks down the population into "mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%". The Mexican Statistics Intitute INEGI does not count people according to racial categories, only according to ethnolinguistic criteria. It also does not use the category "mestizo" as an ethnic category at all. The concept was abandoned because a large body of literature documented that the concept of mestizo in Mexico is not based on descent but on cultural factors and that the same person may be white, mestizo or indigena in differnt contexts. How then does CIA get information about these categories in Mexico? And why does it find it to be informative to apply categories to Mexico that mexicans do not themselves use? Where does it even get the information? And what to do when the factbook conflicts with other studies for example in the ethno-racial categories it applies?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, is widely cited in academia, and is a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Where is this reputation established? Which kinds of academia uses it? A sociologist or demographer who used these data would be laughed out of academia.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Start laughing - [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of those are about how to construct internet data mining programmes. others are studies criticizing it.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. It's time for you to lose, gracefully. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The CIA world factbook is a reliable source. In cases where the ethno-racial demographics are contested by other reliable sources, discuss both. Seek high quality academic sources discussing the immediate ethno-racial demographic problems, and discuss the problem of different sources using high quality sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Where does the factbook get its demographic breakdowns from? How can we classify it as a reliable source without knowing this? How do they count mestizos? Which criteria do they apply and how do they get acces to the data? Do they make their own censuses? I would contest that no statistic can be described as reliable unless it lays this out plainly for everyone to evaluate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Almost certainly from old census data. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
So we have no way of knowing whether this information is from when the Mexican government last time used mestizo in a census (in the 1930'es)? How is this reliable information? How is it even information?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This issue came up some while ago on the NOR board over the use of the terms "Hamitic" and "Bantu" to categorise populations in Rwanda [2]. The issue was somewhat different, since the only claim being made was that the term "Hamitic" has not fallen completely out of use. Clearly the CIA are using categories that are widely considered obsolete. Part of the problem is that there is no indication of where these racial categories come from - what is the source of the statistics? Probably old censuses (as suggested above). I've no doubt that the CIA is reliably reporting data from the source. In that sense it is 'fact checking', but it can't be used as 'proof' that Tutsis are in fact Hamitic or that 60% of Mexicans are in fact mestizo. The sources of the categories are not themselves idicated. Of course, it may be true that "the concept of mestizo in Mexico is not based on descent", but that does not mean that people do not self-identify as mestizo, which in itself is significant. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well studies say that generally they don't (its mostly pejorative these days) or that they do sometimes and at other times they don't. Byut the problem is that noone is counting it anymore. What does it mean when you say that the factbooks statement cant be used as proof that 60% is mestizo? Can it be put in a table format (there is a table of "ethnicities" in Latin America based mostly on the factbook)? How can factbook data be compared with other statistics when we don't know whether we are comparing apples with pears? Can it be stated with "according to the CIAFACT book 60% are mestizo"? Should the problems with the source be laid out in the open "according to CIA 60% is mestizo, but..." ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Also the factbook and the tables based on it in wikipedia clearly claims that "mestizo" is about descent, not selfidentification.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant I don't think it should be used in a sentence to say that mestizo is a meaningful category and that 60% of Mexicans belong to it. I agree with you that the factbook is problematic since there is no indication of where the information comes from. The was true odf the Rwanda example too. I'd suggest it can be referred to as a statistic used by the CIA within its classification system. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
"According to the CIA world factbook..." should be fine; the larger concern isn't the reliability of the source, but rather it being used to synthesize thought. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook is a convenient one-stop collection of statistics. From what I've seen, it usually gets its data from the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, and national agencies of the country under discussion. If you can get data from these sources directly then such data would be preferable and more likely up-to-date. Lambanog (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think either the World Bank, IMF or UN count mestizos in Mexico. The Mexican bureau of statistics haven't doen so since the thirties.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The CIA has access to qualified demographers who can make estimates of change from old censuses and other sources. They try to publish the same kind of info for each country, even though the stats different countries collect vary. For example, in the UK the most recent census asked about religion so the CIA can base its figures on that. In France the census doesn't ask that, so the CIA has to estimate. Their estimates seem to be in line with recent survey data. And the French do not like at all the "American" idea that their ethnic composition can be calculated. (They are all French.) So as to reliability, the CIA figures are to be regarded as reliable. Whether the figures present interesting or relevant info, and how to give them due weight in the encyclopedia, has to be considered as a separate question. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
you write: "And the French do not like at all the "American" idea that their ethnic composition can be calculated. (They are all French.) So as to reliability, the CIA figures are to be regarded as reliable." This looks like a non-sequitur. You are saying that the figures are reliable because they force other countries to fit into an American racial scheme that is not applied in those countries?

(unindent) I do understand your concerns. Let me try again to say what I think is coming out as consensus here. If - if - it is useful in an article to present figures about how many people of different ethnicities live in a country, then the CIA book is a good source for that. If it isn't a useful thing to include, then don't include it. How useful it is to have ethnicity figures is a very big and debatable question - it's been debated at great length in many countries - not directly a source quality question. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that any actual case for the reliability of the factbook has been made. The only argument boils down to "its the CIA therefore its reliable". How can it be a reliable source for demographics when it doesn't even inform us about what definitions it operates with or how the data is arrived at? If it is useful to rpesent data about ethno-racial demographics then how can the factbook be a reliable source about that if we don't know how they define the groups or compile their data? This is what reliability in an academic context means. You are telling me that we should just take their word for it because they have good demographers. Good demographers know that in order to understand statistical data knowing about the how the material is constructed is crucial for the value of the data. The CIA factbook maybe good enough for high school assignments but I just don't think it is even close to be sufficiently reliable enough for wikipedia, much less for academic purposes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook is reliable according to wikipedia policy for reliability. Hermeneutical analysis of the internals of a document, such as, "How can it be a reliable source for demographics when it doesn't even inform us about what definitions it operates with or how the data is arrived at?" is not part of the wikipedia reliability policy; it is part of academic demography. If you can find previously published scholarly articles specifically attacking the CIA Factbook's demographic reliability, and, demonstrate that this is the consensus amongst academic demographers, then you may have a case in point. If you are, in fact, an academic demographer capable of analysing the internals of the document, I eagerly await your peer reviewed article criticising the research of the CIA Factbook. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That is ridiculous and patronizing. Of course we are allowed to question sources according to their academic suubstance - that IS a part of WP:V and WP:RS. The factbook is not peerreviewed so where it's reliability as an academic source is established I don't know. Of course no demographers have written studies about this, and they aren't likely to because it is not considered to have any academic credibility that scholars need to engage with. At best we could say that it is presenting a fringe view that is not accepted by general academia. I can find plenty of academic sources problematizing the ethnic categories and labels it is applying and showing that it makes no sense to take census data about them for face value. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually here[3] is a study that problematizes the factbooks classifications, and the porblems of making such classdifications in general. (Later peerreviewed published as[4]) He mentions that that factbook data had to be suplemented with data from the Library of Congress because the latter: "I used the CIA’s World Factbook online for a “first pass.” The Factbook’s numbers and designations were then compared with those in Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB) and, when possible, the relevant Library of Congress Country Study (LCCS). Significant discrepancies between these sources prompted an investigation using country-specific sources. For a number of countries and particularly for Latin America, LCCS provides a nuanced discussion of the nature of ethnic identity. These were often used to modify the Factbook’s listing. For example, for choices about whether to code “whites” separate from “mestizos” in Latin America I followed LCCS when possible." It also states about the factbooks coverage of Africa that "In general they are remarkably ethnically diverse, and Africans often manifest their multiple ascriptive affiliations in highly complex, situation-dependent ways. At the time of access, at least, the Factbook was unusable for much of the continent, providing either uninformative or superficial breakdowns (e.g., Bantu/Nilotic, or a statement about the total number of ethnic groups in the country)." and It asks "What about many Latin American countries, where the lines between “indigenous” and “mestizo,” and between “mestizo” and “white,” are often vague to the point of being imperceptible or situation-dependent." and "Moreover, sets and subsets are not the only problem we encounter. Should Mexico be divided between “indigenous” and “mestizo/white,” or should “white”

be broken out?" This should amply show that as a source of ethnic demographics it is not an unproblematic source and is not thought to be so by the academic community.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as encyclopaedists we have to also accept that James D. Fearon doesn't reject the Factbook. So it is reliable for wikipedia policy. Attribute, and then compare and contrast with higher quality academic demography studies. If you find a higher quality study, and the material is being used in a table on a non-demography article (say, for example, "New Zealand" as opposed to "Demography of New Zealand" or "Theories of race and ethnicity in New Zealand"), replace. But "Demography of New Zealand" or "Theories of race and ethnicity in New Zealand" should have both. The Factbook isn't as utterly rejected by the scholarly demographic community as, for example, David Irving is in History. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly the factbook is not discussed or used as a source in the peer-reviewed version of the paper, only in the version presented at the conference...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA World factbook is a reasonably reliable and respected source for country statistics. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and easily meets WP:RS. If we rejected every source which an academic source had disagreed with in some way, we'd have to discard most academic sources too. Disagreements are the lifeblood of academic writing. If you have specific demographic studies, you can certainly add those too. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, accountability and integity is the lifeblood of academic writing- the factbook has neither. Where is this reputation for fact checking that people talk about documented?·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Accountability and integrity are important to academic writing, as they are in many areas of human endeavor, but they're not what drives academics to propose new theories or ideas. As for the rest, please review the comments above, where this is addressed. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to read WP:IDHT at about this point in time. Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard editors have given you a very very strong indication that a source is treated as reliable by the wikipedia community according to wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of being disruptive? I have heard you and I disagree with you. DO I recognise that consensus here doesn't agree with me? Yes. Does that mean that I should stop arguing my point or stop trying to make you produce better arguments than "it has a reputation for factchecking[citation needed]" or "The CIA has good demographers"? no. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As the official US government agency in charge of publishing this sort of information, their degree of acceptance is pretty high; presumably near universal within the US government, and rather good without. Here are 8700 hits on google scholar.[5] --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As a source that is so widely used by scholars and other clearly reliable sources, it easily exceeds what is asked for at WP:RS. No source will have universal acceptance, and this one doesn't, but it surely passes the RS standard—including "No source is universally reliable." First Light (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The editor bringing this thread mentioned that the Factbook claimed that Mexico was 60% Mestizo. If this were a secondary source we could trace it back to the research conducted and then check academic sources that commented on the methodology. In my experience, if there is one error or questionable statement in a tertiary source, an editor will put it into an article. As an aside, U.S. intelligence has not always been accurate in the past. TFD (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

I've been gradually working through the above article, trying to improve the sourcing, getting little or no help from regular editors to the page. The area is embattled and anyone arriving is perceived as having an agenda. I have a disagreement with User:AnonMoos on whether a particular fact (or facts in general) need to have a source. My view is that the whole area is potentially contentious, so every statement needs a good source. The last section in the talk page is where the discussion is going on. I'd really appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos has clarified through discussion on our talk pages that he doesn't have a disagreement with me about this matter. I do have a further query though. The section in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is supposed to be derived from United Nations Regional Groups#Special cases#Israel. I went there to see if I could pick up the sources, and found that it was drawn fom two primary sources plus an article that I said "could well be fine". Now I have looked at the article referred to (this article), I'm not sure. It's in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. It seems that this is an undergraduate journal, so wouldn't be an appropriate source for Middle Eastern history. I don't actually know how contentious the facts referred to are. Which UN international group Israel is a member of, which it applied to, when it was admitted, are presumably simple matters of public record. But we are getting into interpretation here, and apart from anything else I would like a secondary source just to guide the wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law is a student publication listed by Ulrich's as not peer reviewed. The standard of sourcing expected in your article is scholarly works. No wikipedia-definition scholarly work can be published in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law as Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law fails to meets wikipedia's standards of scholarly behaviour. Treat as a popular work equivalent to magazine articles or popular books. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a student project and shouldn't be used as a source (except regarding itself). Zerotalk 22:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith -- I think you are mistaken. Why do you say it is an undergraduate journal?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Woah, woah. The Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law is a reliable source for information about law. Much like the Harvard Law Review, it is produced by law students (not undergrads), but that's what many (most) law journals are produced and edited by. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused now and would like further views. After I posted, I realised that "undergraduate" was an error. The journal is written by students. The author of this particular piece has letters after his name - is it relevant what qualifications? It's not peer reviewed but is on a par with other law journals - is that right? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if it's not peer-reviewed, it is probably on a par with other law journals written by law students that aren't peer reviewed. That isn't a really great place to be though. I would maybe consider some material, like book reviews and the like, from such sources acceptable, but I doubt I would go much further than that, particularly regarding matters which are significant enough that they would likely be referenced in some better source. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I learnt a lot from law review, thanks Hipocrite for the link. First, no wonder I didn't understand about student law reviews: they didn't exist in the UK till recently. Second, the articles are divided into those written by law professors and the "notes" written by the student editors. The piece under discussion is written by the "notes editor". So I'm tending towards John Carter's opinion on it. WikiProject History has quite strict guidelines for history articles. Ah, but is this a history article? Interminable debate follows. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you all grasp what a big deal it is to hold a law review editorial position. In my humble opinion, and probably the opinion of most lawyers, virtually all law reviews and law journals are reliable sources. For at least the past three decades, they have been edited by doctoral students. Now, as may be seen from this sample page, wink, wink, an editorial board consists of third-year students (including editor-in-chief, executive editor, managing editors, and article editors), with second-year students who are associate editors. The articles are generally written by the top legal practitioners and law professors, with perhaps one or two student-written articles. Law professors are given courseload credit for advising the review or journal. The articles are edited by the top law students. Membership is competitive. Editorships are highly coveted as they are elected by their peers. The editor-in-chief (sometimes called the president) is considered the highest honor for a law student; President Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review first. One of the factors that makes a lawyer notable is having edited a law journal. Please, if you don't believe me, go off-wiki and just ask any lawyer. Claiming that a law review is not reliable because it's not edited by scholars is downright false. J.D. students are budding scholars. If you have a problem with a particular article, address that by itself. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am also not sure that you all know how a law journal really works. May I tell you from personal experience? Law professors, law students, recent grads with brand-new J.Ds, and practicing lawyers submit articles. Sometimes, a law review may have a symposium or conference on a topic, say the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or New York energy law, for example. The editorial board votes on what goes in, with advice of a law professor at the law school. The article is chopped into sections, and each grunt associate editor checks the citations and fixes the stilted grammar. If plagiarism is found, or the text is too garbled, it goes for a vote back at the editorial board. Then the article and managing editors have to sew the article back into a coherent whole. Once in a while, a scholar is so well-respected, that the citations are checked, but the wording is not tampered with. It goes to press. The students go to teach law or clerk, and the professor gets tenure. Everyone lives happily ever after. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this addressed to me? Because I know precisely how competitive law review membership is and I am saying without a doubt that the top law reviews are undoubtably reliable sources. My two caveats stand, regardless of the prestige or competitiveness associated with law reviews. Articles in law reviews produced by schools outside of the top (or near top) and law reviews which are not influential on the discipline should be reviewed on a case by case basis. For most of those cases, a cursory review of the review or the article (especially when considering the author!) will conclude handily that the review is a reliable source. The second point holds true for almost any field journal. I am prepared to say that the American Economic Review is an unimpeachable source on economics but claims made there in a cursory fashion or on a subject far removed from economics should be reviewed more carefully. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The actual articles written by legal scholars in established law reviews are citable as the highest level academic sources in the field, as contrasted to case reviews or whatever miscellany is written by the students, which can still sometimes be considered reliable, though not to nearly the same extent. Examine a law review, and see who writes the articles. Examine a law professor's cv, and see where they publish. Law is peculiar, in that the students do the editing of the faculty.It's a thoroughly accepted system in US legal scholarship and education. (I have seen law professors complain about it from time to time, but all the individual corners of the academic world are unbelievably conservative about their own practices.) But with all respects to my good friend Berian, I consider 3rd year JD students as atudents, not scholars, any more than 3rd year grad students of anything else. Nor do they generally become scholars when they get their JD. It takes a good deal of further education, usually obtain by a LL.N. degree or a clerkship, just as in other fields. But regardless of this, it is accepted in the subject that they do the editing. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, DGG and Epeefleche. Yes, fact-checking can be obsessive, as the example Epeefleche provided proved. LOL. Yes, DGG, I agree with you, so I corrected my statement to be "J.D. students are budding scholars." Bearian (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for such helpful explanations. I wonder if I can get some more specific opinion about this case. It is this article in relation United Nations Regional Groups#Special cases#Israel and information relating to Israel's membership/non-membership of the UN regional groupings in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. That Israel is currently a member of WEOG is public record and should be sourceable from lots of places. How Israel was blocked from membership of the Asian group may be more controversial - I don't know. I feel it needs to be worded precisely following the general practice in RS. I'm noting everything said above about the status of law review articles. It may also be relevant that the author already has his JD and is "notes editor". Google Scholar doesn't show up any other scholarly papers by him. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is that source being used to verify? Use difs and quotations. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It originates with me adding fact tags in this diff through Israel, Palestine and the United Nations#1960s. The specific issue is the sentence "In 1961, the regional groups were created at the UN. From the onset, Arab countries blocked the entry of Israel to the Asia group." (should of course read "from the outset", I thought I changed that). The objection on the talk page was that sources didn't need to be added because the issues were spelt out in fully-sourced linked articles; RSN regulars have posted on the talk page to say that sources are still needed. I found that the Gruenberg paper was the only thing that looked like a reliable secondary source in the linked article sections: United Nations Regional Groups#Special cases#Israel and WEOG#WEOG Member States#Special cases. I am trying to improve the sourcing in the whole article and have had a previous thread here when an editor suggested it would be better to write the article up from primary than from secondary sources. The fact in need of sourcing may well be true, of course. I want to work from standard histories and would be grateful for any advice on how to select them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Prince Paul of Yugoslavia

Is the website http://www.dosmanzanas.com/2010/02/pablo-i-de-grecia-padre-de-la-reina-sofia-mantuvo-en-su-juventud-una-relacion-con-un-famoso-prostituto-de-la-epoca.html a reliable one for the claim that Prince Paul of Yugoslavia was "linked as a gay lover" to Denham Fouts? DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dos Manzanas is a Spanish language news site whith a focus on LGBT news, entertainment, and events. It is already cited multiple times on Wikipedia. It is not a blogsite, rather invites readers to post comments much like other media outlets do. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it ever cited on Wikipedia as WP:RS, or just what 'some news sites are saying'?--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the translatee article in question: Paul I of Greece, Queen Sofia's father, remained in his youth a relationship with a famous prostitute of the time♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so how is that WP:RS? I can understand someone referring to it as 'Spanish language news site Dos Manzanas claims that Paul I of Greece, Queen Sofia's father, remained in his youth a relationship with a famous prostitute of the time', but it doesn't make sense to present the statement as factual with Dos Manzanas as support, since Dos Manzanas doesn't qualify as WP:RS. If the statement is true it should be visible in a proper WP:RS, and that's an important verification step.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Dos Manzanas is not a reliable source regarding historical Yugoslavian figures. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
No indication this site meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS dispute on baptism pages

Update: User Walter Görlitz is now saying 'I don't care about your petty WP:RS issue as it's moot. I am no longer going to discuss this with you' (diff).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Esoglou keeps inserting sources ...", says Taiwan boi. And he quotes a single case in which I restored a text that in his combative exchange with Walter Görlitz he had eliminated with what seemed an inadequate explanation: I thought, and still think, that Taiwan boi's personal opinion is an insufficient basis on which to declare that one particular view is "scholarly consensus" and that any other view should be excluded. His elimination of an adequately sourced view is what I noticed, not the individual sources that he deleted along with the statement of that view.
Taiwan boi also accuses me of referencing sources (plural) published in 1911 as published in 2009. Why does he attribute to me personally the dating of that one source as 2009? I didn't do it. It was in the text that I merely restored.
I think that the source that Taiwan boi deleted is far more authoritative than the one he preserved, a text written in 1915, only four years later than the 1911 date that he considers antiquated. In the list of sources that he preserved it is dated as 1979, 45 years after the death at an advanced age of the author. In his list of sources it is also attributed falsely to a different writer. The Schaff text that, unnoticed by me, he deleted is far more authoritative than the text by Robertson that he defends. Robertson was only expressing, as the text explicitly states, the 1915 Baptist view. And yet Taiwan boi largely bases his opinion of "scholarly consensus" on Robertson, as he indicated here.
I don't blame Taiwan boi for the misleading indication of the date and authorship of the 1915 source. It was in the text before he edited it. Yet he makes accusations against me, not only of misrepresenting the date of the 1911 source - indeed of misrepresenting several 1911 sources - but of doing so repeatedly ("keeps referencing them as published in 2009"). Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Please address the issue. You restored those mis-dated sources repeatedly, after I had already told you they were misleadingly dated. You have failed to demonstrate that any of them meet WP:RS. All you keep saying is 'I think that the source that Taiwan boi deleted is far more authoritative than the one he preserved', but WP:RS are not determined simply by what you think; the guidelines are there for a reason, and we all have to follow them.
  • I did not largely base my presentation of scholarly consensus on Robertson, I have cited a dozen modern scholarly sources, including standard Bible dictionaries, as well as lexicographical and archaeological works. Furthermore the alleged 'Robertson' reference (which is not actually from Robertson at all), was mis-referenced by another editor (I did not enter the text which appears in the reference template), who didn't even attribute it to the same edition from which I was quoting (I wasn't quoting the 1975 edition).
  • Contrary to your claim, the text 'This seems to say that to baptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use' is not Robertson's text giving the Baptist view. It was written by Lindsay, giving the Reformed view. It is also a view which is found in relevant scholarly literature, including standard Bible dictionaries such as the Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments (2000), so it is not a fringe view and is worth including.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is foolish of me to continue this discussion, but I am doing it to confess that earlier today I did overlook the fact that I restored the more-than-one-view version of the article a second time. On that occasion too, my thought was not on the Schaff source. I was just foolishly thinking that that was the simplest way to draw Taiwan boi's attention to the fact that he had already reverted four times in the same day. Yes, I know I should have chosen some other way of putting an end to it, and I apologize. And I suppose that twice is "repeatedly", as Taiwan boi likes to call it. (My previous intervention was not a restoring of the Schaff citation but only an undoing of the selective bowdlerization of the quotation.) Why Taiwan boi insists on using the plural when talking of the 1911 source I don't understand. I agree that "WP:RS are not determined simply by what you think; the guidelines are there for a reason, and we all have to follow them." The only difference concerns the identity of "you". It wasn't Taiwan boi's fault that Baptist Robertson's quotation was attributed to Lutheran Dau. But it is Taiwan boi's mistake now to claim that Baptist Robertson's quotation (on page 416 of the book) was by Reformed Lindsay (whose article begins only on page 418). Perhaps from now on I will be wiser than to repeat the foolishness of continuing this discussion. Esoglou (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Look at the bottom of page 419 here. Start reading at 'This seems to say', and keep reading to the next column. Those are Linday's words in Lindsay's article. They are not Robertson's words in Robertson's article, so please stop attributing them to Robertson and please stop claiming they appear on page 416.
  • Do I take it from your last comment that you are now refusing to discuss this issue further?--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, here I am, indulging you once more, and I am doing so again to say that I was wrong, at least in a way, and that you were right, at least in a way. It seems that each of us was, in a sense, both right and wrong, because we were talking about distinct footnotes. I was talking about the footnote attributing to Dau Robertson's words on page 416, "It is to be noted that for pouring another word ‘’(ekcheo)’’ is used, clearly showing that baptizo does not mean pour". You were talking about a different footnote attributing, again to Dau, what Lindsay wrote. Esoglou (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It applies here. If you are citing one scholar quoting another... you have to make this fact clear in both the article text and in the citation (the reason being that sometimes even the best scholars will misquote or take a quote out of context)... suggest something like "Lindsey quotes Robinson as saying "blah blah blah" <ref>Lindsay, ''name of Linday's publication'', publisher, date, p416" (quoting Robinson, ''name of Robinson's publication'', publisher, date, p.xxx)</ref>. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but that is not the subject under discussion. The subject under discussion is whether or not certain sources are WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been misquoted. What I said was that Taiwan boi was emphasizing the wrong point. His point is that John Calvin is not a reliable linguistic source which is not the issue. He is a capable linguist and is making a theological point. On the grounds of theology he is quite reliable. He also seems to think that Webster's dictionary is not a reliable source on the English language. This is why I think that when he makes an appeal to WP:RS he is making a moot point. He has an agenda and is pushing his own WP:POV and I won't be participating in discussing it since he's not discussing out points. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Further: I have requested that he offer balanced opinion rather than delete WP:V sources from reliable sources, but he continues to hang his hat on his bad arguments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You did not offer Calvin as offering a theological point. You offered him as a lexicographical WP:RS on the meaning of the Greek words baptw and baptizw. Furthermore, as I have already said, I have also included John Calvin's view in the article referenced as John Calvin's opinion rather than as an authoritative lexicographical WP:RS/AC (diff). The subject of this discussion is not me deleting WP:V (I have included them), it's a matter of whether or not the sources to which you appeal are WP:RS. I have never made any claim that Webster's dictionary is not a reliable source on the English language.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources you include in the article still have to meet WP:RS if you want to appeal to them as you are doing. That applies regardless of whatever you think I may have done.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... at the moment this seems to be an argument between two editors, both of which are sure they are right. That tends to mean that both editors get "locked into" their views and start edit warring over them (its easy to do... I know I have been in similar situations). The best way to break the cycle is to get other editors who know the topic involved, so a proper consensus can be determined. Suggest you file an RfC to draw attention to the debate. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an argument about sources. I provided the sources. Here again are the sources under question:
  • The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: is this 100 year old work 'current scholarship' on the lexicographical meaning of the Greek words baptw and baptizw, and is it 'current scholarship' on baptism in the apostolic church; does it meet WP:RS for these subjects?
  • The 1910 'History of the Christan Church' by Philip Schaff: is this 100 year old work 'current scholarship' on the lexicographical meaning of the Greek words baptw and baptizw, is it 'current scholarship' on baptism in the apostolic church; does it meet WP:RS for these subjects?
  • John Calvin's 16th century work 'Institutes of the Christian Religion': is this 450 year old work 'current scholarship' on the lexicographical meaning of the Greek words baptw and baptizw; does it meet WP:RS for this subject?
  • The 1881 'Immersion proved not to be a Scriptural Mode of Baptism but a Romish Invention' by McKay: is this 130 year old work 'current scholarship' on the lexicographical meaning of the Greek words baptw and baptizw, is it 'current scholarship' on baptism in the apostolic church; does it meet WP:RS for these subjects?--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is TLDR material. This board is for the evaluation of sources, not of editors or behavior. If you have a source you would like evaluated, please provide the source, and what the source is used to cite. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"If you have a source you would like evaluated, please provide the source, and what the source is used to cite." You have failed to note "what the source is used to cite." Please provide what, specifically the source is used to cite, using quotes and diffs. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I already did that in my first post, and provided the diff. The quote using Calvin as a lexicographical authority was "The word, as used in the New Testament, does not indicate a particular mode", the diff is here. The quote from the 1911 Britannica article was "total immersion ... only came into general vogue in the 7th century", and is at the same diff--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you somehow suggesting that the meaning or definitions of words that are 2000+ years old have changed in the past 450 years? Even if you could somehow prove that these 2000+ year-old words have changed definitions in the past 450 years, I think you would be hard-pressed to say that the underlying theology, which is still relied-upon by several denominations, has not changed. So one again you are misdirecting attention to an issue that is not at the centre of this debate, well at least not for anyone but you. As for being a reliable source, Calvin is a reliable theological source and that is what is at the centre of this debate for me. Webster's is a reliable lexical source, even in an edition that is nearly a century old, when discussing a word that is 2000+ years old. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As I have already explained, I am saying Calvin is not a lexicographical WP:RS for the Greek word in question. If you believe he is, you have to prove that he meets WP:RC. I have said absolutely nothing about Webster, whose English dictionary is irrelevant to the Greek word in question.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
So you are taking a strict line that sources for this subject need to be very recent? If so then please note this is not necessarily or even advisable for all subjects. It depends on the subject. Wikipedia does not demand this level of strictness for all subjects. For a fast moving science like most branches of medicine, yes, but for things like this, not always. For generalists I can see no "obvious" reason why this subject would need to be strict, although perhaps on etymologies there is a case to be made. I'm afraid that judging how important the age of the sources are is therefore more of a content discussion. That is why someone has suggested an RFC in order to break the deadlock.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please understand the dispute. I am following WP:RS which states that articles should use 'current scholarship' (please read WP:RS). The criteria in question are:
  • When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.
  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
  • The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
Neither Calvin nor the 1911 Britannica nor Schaff's 1910 church history are 'current scholarship'. Furthermore, a quote from Calvin is being appealed to as a lexicographical authority, when the work by Calvin which is being used is not even a lexicon, Calvin was not even a lexicographer, and the quote in question is contradicted by standard modern lexicons. Greek lexicography has changed dramatically in the last 100 years, let alone the last 450. The authoritative Greek lexicons all date to less than 40 years old, most of them to less than 20 years old.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan bot, the words "current scholarship" do not seem to appear in WP:RS right now. But anyway, in what you post above I draw your attention to the qualifying words such as "usually", "some", "may", "when", "if", "often", "will depend". In other words this does not strictly say what you say it strictly says. If you think about it, it would indeed be impossible to write policy to cover all cases. Please do not take this the wrong way but ignoring words like these, which were put there for a reason, is a sign that someone is verging on WP:Wikilawyering. I am sure that's not where you are going. I can see you just think you are right and you are pushing your argument to the limit in the hope of avoiding a deadlock on the article talk page. Everyone on this noticeboard understands what it can be like.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
None of the qualifying words you quote actually say we don't have to pay any attention to WP:RS if we don't want to; they are all explaining how to discern what is and what isn't WP:RS.The WP:RS says very clearly that WP:RS should be used when available. When it says 'Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available', I don't believe it's saying 'It doesn't really matter what you use, just throw it in' (please clarify that you're not actually saying we can ignore WP:RS). Wiki-lawyering would be haggling about how to interpret this policy, but no one is disputing how to interpret this policy. See also WP:RS/AC. If we don't have to follow WP:RS, what's the 'Reliable sources/Noticeboard' for?--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the fine points in what I write or in what the policy says will certainly not help? Pretending things are black and white is one of the most common types of argument to NOT get anywhere in my opinion. I hope to find time to go look at the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not ignoring the fine points of what you are saying. The policy says we should use WP:RS, and defines what constitutes WP:RS. Are we agreed on that? I am not pretending things are black and white. I agree that the WP:RS guidelines provide carefully nuanced instructions on how to identify a WP:RS. But you are not actually even assessing their sources to determine whether or not they are WP:RS, you are simply saying 'Well we don't actually have to use WP:RS'. If that's the case, what is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard for? I came here asking people to check these sources for their reliability and verifiability, and despite the fact that all other requests on this noticeboard have been responded to by people checking the sources in question, no one responding to my request has checked the sources in question. Why is this?--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, instead of posting there I will post here at least one more time:
  • i see others citing more recent references.
  • Your own sourcing really does not seem incredibly superior.
  • And, just to remind you, WP:RS does not say what you say it says.
I really get the feeling this posting is a waste of time for the notice board and an attempt to avoid discussion with other editors interested in the subject. I know it is difficult, but please collaborate. There must be a wording/sourcing combination you can come up with which will suit everyone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Who are the others who are 'citing more recent references' than me? Are you saying that a references from the 16th century, 1903, 1910 and 1911 are more recent than a reference from 1996?
  • On what basis do you say that my sourcing 'really does not seem incredibly superior'? They cite a 16th century theological work as a lexicographical authority, even though it isn't a lexicon. I cite a standard modern professional Greek lexicon. How can you say my source isn't superior? They cite out of date archaeological and historical sources from 1903, 1910, and 1911. I cite modern scholarly commentary and archaeological evidence from the last 20 years. How can you say that isn't superior?
  • All I am saying about WP:RS is that WP:RS says we should try to use reliable sources, and that it defines what reliable sources are. Are we agreed on that?
  • I have done my best to collaborate. You cannot claim I am trying to avoid discussion with others. I have discussed it with them repeatedly. In return they have both said they refuse to discuss it, yet you claim I'm the one trying to avoid the discussion. I've commented on one of their talk pages and had my comments completely deleted.
  • I have included in the article the sources used by the other editors, I have simply identified them as the claims of previous scholarship which is now outdated. They do not want to accept this. Yet is is verifiable. The 1903 archaeological source cited by them is contradicted flatly by modern archaeological sources. The 16th century theological work they quote as a lexicographical authority isn't even a lexicon and is contradicted by all standard modern lexicons. The 1910 and 1911 historical sources they cite are contradicted by modern historical scholarship. The sources they want to use as authoritative, are out of date and are not authoritative. Please help me understand why you are arguing that using out of date sources is better than using modern sources.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan boi rather than going into more details and repetition my point is that the talk page of the article, and the article editing history, is not quite what one would expect from your report, and this is in addition to WP:RS not saying what you pretend it says. Although some of your concerns are valid ones for discussion, you appear to want more than just a solution to those and you do not appear to be looking for any solution which will suit everyone's concerns, and that appears to be the real problem. So basically this is a content dispute and I'd say finding a compromise within WP policy, which pleases all parties, would be relatively easy once you positively engage with other editors. For now, you appear to be trying to use this forum as a way to avoid constructive discussion, which is why others are also saying they find discussion with you not to be functioning. Please consider WP:WL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please not accuse me of deception? In what way is the talk page of the article and the article editing history 'not quite what one would expect from your report'? You cannot claim that I am 'pretending' WP:RS is saying something it doesn't say, because I have quoted it directly. If you read the Talk page and article you will see that I have repeatedly offered compromises, which have included using all the sources provided by the other editors. I am certainly not trying to use this forum as as way to avoid constructive discussion. I came here with a question regarding sources and that question has still not been answered. I am simply following Wiki policy. Others are refusing to discuss it with me further simply because they disagree with me over the validity of the sources. Since there was a dispute over the validity of the sources I came to this page which is supposed to resolve such disputes. It is now apparent that this was the wrong place to go, and I will now advance to the next level of conflict resolution.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained, but apparently you do not want to understand it. Please seek a solution, not more drama, because the simple fact of the matter is that no forum on WP is likely to help you on this type of dispute, even if you are totally right, because there are no managers or judges to appeal to for content disputes like this. The RS concerns you have simply are not big enough to justify the approach you are taking. Please consider WP:IDHT, WP:DRAMA, and [7].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The odd thing is that his changes were precipitated by his addition of sources to the talk page. I requested that he add them to the article. Instead of doing so, he removed a number of sections instead and when pushed he pulled out the WP:RS card. His only argument is that they're not "current scholarship". He seems to believe that the definition of ancient words has changed in the past 450 years, etc.. There has been a lot of hostility and lack of collaboration so far. I'll leave the rest of the debate to the discussion pages of those two articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not true. I did add my sources to the article. I removed sources which were not relevant (the definition of 'immerse' in scuba diving), and included your sources but referenced them differently. It is completely untrue to say that there has been lack of collaboration from me. I have included almost all of your sources (referenced differently), except for one. In contrast you and Esoglou have removed almost all of my sources, and told me that you refuse to discuss the matter any further.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm the only one who has refused to discuss things with you because you keep using a standard which is in my opinion invalid, vis: Calvin is not a reliable source for discussion theology. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Esoglou has said 'Perhaps from now on I will be wiser than to repeat the foolishness of continuing this discussion', and is refusing to discuss it. I have never said that Calvin is not a reliable source for a discussion on theology. I have said that the work cited is not a lexicographical work, and that its statements are contradicted by modern lexicographical works. This is verifiable.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "I cite modern scholarly commentary and archaeological evidence from the last 20 years". I've only seen the citations on the talk page. They're not added to the article. The correct way to add your reliable sources would be to use them to counter the claims of these earlier reliable sources, not to delete them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please look. They are added to the article. Not only that, but I wrote a version of the article which included my sources and your sources. If that has been reverted, I am certainly not responsible.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It's your statement that this topic is merely a lexicographical discussion is where the flaw in your argument begins and ends. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I have never said this topic is merely a lexicographical discusion. Please stop accusing me falsely.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans

Resolved
 – It seems a wording change could fix it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are this book and the Chronicle of Fredegar reliable sources, as long as the relative passages remain unspecified, for the statement that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans"? I would have thought that the answer is obvious, but another editor, who does not even allow a tag to be attached to the statement, maintains at great length (as can be seen here) that they are valid sources for the statement. If this is the wrong place to raise the question, please direct me to the right place. Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, if I look at the discussion on the article talk page it appears LoveMonkey would probably not agree that this is what the discussion is about. For example he says "What I mean by this is that Charlemagne for example called himself an Emperor of Roman and Ruler over Romans." You are focusing sourcing of the exact words. He is saying that another wording might be better and he seems open to other wording suggestions. For example he says "If Esoglou can find a better way to express this point of the political power struggle behind the issue of the filioque please do it, if not leave it alone. It happened and it needs to be addressed in the article." So this does not appear to be a case for RSN, at least not at this stage of the discussion. I would suggest trying to draft a new sentence of what it is that LoveMonkey is trying to say. From his lengthy talkpage descriptions it does not sound too uncontroversial to say that Charlemagne and his folk started to be referred to as Romans in one sense or another. It sounds like you need to define what sense that way, not try to argue about all senses as a generalization.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. It is uncontroversial to say that the Franks were for a while the leading power in the Western Roman Empire, but not that they were called Western Romans. As you know, the text that LoveMonkey insists on is: "The Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans of the Holy Roman Empire (for example see the fabricated or pseudo genealogy history of the Franks contained in Chronicle of Fredegar). However the Franks and Germans where not 'Romans' (in the sense of being Mediterranean or originally of the ruling class in ancient Rome)." Even John S. Romanides, who is the only writer I know who repeatedly uses the term "Western Romans" (calling the Byzantines "Eastern Romans") insistently distinguishes between the Franks and his Western Romans. The Franks seem to have never been called, either then or now, "Western Romans", not even when the Frank Charlemagne was crowned Roman Emperor.
As you also know, I suggested to LoveMonkey that he rephrase his statement. The simplest change would be to omit this remark about the Franks being called Western Romans and to keep the rest, so as to say: "The Western Roman Empire was subjected to the Franks and Germans with the coronation of Charlemagne on Christmas Day 800 ...." That would indeed be "a better way to express this point of the political power struggle behind the issue of the filioque", without trying to express the point of the power struggle through an unfounded claim that the Franks were called Western Romans Esoglou (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou I see your point about there being no simple literal equation between the Franks, strictly defined, and Western Romanitas, strictly defined, but I think you probably can find a way to accept something more of LoveMonkey's point. (Both terms were being widely used in different overlapping ways. The political entity was called both Western Roman and Frankish. The Roman empire of the west was being referred to as Frankish in the east. And the political entity was equated in some ways with its ruling peoples.) Anyway, I can't see that this is an RSN question because LoveMonkey himself is not defending his exact wording, which is what you are saying is not sufficiently sourced. It seems to be a question of how to get a wording compromise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, of course. The Empire that was ruled (at first) by the Franks would, as you say, naturally be named after its rulers, the Frankish Empire, and was referred to as such in the east. But the Franks, as such, as distinct from the inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire as a whole, were certainly never called Western Romans. There is no evidence even that the inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire as a whole, were ever collectively called Western Romans.
LoveMonkey is in fact maintaining his statement that the Franks were/are called Western Romans, even when he talks at such length of matters such as Byzantine-Norman wars, Napoleon, the Crimean War, Hitler invading Russia and Mussolini invading Greece. Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. are not what started the Filioque dispute. Charlemagne, on the other hand, can well be said to have relevance to how the dispute arose. But the alleged denomination of the Franks as Western Romans, being unfounded, has nothing to do with the dispute. Only sourced related facts should be given in Wikipedia, and it is quite simple to fix the problem. As I have proposed, just start with the verifiable fact that, with the coronation of Charlemagne, a rival for the title of Roman Emperor arose against the Byzantine Roman Emperor. That is what I have proposed, that is the essential point. The statement about the denomination "Western Romans", the statement for which the two cited documents are alleged to be reliable sources, is not only false but obscuring. Are the two documents in question reliable sources for the statement? If they are, I accept the statement. If they are not reliable sources for that statement, the statement can be removed, with advantage not only for the accuracy but also for the clarity of the text. If LoveMonkey can accept this, the problem is resolved. Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This can now be marked as RESOLVED. LoveMonkey has accepted that the statement about the Franks being called Western Romans may be omitted. Thanks to all. Esoglou (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Washington Wire by WSJ?

What exactly is the Washington Wire? Is it a reliable source with fact checking or just notable opinion? The Washington Wire is published by The Wall Street Journal. It describes itself as follows:

The Washington Wire is now available on-line in the Blogs section of The Wall Street Journal web site. Does it also appear in the printed newspaper? Is it WP:RS? Is it less reliable than The Wall Street Journal? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is RS by WP standards - it is sourced to the Washington Bureau of the WSJ, meaning it has an editorial parent. WRT items identified as gossip or rumor, the rule is the same as for any RS source - gossip and rumor must be cited as gossip and rumor, and should be avoided in any BLP if they impact a living person directly. Reader respnses are affected by the RS section on "newspaper blogs" - that is, opinions in the "comments" category do not meet RS standards. Collect (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question: I see that the Washington Wire is used at a source in the article on Sarah Palin in the section on 2008 vice-presidential campaign. The article uses the ((cite news)) template. Is this correct, or should ((Cite web)) or ((Cite journal)) be used instead? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Remarkably unimportant - as long as the cite itself is given correctly otherwise. Though "journal" is likely inapt, "web" or "news" are pretty much not a problem. Collect (talk) 18
49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

Moved to here from WT:Identifying reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article that is having POV issues and I have to admit that it is a little on the WP:FRINGE side, but there is WP:UNDUE weight towards debunking instead of being neutral. There is an article Here in regards to Zecharia Sitchin and it was right away squashed as not WP:RS. Opinion? - Pmedema (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiktor Poliszczuk as a reliable source?

On this article, Olha Basarab, User:MyMoloboaccount keeps inseerting a lot fo claims sourced to Wiktor Poliszczuk. Per his bio, Poliszczuk's "His on-line biography does not list any current affiliation with a university.[2]" Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin has categorized Poliszcuk's work as belonging to the "parascientific tradition" with "no scientific value," representing "national and anti-Ukrainian views" and noted Poliszczuk's use of exaggerated numbers of Polish victims of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.Recent Polish Historiography on Polish-Ukrainian Relations During World War II and its Aftermath) (also here). pages 4-5 and 11-12. Written by Rafal Wnuk, Institute for National Remembrance, Lublin. Ukrainian academic Yaroslav Isayevich, director of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, has characterized Poliszczuk as an "expert practitioner of anti-Ukrainian hysteria".([8] Jaroslav Isayevich, member of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, director of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, interviewed in the newspaper Den, No. 47, March 15, 2003) Canadian historian David Marples describes Poliszczuk's as detailed although taking the form polemic, similiar in one-sideness of views regarding UPA to the Soviet perspective (Heroes and villains: creating national history in contemporary Ukraine David R. Marples Central European University Press 2007 pp 207-208).

Poliszczuk's books are self-published. Generally he has been kept off wikipedia article but User:MyMoloboaccount has apparently been trying to put his opinions into this article. Indeed, he is even using Poliszczuk's claims to contradict those of a clearly reliable source, Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak (1988). Feminists despite themselves: women in Ukrainian community life, 1884-1939 Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, University of Alberta pg. 164

Any comments would be welcome.

Rafał Wnuk isn't in IPN anymore as far as I know and has been criticised for uncritical view of UPA IIRC. It's no surprise he criticises Poliszczuk as both have come to clash over each other's claims.

Neverthless Poliszczuk is a politologists specialising in history of political thought who studied Ukrainian nationalism movement and has PhD from University of Silesia on this topic. Polish catalog of scientists in Poland notes him along with his scholarly publications here [9]. According to the bio has over 200 articles and publications on numerous subjects. He is cited in numerous other scholarly publications as well--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wnuk have come from fringe Polish nationalist writers, AFAIK. The wikipedia article about him: Rafal Wnuk tells us he is legitimate. Please provide links or sources to critiques of Wnuk's work. Poliszczuk's books are self-published. They can be found in libraries, even academic ones, but so can other self-published polemics. Poliszczuk is prolific and wrote a lot; this doesn't make him a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Academics publishing in a self-published mode should be viewed with the utmost suspicion as they have ready access to reviewed academic publishing modes. SPS is enough for me to consider this work unreliable. If his work is used in properly reviewed academic publications by other academics, or if it is published in the academic reviewed mode, cite those publications. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPS. Should be limited to the Wiktor Poliszczuk article only, and even then used with extreme caution. Jayjg (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The material in question(Podręcznik nacjonalisty ukraińskiego. Polemika z książką Romana Wysockiego pt. Organizacja Ukraińskich Nacjonalistów) is not SPS. In fact it was published in scholarly material Materiały i studia z dziejów stosunków polsko-ukraińskich published by Księgarnia Akademicka(Academic Books), along material by other scholars. The book in question is collection of scholarly articles on Polish-Ukrainian relations by various academicians and was made under direction of professor Bogumił Grott from Jagiellonian University[10]. The publisher belongs to Jagiellonian University and releases numerous science magazines,publications, books[11]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just an article by Poliszczuk is included in a collection of essays does not make it a reliable source of information. It simply means that his opinions are notable enough for inclusion in a collection of essays about Ukrainian-Polish relations. The book's title, Materiały i studia z dziejów stosunków polsko-ukraińskich, is translated as "Materials and Studies from the history of Polish-Ukrainian Relations." Poliszczuk's opinions are also described by David Marples in his book "Heroes and Villaine: CReating National History in Contemporary Ukraine" without being endorsed by him (indeed, Poliszczuk's work is described as belonging together with the Soviet perspective, is "polemic" and "one-sided").
Significantly, in the table of contents Poliszczuk's work is placed under the heading "RECENZJE I POLEMIKI" - Reviews and Polemics." Thus, in this book Poliszczuk's claims are not presented as fact and should not be treated as such for the purposes of wikipedia articles. (the table of contents is here: [12] look down to page 229).Faustian (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the above finding, would it not be a good idea to remove information referenced to those polemics from factual articles (such as this one?)Faustian (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Faustian-scholars often engage in debates or review each other's work. Such things are certainly reliable when presenting scholalry opinions by scientists, politologists or historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A Polemic is defined as "passionate argument: a passionate, strongly worded, and often controversial argument against or, less often, in favor of somebody or something." We shouldn't build wikipedia articles based on polemics written by people with backgrounds as controversial as Wiktor Poliszczuk. I don't think his polemic is a reliable source for encyclopedic information. Let's see what others think.Faustian (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It is also [13]a writer who argues in opposition to others'' One who writes in support of one opinion, doctrine, or system, in opposition to another". A simple glance on Google books shows that scholarly polemic is fairly common word and situation[14]. Anyway, I don't see much controversy-Wnuk himself is controversal and both he and Polisczuk are in dispute, Marples doesn't discredit Poliszczuk and also praises that he is detailed. The only overwhelming criticism seems to come from Ukrainian source, which is understood in my view since Poliszczuk is very criticial towards Nazi collaboration of UPA and its activites, while there is somewhat unfortunate tendency in Ukrainian histography to present it as "national-liberation movement" [15]. Anyway it certainly isn't a SPS source and thus reliable. If it is biased enough so that it doesn't warrent inclusion is not a question for debate here I believe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Wnuk is a "editor of several historical periodicals, employee of the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences and of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)." He has academic credentials in his field. Wnuk's critique of Poliszczuk was published in a peer-reviewed forum: [16]. Poliszczuk, as a political or historical writer of the 80's and 90's, has not been affiliated with any university since the 70's when he graduated with political science degree in Communist-era Poland. Poliszczuk's books were all self-published. The two are simply not comparable, not in the same league. Considering Poliszczuk and Wnuk as "two scholars" debating each other is doing a greeat disservice to Rafal Wnuk. The essays discussed here were in a section devoted to "polemics." They were not expositions of fact. For this reason they can be cited when illustrating Poliszczuk's arguments, but not for purposes of referencing facts that he claims are true when he makes his arguments. Faustian (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Faustian-you can't source Wiki in Wiki itself, as far as I know Wnuk is no longer employee of IPN. As I said the two scholars have different opinion and clash with each other, that's normal. As to has not been affiliated with any university since the 70' that's simply wrong-he was published by Academic Books which is a publisher of Jagiellonian University as mentioned above, in a collection of studies under editorial role of professor Grott from that university. He is also cited in several works of scholarly nature like Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 by Tadeusz Piotrowski 2007 or in Between Nazis and Soviets: occupation politics in Poland, 1939-1947 Marek Jan Chodakiewicz or in Quarterly Kultura i społeczeństwo of Polish Academy of Sciences Volume 42 1998.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The point about Wnuk-Poliszczuk is that it is not "two scholars" but one scholar and one self-publishing polemicist. Poliszczuk's works may be cited by reliable sources (so are the opinions of all sorts of extremists) but are not reliable sources themselves. Now let's get this back to the purpose of this noticeboard: the reliablity of sources. We know that Poliszczuk's self-published works are not reliable sources. So the question is, are his polemic essays that are reprinted by an academic publisher under the heading "reviews and polemics" considered reliable sources for the purposes of providing facts about historical events? Let's please let someone other than us continue this conversation and answer the question.Faustian (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I will add my brief opinion about this care - if the review or polemic is written by a recognized historian (professor of history somewhere, a guy with multiple "reliable source" publications, I think the information such a person places in an essay or review - written in an academic paper- is a reliable source. With someone without such as reputation or qualifications, on the other hand, his "facts" in opinion articles are not reliable. In the specific case of these essays by Poliszczuk, the author is neither a historian (at least, not qualified as such - degree in political science rather than history, not affiliated with any university since leaving communist Poland in the 70's, not published by univerisities) nor is his work cited a historical article; its a polemic article. Opinion pieces/polemics rather than history articles written by non-historians shouldn't be used as sources for historical facts. IMO. What do others think?Faustian (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Poliszczuk is an expert when it comes to the crimes of the UPA - the organization most infamous for helping the Nazi kill the Jewish people. Also the article Wiktor Poliszczuk is shocking, there user:Faustian collected every bit of critic he could find, put out context and dumped into the article which now reads more like an attack page. Wikipedia cannot be proud of that. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Academic works regularly publish the opinions of non-academics where these opinions are of interest to academics. The opinion piece in question is not reliable for matters of fact to wikipedia's standards, as indicated by its position in a set of chapters which are polemics. Only use where the opinions of the commentor are themselves notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Encyclopedia

I'm checking the reliability of the book Conspiracy Encyclopedia as part of an effort to clean up List of conspiracy theories. The main reason I'm listing it here is because it is, after all, an encyclopedia. However, I believe it may be reliable under general guidelines due to positive reception both from the press, academia, and other writers in the field (exemplified by the fact it's required reading for a Harvard course). However, Google Books is being iffy for me and won't let me check the referencing in the book. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if a reliable encyclopedia, using it would be tricky, since it is a third party source. Hard to evaluate without having seen it, it might be that some articles are more reliable that others, given who wrote them. Also, that it is required reading for a course does not, in my opinion, automatically count for reliability, given that we do not know how it is used. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I own it. What questions would you like answered about it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You posted on the FT/N thread, Hipocrite; I was posting here to see if it was reliable per our guidelines. Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You said you couldn't see the referencing. I have the referencing. What would you like to know? Hipocrite (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite. I'm a RS/N editor. Could you give a full citation of the work itself, an example citation of three random articles (including individual editor, and unusually, a paragraph or page count) and indicate how many references each individual article has. This would help a regular RS/N editor like me consider the tertiary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In relation to the full citation of the work, the list of editors would be very useful. Identify the editor in chief, and at least the three first listed editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Publisher reliability, Chamberlain Bros is listed as an imprint of Penguin Young Readers Group. Treat as commercial non-specialist (mass market) press. This is two notches of reliability down from Academic Publishers and specialist press non-fiction publishers. (This reliability level would be improved by editors who are academic specialists, or, by articles being authored by individual academic specialists). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Fifelfoo's summary seems accurate. Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The listed editorial staff are Mal Peachey, Fiona Screen, Christine King, Leslie Levine, Victoria Richards, Nina Sharman and Julia North. Individual articles are not seperately listed to their editor or writer. There are a total of 12 "Thematic Sections", and I estimate 150 total references across all 12. The references appear all to be published books. Hipocrite (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The authors seem to be journalists rather than academics, but given the subject matter, I suspect this is as reliable as we're going to find. --GRuban (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Urgh. Not really reliable. It is non-scholarly with about 12 references per thematic section. It is produced in a non-scholarly mode by non-scholars. It is a tertiary source. Raid for its sources, determine their source reliability. If you absolutely must use, then preface with "In the opinion of Peachey and others, "blah blah blah,"" because they're not really reliable for much more than their opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Music Video Director(s) identification

This website (mvdbase.com) has many music videos and their directors listed. Can it be used to update a page? Novice7 (Talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable: Self published source by Alex S. Garcia with admitted fact checking problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for your help Novice7 (Talk) 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin and time travel

A dispute has arisen on this page The Circus (film) as to whether or not this source [[17]] supports the claim that this time travel story has recived notable coverage [[18]]. I have been unable to verify this and am asking if any one else can. Its OK its been resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this article from the Christian Science Monitor, [19], which discusses the issue and says that it was most likely a small ear trumpet she was holding. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The question of notable coverage is related to whether or not a subject should have a stand-alone article. Whether material should be included in an article is a question of weight and is decided by consensus. We are not a compendium of all information; there is no requirement to include everything that has ever been published in a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Company histories on answers.com

Answers.com can be a problematic source to evaluate, since the same domain hosts both reliably published content and unreliable user-contributed content. I'm looking for others' impressions of the company histories hosted on answers.com. This page indicates that the company histories are from International Directory of Company Histories, published by The Gale Group, Inc. I believe this to be a reliable source (and I note that similar content often can be found on fundinguniverse.com), but today I encountered an article where another Wikipedian had expunged citations to this source with an edit summary saying "Sorry, answers.com is not considered a reliable source."

Is there any particular basis for questioning the reliability of answers.com as a republisher of this kind of content? Obviously, if it is used, the source would be need to be identified with both the original publication name (author and source) and "answers.com" ("say where you got it"). (In the particular article that I dealt with today, only "answers.com" had been identified as the source, although examination of the cited URLs indicates that answers.com attributed the content to International Directory of Company Histories.) --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to my revert, sorry about replying here as I do not want to put off independent replies but context might help. You will note that answers.com suggests in their FAQ; "In order to cite Answers.com as a source, you must cite the relevant publisher and copyright notice listed at the bottom of every AnswerPage, as the actual source of the material used. If the article has an author, also cite the author's name(s). Most articles do not attribute authorship, but if there are more than 5 authors listed, cite at least five." In this case the Gale Group should have been cited, the source document could then be shown something like:
  • Group, Gale; Votteler, Thom (2002), "Duck Head Apparel Company Inc", International directory of company histories, Volume 50, St. James Press, ISBN 9781558624764
This would have avoided any confusion as to the reliability of the source material. BTW I'm not sure about the volume number here, so a bit more research might be needed before using such a citation. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your thinking, Fæ. I don't have much experience with answers.com -- and I had not looked previously at the answers.com pages cited in that particular article. When I looked, I was surprised to discover that the material was attributed to a solid source. Accordingly, I wanted to find out if there was a Wikipedia consensus opinion about the reliability of the website.
It's pretty common for Wikipedia contributors to cite the content they found on websites incorrectly (or incompletely) -- leading to lots of "opportunity" for other users to repair citations. As for how to properly cite this particular source, note that "Gale Group" and "St. James Press" both identify the publisher ("Gale Group" is not an author) -- as the article Gale (publisher) explains, St. James Press is an imprint of Gale, which is in turn a subsidiary of another company. (That's the kind of complicated interrelationship between businesses that makes it helpful to have access to authoritative company histories!) --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not persuaded that Gale is producing a reliable source. The work has no introduction as reprinted on Answers.com; there is no title page, or discussion of the editors of the work. The individual entries I surveyed give no indication that they are anything more than a compilation; or that individual authorship and supervision occurred over them. Answers.com may accurately republish elements of the International Directory of Company Histories. I see no indication that the IDCH is in itself reliable, and not a trivial TERTIARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "no indication" of individual authorship. Each of the company histories that I've looked at has an author's name at the bottom, below the "Further reading" bibliography. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The Amazon listings for the print edition of the book identify Jay P. Pedersen as "author" for the volume (probably "editor" would be a better description). The book is produced annually, and each of the last several annual volumes seems to be available from Amazon for $237.60. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... Here's what the US Library of Congress says[20] about the International Directory:
This multivolume set is a work in progress, providing brief essays on the historical development of approximately 3500 major companies. The first volumes group companies by industry; later volumes list companies alphabetically, but also include an industry index, as well as a cumulated company index covering all volumes issued to date. The set includes publicly held, private, and non-profit companies in addition to some state-owned companies. Companies are selected for inclusion based on annual sales, and for their influence within their industry or in their region. Entries contain legal name; address; phone; fax; and website, if available; incorporation date; number of employees; recent sales figures; SIC codes; stock exchange; a summary of the corporate mission and goals; lists of principal subsidiaries, divisions, and operating units, and, if available, references to articles for further reading.
The Library of Congress gives a Table of Contents for the first 35 volumes: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/becites/89-190943.toc.html --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Compilation isn't authorship for the purposes of reliability, and a byline is not a good indication in a dodgy online reprinting. None of this is convincing that this is a reliable tertiary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
True, so here is what should be a good indication. It looks like it is kept as a reference by Copenhagen Business School [21], Harvard Business School [22], Lancaster University (which seems quite proud of it), University of North Texas [23], and Vanderbilt University [24]. When numerous respected university and business school libraries have a given business reference, and especially when they make a big deal of acquiring access to that reference, that seems strong evidence that business reference is a reliable source. It's also in the National Library of Australia [25], which isn't a university or business school, but the fact that it went to a national library half way around the world seems contributory. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The NLA also holds the complete works of the Communist Party of Australia, including works that are high quality reliable sources published by the CPA, and works that aren't reliable that are published by the CPA. Libraries, particularly academic libraries, hold non-academic works, or works which are unreliable by Wikipedia policy. Find the academic introduction to the International directory of company histories which discusses the method of compilation and the responsibility taken by the editorial team. My searching did not reveal a scholarly introduction. Without such an introduction, it looks like an unreliable TERTIARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, true, but I believe if you will look carefully, you will see these links that these university libraries are recommending this work to be used as a reference work for its stated purpose, that of looking up information about companies. To show that a source is reliable, we don't need to show a scholarly introduction, we merely need to show that other reliable sources treat it as reliable. The links I have found show this. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
... Libraries are not reliable sources. Reliability is comprised of the text, the author, and the publication. In this case all three are suspect; and citing a library catalogue does not change the reliability of the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, libraries are not sources of any kind, but presence of a work in a serious academic library is an indicator that that work is reliable. Obivously other criteria such as author, publisher and so on also need to be considered. Barnabypage (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would think that Answers.com as qualified above is a reliable source until something better comes along. Then WP users have something to start with. However, it appears that Fifelfoo is saying that only Fifelfoo is an authority on this issue, and is throwing down the gauntlet. Am I correct, or am I dreadfully misreading Fifelfoo's position? Santamoly (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I certainly hope so! Anyway, let me try again. Google Scholar says the work is cited in 12 academic papers,Google Scholar and 12 legal ones.[26] Good enough? --GRuban (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you're clearly active elsewhere on this same page, and it's been several days. Should we read this silence to mean that you agree? Or that at least you acquiesce? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am coming in late here... and I have not read all the comments above... so this is just a generalized comment about Answers.com (and similar sites). I don't think it should be considered a reliable source itself... however, I do think it is an excellent resource... a tool that can help editors get to the reliable sources... it needs to be used behind the scenes. It's sort of like an annotated card catalog at a library... you use it to find books on a topic... but you need to read and cite the books, not the card catalog. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Blueboar, we're discussing a specific book (or at least multi-volume compilation), the International Directory of Company Histories. It looks like the main person objecting has conceded, though we can only guess this from their silence. --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

World Net Daily - RS citation?

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. A full citation of the source in question.: McCullough, Kevin (August 06, 2004). [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39835 "Kerry was asked to leave Vietnam"]. World Net Daily (Commentary). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Farah. Retrieved October 24, 2010. The image Americans were asked to believe, at the Democratic National Convention,... ((cite news)): Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. A link to the source in question: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39835<br> 3. The article in which it is being used: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting: Firsthand Accounts Entry - Lt. Thomas Wright
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion: The previously acceptable source was deleted twice ([27], [28]) without discussion by User:Blaxthos with the following edit summaries...

A. (rm - wnd is only acceptable for the editorial&opinion sections)
B. (nothing has changed since 7 months ago, where the appropriate use of WND was explained by several editors)

While I believe these 2 undiscussed and rather aggressive edits/deletions demonstrate a less than consensus-based approach to editing this article, my concern here is the rationale offered to support the deletions.

While WND as RS was initially under discussion in the WND article talk section which User:Blaxthos linked to above, that discussion led to an extensive WP:RSN on the subject of WND RS and I reject User:Blaxthos' purported interpretation of the result of that RSN as some Wikipedia carte blanche justification for undiscussed deletions of WND citations. In fact, this wasn't WND news content at all but rather an offering from an [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=43&authorId=104&tId=8 established] WND commentator/contributor.

IMHO (and with significant support from multiple contributors to the RSN), the RS of WND content (just like that of any other source) must be considered in terms of the context in which it is offered. Kevin McCullough is/was a significant contributor to WND and the citation in question served as a legitimate RS addendum to his audio interview of Lt. Wright. Observations appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Not this again. I'm not going to rehash this ad infinitum for an editor who refuses to hear a consensus with which he does not agree. We do not evaluate a reliable source on a case-by-case basis for reporting dry facts -- either a source is reliable, or it isn't. The last time Jake tried this multiple editors explained that WND is only reliable for its opinion (not dry facts), and we referenced at least six previous RSN discussions that validated this point; Find the last RSN discussion (that came from Jake's last attempt) here. How many times do we have to go through this? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WND is a propaganda outlet. It's not a reliable source for anything (except maybe it's own opinions, when the opinion writer in question is notable and relevant and so on).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What Bali Ultimate said is correct. WND is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion, and inclusion of that opinion has to meet WP:DUE and should always be attributed when it does. Case closed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case. I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)... and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Certainly WND is reliable for statements as to what the opinions of constituent groups are (such as the Swift boat vets group.) Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
WND as an accepted source for its own opinion is uncontested; however there has been a consistent consensus that they do not qualify as source that "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when sourcing bare facts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that Certainly WND is reliable for statements as to what the opinions of constituent groups are: they have a long history of misreporting and misrepresenting such opinions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to be on guard for editors support Electronic Intifadah and its ilk as reliable sources, and denigrating sources with opposing views. Certainly, there is a sliding scale of reliability, but it is not clear to me that we get a non-POV even-handed reaction to this question when we deal with heavily POV issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the previous discussion several examples were brought forth where WND either had the facts wrong, misrepresented the facts to create a false impression, or simply passed off an editorial as a news story. We expect that sources will sometimes get things wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to a pattern of deception. Reputable sources issue corrections for their mistakes. Dlabtot (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WND is not a reliable source for general facts. It is an especially unreliable source for facts about liberals. It is an unacceptable source (per WP:BLP) for anything about living liberals. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Orange Mike and Hipocrite. The use of WND outside its own article would have need an exceptional case. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This has got absolutely nothing to do with Electronic Intifada. Why has it been mentioned here? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Because it covers the precise same subject matter, from the opposite end of the political spectrum, with lesser indicia of editorial board oversight and accuracy, and this noticeboard had indicated it is an RS. What we have to be on guard against is editors reacting to the political view of the source, rather than its reputation for reliability and indicia therefor. It's a slippery slope, as most editors simply comment that a source has -- or does not have -- the necessary reputation of reliability. Without any substantive support for their view. This could lead to uneven results, and we should be on guard against it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This has got absolutely nothing to do with Electronic Intifada. Why has it been mentioned here? An attempt to obfuscate the consensus, or create a false equivalency, apparently. The unreliability of WND has absolutely no relation to where they allegedly sit on someone's conception of the 'political spectrum'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot beat me to the punch (EC) - Let's avoid trying to resolve this issue (as if it's not already resolved) by bringing up unrelated/off topic issues -- one, it gives the impression of a false dichotomy; two, it only tends to confuse rather than clarify the actual issue at hand. Discussion should focus around the reliability (or lack thereof) of WND. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine -- I think that what would be most helpful are fact-based statements on this noticeboard (and in this string), rather than conclusory ones (such as some editors are making).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Based upon the dearth of citations provided in the most recent RSN on WND, were Wikipedia standards for verifiability applied to assertions that WND has been demonstrably deficient in journalistic "fact-checking and accuracy", that assertion would be rejected for failure to satisfy WP:V. Citing prior RSN's which amount to nothing more substantive than "me too" vote tallies bereft of supporting citations is, IMHO, a corruption of this process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Jake, you haven't ever accepted/respected the multiple previous consensuses by this board on this subject (and you've asked the same question repeatedly, about every 7 months, for years)... I find it unsurprising that you now accuse us of "corrupting the process" when you're repeatedly rebuked. Regardless, consensus is plainly obvious and unchanged from the last time you brought this up -- perhaps it would be better if you'd accept it and move on, instead of pretending you didn't hear and bringing it up over and over and over and over and over. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
...you haven't ever accepted/respected the multiple previous consensuses by this board on this subject...
On the contrary, it is you who appears to be less than abreast of the most recent RSN results (see User:Blueboar comment above). As you were a non-participant in that quite extensive RSN, your familiarity with this ongoing issue is somewhat suspect. Did you actually read the content of that RSN? Perhaps if User:Dlabtot had not previously deleted the RSN summary from the RSN archive (which was not restored until after your two deletions), you might have been both more informed and, perhaps, more open to discussion of the edit (as I requested) rather than editing by unilateral decree...which precipitated this current RSN inquiry.
...consensus is plainly obvious and unchanged...
Not according to the RSN summary and the opinions of a significant number of contributors to that RSN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hold on... my comment was simply to say that previous consensus discussions were not quite as cut and dried as people were making out... I do think the general trend was definitely towards saying it was unreliable, but there were a few disagreements and hesitations (such as a few people saying it might be reliable in specific instances).
I don't normally like polls... but I think this may be one of those situations where we need something that clearly demonstrates consensus... something that we can point to when WND is raised in the future (and I have a feeling that it will be)... Am I correct in thinking that argument against WND is that it should qualify as a "questionable source" under WP:V? ... if so, I suggest a simple yes/no poll on that argument. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
...something that we can point to when WND is raised in the future...
You echo the same comment made by User:Xenophrenic in the most recent RSN...
Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that argument against WND is that it should qualify as a "questionable source" under WP:V?
"Questionable source" is a new one to me. "Partisan source" was recently addressed as a plausible characterization in a dedicated RfC but never went beyond that. It seems clear that the entire Wikipedia concept of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources with attendant ramifications is in flux with increasing emphasis on contextual consideration for all sourcing.
One thing, however, should be clear to all participating here. The notion that there exists a solid foundation of evidence supporting the contention of WND's failure to demonstrate traditional journalistic standards for "fact checking and accuracy" is unsupported by citation and, therefore, any legitimate consideration under WP:V...just as it was unsupported by citation in the last RSN. That should suggest something to any fair-minded, observant Wikipedian. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've looked over that discussion and I see your opinion shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors, not "a significant number", which is however an accurate description of the opposition. The RSN summary appears to have been incorrect, and who decided to put it up anyway? There clearly wasn't consensus on the summary. Jake, as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
...I see your opinion shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors...
I would be interested in responding but I'm unclear as to exactly what you refer to when you state "your (my) opinion". Can you be more precise as to what opinion you are attributing to me that is "...shared by the opinions of 2-3 editors..."?
The RSN summary appears to have been incorrect...; There clearly wasn't consensus on the summary.
Certainly legitimate contentions that could have, perhaps should have and still can be re-opened for further discussion. That's the way we do things here, no?
Jake, as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions.
Griswaldo, thus far two of the editors heavily involved in that RSN (myself and Blueboar) have stated otherwise. I'll look forward to further development of this discussion and a consensus resolution as to the validity of the citation which Blaxthos deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Jake, please don't speak for me... I have not "stated otherwise"... I am still undecided on the matter (but leaning towards "generally not reliable except for its own opinions") Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Blueboar, my representation of your prior comments...
Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case.
I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)...
...and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable.
I do think the general trend was definitely towards saying it was unreliable...
...as "stated otherwise" was intended as rebuttal to Griswaldo's assertion that...
...as you can see here WND is not a reliable source for anything other than it's own opinions.
It was not my purpose to specify your actual position, only to note that (per your prior comments), Griswaldo's declaration is not the settled question that he appears to imply.
However, in light of your objection, I will certainly reconsider both my choice of words and possible amendment if you find this response to your objection to be unsatisfactory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No, your explanation if fine and the apology is accepted. In a complex discussion like this, where subtle nuances are important, I simply do not like people speaking in my name. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
About 7 or 8 editors have told you that it isn't a reliable source. It's a highly partisan propaganda outfit -- it doesn't even pretend to be otherwise. This is about as slam dunk as they come.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Statements here continue to be subjective "it's so because I say it's so", rather than objective statements with supporting refs. The conclusion may well be correct, but the approach used by a number of editors here is one that could well open the discussion up to POV bias, which is why I think that objective criteria would be superior.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Farah is a self-described member of the tea party, which is prima facie evidence of a political axe to grind. A moderate voice columnist sez: it’s still something of a surprise to see World Net Daily – the rabid right wing online publication that has become famous for promoting the birther issue. http://themoderatevoice.com/83248/ann-coulter-not-conservative-enough-for-world-net-daily-conference/. Thankfully, the truth is that Farah doesn’t represent the feelings of a majority of either political party, just the far-right ‘fringe’ of the evangelical right. Red State http://www.redstate.com/pratsha45/2010/08/21/joseph-farah-of-world-net-daily-bad-news-for-the-conservtive-movement/. While some Washington conservative distance themselves from WorldNetDaily (“I don’t know anyone who reads it,” said Henke), its associations with the rest of the movement run deep. Washington independent http://washingtonindependent.com/57776/far-right-site-gains-influence-in-obama-era. A prayer that kicked off the conference today thanked God for Farah’s right-wing, conspiracy-minded WND. Later, one of the speakers thanked God for Farah. Farah, however, was far less interested in thanks than in the kind of political mudslinging for which he and several other conference attendees are well known. SPLC http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/09/16/political-mudslingers-populate-far-right-miami-conference/. World Net Daily’s source for their latest insane Birther article is James Edwards — an open white supremacist who runs the vile “Political Cesspool” radio show Little Green Footballs http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36517_World_Net_Dailys_White_Supremacist_Sources. At the conservative Web site World Net Daily, Writing for the ultra conservative World Net Daily, which followed the case closely, Joseph Farah invoked the words of Martin Luther King (both NYT). the conservative Web site World Net Daily knows what it is. "Obama's Supreme pick has love affair with socialism," it reports. It did not specify whether this was a same-sex or heterosexual encounter. Dana Millbank WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404072.html.
Your provided citations do not appear to support the contention that WND has demonstrated an incontrovertible and deficient standard of journalistic "fact checking and accuracy" that might warrant an "unreliable" RS determination. ALL of your citations, IMHO, relate to and demonstrate an allegation of WND political BIAS. BIAS, as has been widely noted and affirmed in multiple discussions (to include this one), is irrelevant to a consideration of Wikipedia RS for content. Does anyone here dispute that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • They're a movement propaganda outlet. Their game is a political game, not the game of trying to build off facts and check biases. If you really want to play i didn't hear that a while longer I'll pull up a bunch of debunking of the flat out fantasies they've run and never retracted. Bali ultimate (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The last time JnJ wasted everyone's time here with his disruptive refusal to accept consensus on this matter, the result was him getting blocked. [29] In the time since, absolutely nothing has changed.
While we are required to assume good faith, we are not required to pretend that an editor is acting in good faith when the evidence otherwise is clear and overwhelming. JnJ is not editing in good faith. Even a cursory review of his edits shows that he is here to push a particular political point of view. If he persists in disrupting this noticeboard I think it may be time to consider a community ban. Dlabtot (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WND has a heavy political slant towards the Christian Right, and I'd cite it more like an advocacy group than a normal newspaper. Is it too POV to use in a biography? I don't know, but this is an article about the "Swift Boat" controversy, and WND may have been notable in that controversy. The text being cited is an interview of an officer who was with Kerry, and regardless of people's feelings towards WND, I don't think they're so unreliable as to be unable to conduct an interview. You could use it with attribution "Mr. W, as interviewed by the conservative news source WorldNetDaily, says XYZ", or you could consider this article in American Thinker.[30] Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I contend that they are, in fact, so unreliable as to be unable to conduct an interview. They have previously taken quotes from The Onion as facts, fabricated quotes from Greg Caton, founder of Lumen Foods, fabricated a story about Iraq buying PS2's to network together... List goes on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Citations...please. They are self-evidently indispensable to a reasoned consideration of your assertions. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An Important Point - I want to make one thing very clear... The political stance of a source does not make it unreliable. There are reliable sources that take a very conservative stance and reliable sources that take a very liberal political stance. Advocacy of a political viewpoint is also not a reason to deem a source unreliable (as it may be very reliably express the viewpoint it is advocating). Again, there are reliable advocacy sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Please focus purely on the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" aspects of this debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to underline blueboar's point -- WND is not being challenged because of its point of view (though several respondents have brought it up); WND has always been considered to be unreliable because it does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (as there have been several well-documented examples of their misrepresentations in the past). Furthermore, had I been aware of Jake's previous block for repeatedly bringing up this very issue, and Jake's subsequent threats to keep bringing it up and the stern administrative warning against doing so, I would have brought this immediately to the attention of WP:ANI and the blocking admin. Jake has undeniably continued to "disrupt RSN" by refusing to get the point, and at this point I hope some administrative action is quickly forthcoming. We, as a community, shouldn't have to deal with this sort of behavior ad infinitum from an editor who is obviously not an honest broker on this subject, and seems obsessed with this issue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps of note to this RSN, last evening through today's "Drudge Report" headlined a commentary by Pat Buchanan linked to and hosted on World Net Daily. That inspired a thought as to where else might one find links to WND content?
It appears "The New York Times" may have a less critical and dismissive position on WND's reputation for "fact checking and accuracy" than some of the contributors to this discussion...
Jerome Corsi, author of the 2004 political game-changer “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127468 praises the film] on the conservative news site World Net Daily as “an important statement dedicated to expressing the core concerns of the millions of independent voters and middle-class Americans participating in the rapidly emerging tea-party movement.” This is likely true. New York Times
It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.
[snip]
They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=110931 Life in the Oink Sector]” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.[New York Times]
In the eyes of many conservatives, the agents were, as Kerry Jacoby of the blog Pardon My English put it, “unfairly convicted of nothing more than protecting the United States of America.” Writing for the ultra conservative [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86547 World Net Daily], which followed the case closely, Joseph Farah invoked the words of Martin Luther King Jr. to celebrate: “Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, they’re free at last!” New York Times

JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • From The Washington Post...
Faith2Action is coordinating a campaign that allows opponents, for $10.95, to send overnight letters to each senator. Bill opponents' contention: "majority Democrats in the House refused to approve an amendment specifying that pedophiles would not be protected under the proposal that provides special protections for homosexuals," according to the conservative news site, [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97676 World Net Daily].
The Washington Post
Over the past few weeks, a Kentucky resident and teacher named Timothy Adams has made the rounds online and on talk radio with an extraordinary claim -- he was the "senior elections clerk" for Honolulu in 2008, where it [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=165981 was an open secret] that the city and state had no proof of Barack Obama's citizenship. As he told WorldNetDaily, the racing form for birtherism...
The Washington Post
(note: WND cited but not linked) The Globe last week published a photo of a city councilor and an activist holding supposed pictures of the sexual assaults -- and editors were concerned enough to reduce the size of the picture in later editions.
But after the Web site WorldNetDaily said the pictures were taken from online porn sites, Globe Editor Martin Baron said in a statement that "this photo should not have appeared in the Globe." The images were "overly graphic," he said, and as an accompanying story noted, "those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse." He apologized for the paper's "lapse in judgment."
The Washington Post

JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • JakeInJoisey makes a very compelling argument for classifying WND as an RS. I don't think that anyone doubts that WND has conservative leanings but that should not preclude it from being considered an RS. Some would regard The Guardian as a left leaning source but, to my knowledge, no one has ever tried to preclude it as a non RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No, JnJ is trying to focus you only on the bias issue, which isn't the basis of its dozen-plus rejections by RSN as unreliable.. As I previously noted, the larger issue is WND having a reputation for fact checking & accuracy when sourcing objective facts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close with injunction

Resolved
 – Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jake was previously blocked for disrupting RSN and refusing to get the point by bringing this very same issue up at least a half-dozen times, has made good on his promise to keep bringing it up, continues to ignore consensus, and now continues to ignore the statements of eight admins and editors who have responded to this thread, I move that we:

  1. Close this thread with the (unchanged) consensus that WND is reliable only for its own opinions, and does not have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy."
  2. Enjoin JakeInJoisey from attempting to insert WND as a source or EL into articles when in defiance of stated consensus.
  3. Enjoin JakeInJoisey from continuing to perpetuate discussions about WND's reliability, including sanctions if the behavior continues.

I have no doubt that if the blocking admin from the last time JnJ tried this were around instead of on vacation, he (Jake) would already be blocked. However, I suggest the best way to handle this now is enumerated above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there some actions other than polite disagreement at stake here? I see a disagreement, but no blockable offense on this page. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's more than disagreement - JnJ has persistently brought this issue here without anything having changed in between; given that last time it happened I ended up blocking him for persistently refactoring the page because he didn't agree with the close after a number of warning, you would have thought he'd have got the message by now. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems a little Grundleesque; repeatedly coming back to try to make the same argument over and over and over. There's a line between a good-faith revival of a discussion and plain ol tendentiousness, and it seems that line just got trampled. If a block is too harsh, then perhaps some sort of "user is prohibited from putting WND links into an article, or arguing that they should be placed into an article" ban can be made. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued use of dead link

This isn't really a source related issue, as it is a citation related issue. for a long time our fellow editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places have cited their material with <ref name="nris">((cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service))</ref>... This citation used to link editors to the NRHP database, where they could look up the information on the buildings. However, about a year ago the webpage (www.nr.nps.gov) was taken off line.

The problem isn't with using the NRHP database as a source (anyone can obtain a copy of the database on disk by contacting the NRHP) The problem is with the citation... and specifically with the link to www.nr.nps.gov. As this website no longer exists, it should be removed from the citation. The NRHP database can be cited as if it were a hard copy source (ie without a link)... alternatively the citation can be re-worked so it links to the new NPSFocus website (or as a third option, the citation can be re-worked to a link to an archived copy of the old website). But we should not be pointing readers to a link that we know to be dead.

I have raised this issue several times at the project talk page, but they don't seem interested in addressing the problem (I can understand their reluctance... there are hundreds of articles with this flawed citation, and fixing them will be a major project... even if we create a bot to do it). What really bothers me is that even though they have known about this issue for several months now, many of the project editors continue to use the flawed citation out of habit.

I think we need to put some pressure on the project to at least fix the problem when it comes to new articles. Continuing to use a flawed citation when you know its flawed is not good editing. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is a problem with some citations, fix them. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand wanting to take out dead links, but we also have to keep in mind that that is a citation, and that it's about where the editor retrieved the information from on the date that they read it. i.e. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:DEADLINK. Perhaps a script can comment out or deactivate the link ( so the URL appears in the bibliography but is not clickable ) until the issue is worked out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that this link is included in hundreds of citations (in almost every article and stub written by a very prolific WikiProject), fixing it will be a huge task (unless a bot can be written to fix it... I would not know how to begin writing one). But, as I said, my main concern here is with the continued and future inclusion of this deadlink in what is essentially a standard "cut-and-paste" citation... ie continuing to include the link almost a year after the website died. I have tried raising the issue with the project, but the lack of reply tells me that they are not interested in changing their habits. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The History of England

I'd like to hear views on whether or not Lord Macaulay's book, 'The History of England' [31] is a reliable source in relation to the Massacre of Glencoe. I have included here a link to the wikipedia article about this book. The wikipedia article states a view which I do not agree with. It claims that Lord Macaulay goes to considerable lengths to absolve King William III from any responsibility for the Glencoe Massacre. That is not my reading of the situation. Macaulay clearly condemns King William's role, and in particular the fact that he was guilty of "a great breach of duty" in shielding the Master of Stair from any punishment beyond dismissal from the secretaryship of Scotland. Macaulay of course blamed the Master of Stair for the atrocity, which is view held jointly by both the Whigs and the Tories.

The question centres around the role of the Campbells in the atrocity. Macaulay makes it clear that the plot was hatched up between the Master of Stair, Breadalbane, and Argyll, the latter two being senior members of the clan Campbell. The plan was executed by Glenlyon, who was a Campbell, in circumstances of revolting treachery of which even the Master of Stair did not contemplate.

As regards Macaulay's book, it is a history classic written in the 19th century, 160 years after the event. And even though it is a well known fact that William was Macaulay's hero, and that Macaulay was a Whig who supported the Williamite settlement, Macaulay nevetherless rebukes William's role in the affair, while pointing out that William had never intended the treacherous manner in which the plan was executed by Glenlyon.

As regards the article, Massacre of Glencoe, there is a gaping omission by virtue of which the Campbells have been completely erased from any culpability in the affair, even though Hamilton and Glenlyon were specifically chosen to carry out the plan, because it was necessary to choose people who would be eager to carry out the plan. For the same reason, Colonel Hill at Fortwilliam was dropped from the plan because he was considered by Livingstone to be too humane.

What I want to know is, if Macaulay's book makes it quite clear that the Campbells were heavily involved in the plan, can we use the book as a reliable source for the purpose of verification of this fact? David Tombe (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • First to answer based on RS principle: To judge whether an old source is a reliable source is normally going to be to some extent a content discussion: The thing is that you need to decide whether modern research has made old conclusions now no longer mainstream. However, there is also another issue to keep in mind in cases like Macaulay, which is that he is very well-known and notable. So if there is any debate about whether his version facts are still mainstream I would think it is likely that you still need to mentioned what he thought, but attribute the opinion to him.
  • Second to answer as someone interested in Highland history: I would not think that the Campbell involvement is something modern scholars question? It is well known and often discussed? Is someone really saying Macaulay is wrong about this? If no one is arguing this then why is there an RS question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, Thanks for your reply, and thanks for confirming my belief that the Campbells were involved. The diff in question is here [32]. My attempt to mention the Campbells in relation to the plan, was excised by an editor on the grounds that Macaulay was not a good authority. My own belief that the Campbells were involved is threefold. First of all, I had always believed it based on the common account going back to when I was first told the story. Secondly, I read about it in Hutchinson's encyclopaedia, where it lay the blame squarely at the feet of John Campbell (Breadalbane). Thirdly, many years later, I read the details in Macaulay's book, where Macaulay lays the blame at the feet of both Breadalbane and the Master of Stair, Sir John Dalrymple. Macaulay goes to great lengths to explain how Breadalbane had motives of personal vengeance, whereas Stair had motives of breaking the clan system in the Highlands and using the Macdonalds as an example. But having now looked at a few modern websites, it does appear that there is a revisionist viewpoint circulating in which the Campbells are not involved, and that Glenlyon's only crime was that the refused to disobey orders. Macaulay on the other hand points out that Glenlyon was chosen for the task because of the eagerness with which would be prepared to carry out such orders.

On your first point, you are of course correct in saying that any opinions of Macaulay should be explicitly stated as being opinions of Macaulay in the manner of "According to Macaulay - - - - - ". That's how Encyclopaedia Britannica does it. David Tombe (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me just re-state it slightly. On WP we do not make it a standard practice to attribute authors as the specific source of any wording which is non controversial. What I am suggesting is that if there is controversy about this source, and about this wording, then because it happens to also be notable, adding attribution would allow you to keep it even if it is no longer mainstream. But I am still wondering if anyone really has a better source which disagrees in any straightforward way. I can not claim to have done a study of recent historians on this, but I can at least say that amongst clans in the area, the Campbell role in this incident is still remembered. So their story of their connection at least deserves some sort of mention?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, It sounds as though you are as surprised as I am that such a revisionist idea is in circulation. But I did a google search, and the first hit yielded this web link here [33]. This is a clear attempt to write the Campbells out of the Massacre of Glencoe, and to undermine all that Macaulay wrote about the incident. This account is totally contrary to what Macaulay wrote. Macaulay blames the Master of Stair, Breadalbane, and Glenlyon, whereas the author of this web link tries to blame King William. Macaulay on the other hand acknowledges that King William did play a role by signing the order, but that William could have had no idea about the treacherous manner in which the plan would be executed by Glenlyon. It would seem to me that the revisionism is designed to create a new idea that the Highlands didn't naturally have internal feuds, and that all trouble was orchestrated from the outside, principally England. The Master of Stair was of course Scottish, and from what I can establish, there wasn't an English man involved in the incident at all. David Tombe (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then if there are versions of events which do not blame the Campbells then WP will have to mention those as well, assuming they can also be sourced properly. Interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have two minor objections. I can't really see the purpose of using Macaulay, instead of a modern historian on this. Even if his conclusions in this particular case may be the same as modern day consensus, it would be better to cite more recent historians, if only to avert claims that Macaulay is outdated or biased or somesuch. Secondly, I am not happy with a reference that only states <ref>The History of England, Thomas Babington Macaulay</ref>, especially for such a voluminous work as Macaulays. Please state edition, volume and page.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Concerning these two objections: (1) modern sources would be great, but I do not think anyone was arguing otherwise (2) good point; for old classic works that have many editions one problem can be that the page number becomes almost useless. A traditional answer is to use sections numbers, paragraph numbers, or something like that. It is also often possible to find a good online edition for a WP:CONVENIENCE link also. For example http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25902 . By the way this discussion is about one WP article but it would be smart to discuss this with editors of others which deal with the same subject like Massacre of Glencoe, MacDonald of Glencoe, Clan Campbell#17th century and Civil War.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that part of the revisionist point of view is aimed at counteracting the 'common account' which leaves people believing that this was purely an internal Campbell/Macdonald feud. The modern sources seem to try and emphasize the fact that it was a government conspiracy. And so it was, and Macaulay never attempts to deny that it was a government conspiracy. The difference between Macaulay's account as compared to the revisionist account lies in the fact that Macaulay implicates senior figures in the Campbell clan in the government conspiracy, whereas in the revisionist accounts, the fact that Breadalbane and Argyll conspired in London with the Master of Stair is not mentioned. David Tombe (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I would indeed think that Breadalbane and Argyll were in the government, or almost defined the government of that area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly have no reason to doubt Macaulay's account. But as you can see, my edit at Massacre of Glencoe, which added Breadalbane to the list of names involved in the conspiracy, was reverted, and the reason cited was that Macaulay is not a good source. I decided that it was important to seek second opinions on the reliability of Macaulay before attempting to reinsert the Campbells into the conspiracy. I think that everybody is agreed that the main culprit is Stair. But it seems pretty obvious to me, based on Macaulay's account, that the senior Campbells were opportunistically in on the conspiracy as well. Hutchinsons encyclopaedia points to Breadalbane as being the main instigator. That may not be quite true, but I suspect that it is not far off the mark. And we all know that Glenlyon was only carrying out orders. But the important question surrounds how willingly he was carrying those orders out. David Tombe (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Expert in grad student journal

I'm interesting in using the article "The Cultural Politics of Oil: On Lessons of Darkness and Black Sea Files by Prof. Imre Szeman in the Lessons of Darkness article. Szeman's a well-published chair with over a decade in the field, so no worries there, but the journal in which this particular article appears, Polygraph declares itself to be "edited and produced by a collective of humanities graduate students" which would seem to fall short of peer-reviewed.

My question is to what extent should this particular article be considered a reliable source? Opinions welcome. Thanks, Skomorokh 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you say, Szeman is a well-published professor [34] in the area of cultural studies, including film. Whether or not the journal is a considered a reliable source, I think Szeman's work would clearly qualify under WP:SPS criteria, as an expert in the field extensively published in reliable, peer-reviewed publications. --Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We are not limited to using formally peer-reviewed material, though it is often the ideal. We have allowed campus newspapers as sources, so by the same logic we could allow an article in a journal edited by graduate students. The fact that the author is an established authority in the field also helps. Having said that, if the point Szeman is making is a very controversial one it might be better to try to find him making it in a more mainstream source within the field. Barnabypage (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Barnaby's first point is important. While peer review is often (not always) the gold standard for reliability, it is not a requirement. Many different fields have different norms for journals, and if the humanities attracts qualified authors (as Barnaby aslo points out, the author is a reliable source on the subject regardless of venue), then that is probably good enough. Remember. All RS needs is: does the source have some record of fact checking, is there some authorship information, and does the source appear responsible for the material published (the last one is hardest to pin down, basically, if a magazine routinely publishes press releases without editing, that is a big red flag in this area). That's it. Protonk (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Would appear to at least qualify as WP:SPS, assuming the article is about cultural studies. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious or joke?

I am trying to add this source which includes a republic of Ireland politician claiming thay because the economy is in a mess, they should hand the republic back to Queen Elizabeth II to the respective page. I added it but it kep being removed by someone who seems to think he said it as a joke. Although the politician is known for heckling, there seems to be not evidence that he did say it in jest. So could this be accountable to be used as a source as it comes from a reliable news website? 09:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1030/1224282319044.html that it was said in jest. Dlabtot (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hyperbole/humor. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Four sources for a featured list candidate

I am in doubt about the reliability of four sources used in List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England which is currently a featured list candidate. Please also see the discussion on the nomination page. The sources in question are: About Bristol, megalithic.co.uk, hiddendorset and everythingexmoor. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have removed/replaced the hiddendorset & about bristol references so these are no longer an issue. In relation to the other two some further information from the discussion on the FL nomination page.
  • According to wikipedia article The Megalithic Portal "Its listings are often referenced by noted web sites[2] and in recent books on megaliths[3] and Holy Wells[4]...Founded by chartered engineer Andy Burnham, ... The Megalithic Portal has existed in its current form since February 2001. .. In 2002, Archaeology Magazine reviewed the Megalithic Portal, describing it as 'useful, fun, and accurate'.[6] As of January 2010 the Megalithic Portal has been constituted as a non profit making membership society[7]. From the site About page under terms and conditions and see The Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters.
  • Everything Exmoor describes itself as 'by the Community for the Community' but does undergo editorial control before publication About Page. It is a stable site already used as a source on multiple wp pages including List of museums in Somerset (FL), Exmoor (FA), Somerset (FA), Minehead (GA) and Geology of Somerset (GA) without any problems.
I would welcome expert opinions.— Rod talk 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Svenska Dagbladet

Is Svenska Dagbladet a reliable enough source to be used for the claim "Saab engineers played key roles in vehicle development of the Volt powertrain." for the Chevrolet Volt article (English translation available here) without the use of "according to"? // Liftarn (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a highly reputable Swedish newspaper and since Saab is a major Swedish company it is reasonable to assume that the paper covers it closely and professionally. Barnabypage (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RS's hosted by non-RS's

If a non-reliable source purports to host material from an RS, is the material reliable? I have in mind this source which claims to be a reproduction of a Haaretz article but the source that hosts it is non-reliable. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When considering this issue, one must consider if the original work is reproduced faithfully and intact. Some non-RS, like Youtube, could well reproduce a short film intact, and the short film may be reliable in itself, and there may be evidence that the video on youtube is intact. In that case, consider it as if a photocopy or scan of the original source. In other cases, such as a text transcription of a news article, the weight of suspicion lies against the transcription, particularly if the hosting non-RS is unreliable due to bias. Some hosted material is demonstrably intact (illegal scans of journal articles, for example), some is suspicious, some is demonstrably non intact. Only the first should be _consulted depending on your local copyright law_ to write wikipedia (as they are a faithful copy of an RS), and probably shouldn't be linked to on the grounds of copyright. If a University Library gave you a photocopy of a newspaper article, would you trust it? If a spruiker for a political or religious movement on the street gave you a longhand copy of what they claimed to be a newspaper article, would you trust it? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be shorter! No. We may have more confidence in scans than transcriptions, but all can be manipulated, and only a site that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy raises confidence enough to think that this is not happening. In my editing career, I've found just such "transcriptions" that have turned out to have been deliberately manipulated to suit a purpose. Go to the library and search on microfilm/electronic archives for the article. --Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually it looks like you don't even need to go to the library, if you don't mind paying out a bit. It looks like an article with a similar title is available for a fee from the Haaretz archive.--Slp1 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem. The source is the original article. Who hosts it is in principle irrelevant. Just be sure that the ref includes the original article so that user can seek it out in the library or Haaretz's archive. The other host is just a convenience link. As an afterthough, please note that we should not link to likley copyright violations. Taemyr (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually who hosts it is the problem. There is, as you point out, the copyright issue, but we also need material to be hosted on a website that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Who knows, in this case, whether pollard.org has manipulated the text, leaving out important parts, or adding other material. In another case, this newspaper article looks genuine on first glance, but it has clearly not the genuine article (pun intended).
Having said that, you are correct that the original Haaretz article would be a reliable source; however, the article must be viewed directly, in their archives or the library, not based on the pollard website's copy. And agreed that we should not link to copyvios. --Slp1 (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

the blog published on the website of the daily broadsheet, the telegraph by tim blair

Tim Blair (2010-013-09). "Deletion Johnson". Daily Telegraph. http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/deletion_johnson.[1]

[[35]]

Little Green Footballs

In early September, 2010, it was discovered that Johnson had begun altering some posts and deleting others which expressed sentiments which were substantively similar to the ones he had recently been condemning others for. In one example, Johnson had been condemning opponents of the Park51 project as "bigots", though he had expressed similar opposition to the proposed Flight 93 memorial, which he described as an "Islamic Shrine". Johnson was discovered to have deleted these posts without acknowledging their deletion. Johnson had also described the lead figure in the Park51 project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, as an "Islamic Supremacist," but later revised that description from the post without acknowledging the change[2]

Talk page items:

[[36]]

[[37]]

[[38]]

whether tim blair's blog at the telegraph passes WP:RS.Notanipokay (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to say "no" in this case, because Blair is simply linking (without comment) to another blogger in this case, and because it is a third-party blog discussing a living person (and his actions), which is definitely not allowed under BLP. If another (non-blog) source picks up the story (unlikely, but possible), or if Blair expands his post to actually discuss the issue, it might pass the threshold, but not as currently presented. Horologium (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
well, to fully dissect what is going on there, you have tim blair making an albeit brief and sarcastic, but affirmative comment to the effect that Johnson had been caught deleting posts. then he has two links. one is to the third-party source.

now, the third-party source is not without editorializing commentary, but it is mainly a collection of URLs which resolve to nowhere and screenshots of the google caches of what the URLs used to resolve to. i understand that this doesn't nessesarily make it a "Reliable source" for wikipedia's purposes, but you have to admit that this would be considered qed in a court of law. perhaps the blogspot page is irretrievably shaky, but perhaps it can be considered a repository of reliable documentary evidence, the google screenshots being that documentary evidence?

the second link is to charles johnson, the individual whose BLP interests are at issue here, confirming that he made the deletion. here's my question on that: if the individual whose BLP interests are at stake confirms that he engaged in the conduct which is being held from inclusion in the article, is there a controversy? in other words, if someone wrote a wiki article about Notanipokay and included a section about how i am known to have picked a booger, and i chose to respond with, "yea i picked a booger and i'm proud of it and by the way, i did not 'pick a booger.' i removed a snot from my nasal cavity with my finger," is the inclusion of the "Notanipokay picked a booger" section a "controversial edit"?

finally, can i just use Johnson's admission as the source for the edit?Notanipokay (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have Johnson, on Johnson's blog, saying he picked his nose, then you can use it. He's a reliable source for what he said/did himself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Daily Tel is a tabloid not a broadsheet! YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the Daily Telegraph is a broadsheet. In terms of size, it is the only national daily in England still appearing in broadsheet; format; in terms of quality, it is definitely at the serious, rather than frivolous, end of the market. It is also very conservative (small "c"), even reactionary; but that is another matter. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong country. We are talking about the Telegraph in Australia, not in Britain. Horologium (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have read more carefully! RolandR (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary or secondary

What do you think about following source: http://www.danielpipes.org/8329/palestine-betrayed AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a self-published book review purporting to be a copy of a book review published in a popular magazine. Why would this be reliable? Why would the originally published book review be reliable for any article other than an article on the book itself: Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, Yale [?UP], 2010? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It is definitely RS as a copy of a review in the National Review (which has a pay wall, so this is acceptable - the cite for the NR page would not hurt), Not "self-published" to be sure, and the NR is not a "popular magazine" as it specializes in political issues. Collect (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it is a book review, and its reliability is limited to the book it reviews, is of more interest to me. It isn't reliable for articles outside of the book. The book would be reliable for those points, it appears to be Yale UP. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both Collect and Fifelfoo. Not self-published, but possibly of limited scope. It qualifies as an RS, but context is important. Could we get a link to the page where it is being used (or better yet to the exact statement it is being used to support?). Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It was used in the lede of Efraim Karsh article, but it is not there anymore, probably moved to the body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for use in Efraim Karsh as a review of Efraim Karsh's work only when cited from: the actual national review article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a convenience link for a source which is reliable if used appropriately. Pipes is a well known figure, and the likelihood that he is fabricating or misattributing his own reviews is about the same as that of someone hijacking a National Review domain name, or forging print copies.John Z (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertising for commercial use

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19-inch_rack, the references at the bottom of the page, in perticular ^ http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html. This is a company that sells server racks and they have created this as a landing page.

This link should be deleted, not sure how I do it so over to you guys.

You edit the page, and remove the material supported by the non-reliable source, along with removing the non-reliable source. This may be a phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. Searching the article history for who added what, and reading the source in parallel with the article helps here. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see an issue here. There is no promtion of the company or any evidence that it's a landing ground. The page referred to is a FAQ page that gives a precis of the official document than controls specifications for 19 inch racks. There is nothing to suggest that it's unreliable. NtheP (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a reliability issue with the source quoted. It lacks an author, it lacks editorial authority, and is self-published blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hudson Institute publications

Do these count as reliable sources? I see that Current Trends in Islamist Ideology is cited frequently in Wikipedia, but the journal itself seems to have little or no library holdings; see User talk:DGG#Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. They also have other colums on their site such as the one on climate changes. An example article from there is Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics?. Even some of their articles on Islam seem to be of the wishful thinking variety, e.g. Why Iran's Islamic Government Is Unraveling. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Word CDs

I would like to update some Jessica Simpson pages. I found a cd Link1 Link2. Is this reliable to add into the page? Please help.. Thank You Novice7 (Talk) 05:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Social Networking source

There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's agreed that the video is authentic." So cite the original work. My photocopies of a journal article are "authentic". I don't cite the Kyocera copier. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where it's agreed by all that it's not available anywhere else? Hence the discussion. It's only available on the "social networking site" MySpace. Using your example, the video is stored in the memory of the Kyocera copier, not anywhere else. Santamoly (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Who agreed that the video is "authentic"? Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As an involved editor, I've seen nothing to indicate that the video is fake or altered, but I myself can't vouch for its authenticity since I'm not familiar with the source. WP:VIDEOLINK requires that "Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established", so it would seem the burden of proof is on the presenter ThatSaved (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
the hobbit is available in my local library. I still cite the author title and publisher of the book and not my library. Cite the original publication. Do not link to copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
not so sure about that... see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works; So cite the samizdat / bootleg, but don't link to it. In that case it would be OriginalAuthor, (copydate) [Originaldate] "OriginalTitle" [electronic copy of a video.] Original Publisher Location/Broadcast channel, Digitally copied and distributed via Current Host or Samizdat. For example, Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit London: Presslypress, 1991; versus Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit originally as London: Presslypress, 1991; reprinted in samizdat EbilBookPirateDistro, [?2009] as an .ePub file. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
[?American Suzuki Motor Corporation] / [?Gladstone International] (2007-07-02) [?undated] "Suzuki v. Consumers Union." [electronic copy of a video.] Originally: Video B-Roll; In bootleg/samizdat: "caleb cannon"[pseud.] "possumassaliant"[pseud.].
It is hard to see what makes this a reliable source for opinion, given that ASMC/Gladstone don't explicitly take responsibility for the work, similarly Video B-Roll. The source lacks an internal distribution date, or indication of a distributor other than Video B-Roll. About the only thing certain about the work is that it is an electronic copy of a video and that it has a clear title. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As above, there's no indication that the video meets the requirements of WP:RS. And you can't cite unreliable sources; WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to Reliable Sources only, since one does not cite unreliable ones. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the position of being excessively legalistic to the point of perpetuating ignorance. A defective reference, in the absence of a better one, will at least serve as a reminder, a placeholder if you will, that a better source is out there somewhere. One can even remark that this is the best information uncovered to date, albeit not perfect. But you seem to be saying that complete ignorance of the fact that information exists is preferable to a clue leading towards a better source. This doesn't sound like an intellectually sound position at all. Santamoly (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We have no indication that "that this is the best information uncovered to date". WP:V tells editors to use reliable sources, not to use unreliable sources if reliable ones cannot be found. Something is not always better than nothing. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If might add a point here. There are valid reasons that I had to go through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder to show that I could use a youtube video as a reference. Yes, it was (and is) annoying as all get out but there are very good reasons for it. Personally, we should use a demonstrated official channel copy of the video in question just to save on the migraines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm not sure which is the "unreliable source": is it the video itself? Or is it because it's being served by a social networking server? There seems to be some agreement that the video is genuine and useful, but the sticky point is that it's being served via the myspace (fox news) server. If we could extract the video from its server, and have it served from a different server, would it then become "reliable"? Even though it's accepted that the content of the video is accurate and historically relevant, I think we have to zero in on what exactly is the "unreliable" element of this item. Santamoly (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear whether or not the source itself is reliable, and there is no indication that it is faithfully and accurately reproduced where it is hosted. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is disturbing to see the statement above "You can't cite unreliable sources; WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to Reliable Sources only, since one does not cite unreliable ones." In reality we can't draw an unbreachable frontier between unreliable sources and reliable ones. Our aim is to use the most reliable, but, Wikipedia being a work in progress, we may start out with sources that are sitting on the borderline (or even on the wrong side of it). So what does the statement mean: if it's 51% unreliable, we don't cite it and we don't base anything at all on it, even temporarily? Or, if it's 51% unreliable, we don't cite it, we just plagiarise it while looking for something we can cite? Andrew Dalby 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is far more disturbing that you would write that. While sources that pass WP:RS do have varying degrees of reliability, and are only reliable in a given context, there are many, many sources that simply fail WP:RS. And we do draw an "unbreachable frontier" between those sources and Wikipedia articles. We may not "start out with sources that are... on the wrong side of it", and we certainly can't plagiarize - what on earth would give you that idea? Random crazy anonymous internet websites, for example, cannot be used for any information or citations on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's hope everyone avoids random, crazy internet websites.
Let me give an example. I recently started Index censorum Rei Publicae Romanae on the Latin Vicipaedia. I could have used one of the existing Wikipedia pages on the subject as a basis, but those pages were formatted into tables; a handier basis, therefore, was a blog page elsewhere on the internet which contained a simple list, lacking citations but -- at a glance -- pretty accurate. I copied and pasted it; and then I gradually compared it with certainly-reliable sources, the main one being a scholarly article that I accessed through JSTOR. While I was working on it, what I did was to cite the blog page and indicate that it was our page's initial source. Not to cite it would have been plagiarism. But it was unreliable in the simple sense that I don't know the page's credentials, it was a blog, it had no references, etc.: it was a page put up by an ancient history buff, and some of those are good and others are terrible. What I'm trying to say is, we should be honest, and for that reason it's better if "say where you got it" doesn't have exceptions.
On the other hand, once the page has ceased to rely on the dubious source, the reference to that source needn't then remain on the page; it'll be in the history. Andrew Dalby 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If the video was officially released by Suzuki then it could be fine without a link to Myspace. Has someone attempted to contact Suzuki to see if that is their video and how to obtain a copy? I don't see how the uploader/poster (someone named "caleb cannon") can be considered RS but he got that video from somewhere or he made it. Does not look like something someone would randomly create but we don't know. Of course, then SELFPUB comes into play and if it is unduely self-serving or making claims about third parties (the Consumers Union) then it may not be acceptable on those grounds. I saw that someone mentioned WP:VIDEOLINK up above. Just to clarify, that is an essay only (albeit a good one I think since I was the primary contributor). One of the most important things mentioned there (pulled from various discussions) is that if it is that hard to find a source discussing the video, is it really that important and worthy of any notice?Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, if I find a non-reliable site that looks like it has reliable or factual information on it, I don't "copy and paste" it. Instead, I look for reliable sources that have the same information. Sometimes they do, in which case I use the reliable sources. Sometimes they disagree with the unreliable source, in which case I go with what the reliable sources say. And sometimes I simply cannot confirm what they say, in which case I (sadly) don't use the material. Here's an example: this source has lots of good information about Moishe Oysher, including a fascinating anecdote about his audition and initial employment at the First Roumanian-American congregation. As it happens, I wrote the First Roumanian-American congregation article, an FA. I'd love to include this story, but I can't find it in an other sources. So, for over two years now, it has remained out. We can't just start using sources that fail WP:RS until ones that do come along, even if we really like what the non-RS says, or personally believe it to be interesting and true. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And you're right, of course -- and thanks for the link. It's a great article.
Very many Wikipedia articles start out with no evident sourcing at all, or with sourcing that is unacceptable and must urgently be improved. We have templates that say so. My only doubt about your approach is that it minimises this, the "work in progress" side of Wikipedia, which I have always found to be one of its best features. But I guess, as Cptnono's comment reminds us, we're getting off topic :) Andrew Dalby 09:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Proof of trademark ownership (or limbo)

What would be a sufficient RS for stating that the trademark, once recognized in the United States, is (a) now in limbo and (b) is now genericized?

Specifically, see the case of Vactrol in Opto-isolator#Resistive_opto-isolators. According to the USPTO database, the original Vactrol granted in 1969 for these opto-isolators to Vactec, Inc. is now dead [39]. The same trademark, according to the USPTO, is now owned by someone else and covers a different product [40]. Is this sufficient RS to say that the original opto-isolator trademark has expired?

The next question, what is sufficient proof for backing up "genericized trademark" claim? It's not aspirin and not a yo-yo, so there's a ton of specialist literature using the word as if it was generic, but no RS positively saying "yes, it is".

Cheers, East of Borschov 18:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply on talk there since this isn't discussing the reliability of any particular source. It's more of a "how much are we allowed to infer from sources" question. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Good Things Company" unreliable?

My edits on Genealogy of Jesus Christ are continuously being reverted with comments questioning the validity of my source 12. My question is this: Is the "Good Things Company" a reliable, verifiable, source? I give the same reasoning as on the discussion page:

Thank you, mentor, a most enlightening piece of literature, I must say, and can be boiled down to 3 words: 'reliable', 'verifiable', and 'sources'. Is my source reliable? What is "reliable"? You seem to be making your own definition, "it must be unreliable because it is a commercial enterprise". Well, I get my definition from Wikipedia's policy, specifically WP:RS. I quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.". That is why I gave as much information as I could on the publication. So that there would be no confusion as to the publication process for my source. The only thing this company does is make Biblical genealogies for a living; they certainly have authority on the subject. Do you know any other company that devotes their entire study to the completion of biblical Genealogies? If so, they would probably make a better source then mine. Otherwise, I have the most reliable source.

Is my source verifiable? You don't seem to question this, but just in case you do, I have the definition from the dictionary, Wikipedia's dictionary that is: Verifiable Adj., Etymology: Verify + Able. 1. Able to be verified or confirmed. This is the frustrating part with Wikipedia. Of course my sources are verifiable!. If you don't believe the Good Things Company, just open a Bible and verify or confirm their sources.

But can the poster, "the Adam and Eve Family Tree" be counted as a source, in the first place? After all, it's not a book, journal, or magazine, it's something that hangs on the wall. But does a source really need to have tunable pages in order to used on Wikipedia? Let's get back to your favorite article, WP:RS. I quote again, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." Let's see... A poster that only talks about the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and an article titled, "The genealogy of Jesus Christ". You know, I can't find anything similar, can you?--Nate2357 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say, no. A trinkets company's poster would not be a reliable source, who knows where they got their information from or how well they vetted it. Your best bet for this type of information would be a peer reviewed journal or book by a respected historian, etc. Heiro 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, a reliable source has to be one anyone else can obtain a copy or version of to check and make sure what you have added to the article is actually in the source. How many of the rest of us do you think have a copy of your poster to look at and verify your additions? Heiro 02:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a difficult time believing that someone is actually trying to claim that a poster, put together in this fashion, is a reliable source. It is not, and should not be used as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's review ounce again the definition of a source to Wikipedia's standards (reliable, verifiable, source):

Source - Where in the Policy does it state that if I don't have a peer-reviewed journal or book to back up my information, (in this case saying, "the Good things Company made a poster...") than I don't have a true source? Where does it say that a peer-reviewed journal or book is the only means of obtaining reliable information? The policy never makes such restrictions.

Verifiable - This seems to be the point at which you all seem to have problems with. The poster is filled with citations from stem to stern, top to bottom. It only talks about the Genealogy of Jesus (hence, I placed it in the article, Genealogy of Jesus), and it does not make a single statement without supplying at least 3 verses from the Bible. Yes, it is verifiable.

But you make an extra point. How can my source be verified or considered reliable if not everyone can obtain it? My answer is: they don't have to. Availability does not necessarily mean verifiability. Not everyone has Apollodorus's the Library, yet that is used as a source frequently. Not everyone has "Indo-European Language and Culture" by Benjamin W. Fortson IV, yet that's also used as a source.

For future notice, may I request that we only cite examples in Wikipedia from the policy and abroad? It's just not fair that you all give your personal opinion while I pour sweat with proofs. So then. Is the Adam and Eve Family Tree a reliable source?--Nate5713 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So what your wanting to do is copy the entire content of the poster? Is that genealogy list contained in that form in th bible or did they have to hunt out bits and pieces here and there and put them together? If its the latter and you just copy it verbatim into our article, wouldnt that be a copyright violation? Heiro 05:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I repeat, it is not a reliable source. There is a section in WP:Verify about reliable sources which says !Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There's no evidence that these amateurs have such a reputation. See also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Meanwhile, despite this discussion, Nate5713 is editwarring to get this included. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found another example where Nate5713 shows he doesn't understand our policy on sources. At Emperor Yao, see [41], he attempted to use one of our Wikipedia articles as a citation. Now the problem isn't just the fact that you can't use our articles as citations, or that he got the name of the article wrong, it is also that if you read the article The Wallchart of World History it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't be using this wallchart as a source for an article on legendary figure in Chinese history. Wall charts are never going to be a reliable source for historical articles, and I doubt for any articles. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There may be a copyvio issue here also, see this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with sources being misrepresented in an article

The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

This article was added to WikiProject Companies recently. I currently have no connections to this company however this article has been around for a few years already. I have read all the sources used for this article of this company and found that the article has quite a bit of POV. Most of the Statements in the Lead are not at all Factual or supported by the references. Here are some examples of the statements made in the article.

"MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,"

There are no sources that provide any proof of the MonaVie company making any claims that were not approved by regulatory authorities. The sources state there was an independent distributor who created his own website and posted some health claims that the FDA warned him about .However the MonaVie Company was never warned directly nor did the FDA say anything about any claims the actual company had made.

"its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" I cant find any mention of the CEO of MonaVie Dallin Larsen being involved in any false claims. The only facts I can see in the source articles are that he had a senior post in Usana and left the company a year before the FDA shut it down according to the newsweek article.
"the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" after discussing with some editors about the article I was told that this sentence is justified by the wording of "“Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" in forbes and these statements here ”In a 1979 regulatory action involving [Amway], the Federal Trade Commission attempted to draw lines between legitimate and fraudulent pyramids. The ones that are legit focus on getting revenue from consumer goods sold to retail customers. The FTC did not, however, define ‘retail’ in that case. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for guys like Orrin Woodward; he counts the vast majority of people in his pyramid, who seemingly try but fail to make money, as retail customers.”
The source used mainly for calling this company a pyramid scheme was this article here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html The problem with using this article to call the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is that this source is an article about Orrin Woodwards TEAM company and not of the Company of MonaVie. And I cant find anything in the article that makes calling anything a pyramid scheme possible.
"and very few distributors actually make a profit" This statement may need updating with new information about the income of distributors as a few of the articles used to source this are old however one source article mentions 1% see a profit however in another article we have numbers like 45 percent and 37 percent seeing profits. about 45 percent of the company's distributors earned an annualized average check of less than $1,600, while 37 percent took home about $2,000. About 2 percent earned an annualized average check of more than $29,000, according to a company statement. And just seven of MonaVie's 80,000 distributors took home the big money, more than $3 million. This information is from 2008 it appears and the company started in 2005 so this is still a young company. It is also possible many of these distributors are merely customers who are only using the products and are not interested in building a business. New information for 2010 needs to be found to update this article however it still is only a 5 year old company.

Could we receive assistance here with checking the statements in the sources and comparing them to the statements made in the article? Thank you for taking the time to read this.DavidR2010 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the claims are exhaustively sourced. There has been a lengthy discussion on the article talk page, where DavidR2010 has several times refused to answer whether he has been involved with this company, or has a conflict of interest. In the course of discussion, DavidR2010 has made an implicit legal threat against Wikipedia[42]. There also appear to be several new single-purpose accounts taking part in the discussion. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I am only worried about wikipedia here could we please have someone look at the actual information in the articles and compare them to the statements in the wikipedia article instead of just skimming them over quickly and saying how well sourced they are? Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The sources are indeed reliable. If you are questioning how the article uses the sources, that is a matter for the article talk page. If you are questioning the reliability of the sources, please indicate which ones, and why they are unreliable. Without a long essay, please.RolandR (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For now since you mentioned reliable sources would it be possible to have this source checked http://www.juicescam.com/monavies-d-better-business-bureau-rating/
I am concerned because It looks like it is trying to discredit the Better Business Bureau in another article on the site here http://www.juicescam.com/did-monavie-pay-for-a-better-grade-from-the-better-business-bureau/ immediately after MonaVie received an A+ recently and may also be a biased source and yet it is used as a source Reference number 21 in the MonaVie article.
Thanks for the reply about the issue Roland Ive tried on the talk page to get the point across that the statements made in the wikipedia Monavie article are not the POV of the sources. It is frustrating though as people are telling me the sources are reliable which is not the issue at all.
Im just trying to pass this article along to third parties to look over for fact finding and cleanup. Could you help with this please or possibly direct me to where to ask for this kind of help? Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian rhyming slang - James Cook

Hi, I'm having trouble figuring-out whether the following sources are reliable ones for the following sentence from James Cook:
"In Australian rhyming slang the expression "have a Captain Cook" means "have a look"."

A Captain Cook is more common. Here is a source you could use (I own a copy): Baker, Sidney (1966), The Australian Language, Sun Books, Melbourne, p. 360 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll add it to the article later. --George2001hi (Discussion) 13:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Remember that a Captain Cook is what is being sourced, not a James Cook. I do not doubt that someone somewhere will have an example of a James Cook on record, but I never heard it, and as an Australian I have to say that unlike the Cockney equivalent, the rhyming slang tradition in Australia is far more well-known in theory than in practice, and so here on Wikipedia we should try to avoid anything too far fetched. If we don't we'll face the scorn of future browsers from down-under. I think the only common rhyming slang you still down under is "frog and toad" (hit the road)? (And it is normally meant to elicit groans.) ...But I would have understood "Have a Captain Cook".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of the Joshua Project as source

I just want to know if Wikipedia considers the site The Joshua Project a reliable source on ethnic groups data (on name and amount, for example). There has been much debate in the talk page about the real existance of the group named White Argentines (in the JP it appears as Argentinians White). Here is the link to the page of Argentina's ethnic groups: The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina.

And here is the statement in the article:

The Joshua Project -that provides information on ethnic people groups around the world, with missionary purposes- states that White Argentines and other whites (Europeans and Middle-Easterners) in Argentina comprise 85.8% [3] of the total population. This percentage does not show explicitly, but after doing some mathematics, the results are as follows: Argentinians White -the resulting ethnic group out of the melting pot of immigration in Argentina- sum up 29,031,000 or 72.3% of the population. The other European/Caucasus ethnic groups and Uruguayans White sum up 4,258,500 (10.6%), and Arabs sum 1,173,100 more (2.9%). All together, Whites in Argentina would comprise 34,462,600 or 85,8% out of a total population of 40,133,230.

It must be said that the percentage obtained out of the amount of people agrees with the % provided by other sources cited in the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the Joshua Project was created to support a religious 'Mission'. It is not a scholarly research project, even if it may have based - or claims to have based - its information on reliable secondary sources. If the latter is true, you would need to consult the original sources (as long as they're RS). It's as simple as that. Cavila (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Goble's blog

Paule A. Goble, a notorious Russophobic journalist, writes a blog with the theme of the impending doom of Russia called window on eurasia. His blog is self-published, and he has a very poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as noted in the above linked blogs and various other places within the blogosphere. All biases aside, the amount of factual inaccuracy that can be found in his writing is simply astounding for a so called "award winning" journalist.

Reliable source? Seems like a no-brainer to me, yet.... (Note: The Kyiv post link simply redirects to his blog). LokiiT (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We've got an article on Paul A. Goble. While this is the first time I have heard anything about him, if our article is accurate, he has been an advisor to Voice of America, Radio Liberty, the US State Department, and the CIA, which seems to make for as good a reputation as can be requested in this field. Now arguably all of those organizations are also notoriously Russophobic :-) but they still meet our qualifications to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Seems like a self published article by a previously published expert. The fact that he has his critics doesn't lessen that fact. Rephrasing the statement from "There have been reports that ..." to "Paul A. Goble reports that ..." may be better. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPS states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." - it specifically says they cannot be used as a source for claims about third parties or events unrelated to the source. And for good reason; there is absolutely no accountability for his claims; he can and does say whatever he wants without consequence to his professional life. LokiiT (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
As a blog, it's not a WP:RS. Offliner (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote LokiiT cites is actually from the paragraph below the one tagged WP:SPS. And it's actually a misquotation, I'm afraid, which makes a big difference. The quoted sentence doesn't end with a full stop in the way that it is quoted. It goes on "... without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, ..." In other words, they can only be cited about subjects other than themselves if they are published experts in the field. A rather important omission. The relevant line I was referring to is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Again, with the caveat that our article on him is correct, Goble seems to meet that. --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an op-ed piece published in the Kyiv Post, that it links to a blog is immaterial. The question is whether op-eds published by national news agencies are RS? Yes they are for the opinion of the author. I agree with GRuban, provided that proper attribution is given such as "Paul A. Goble reports that ...", it should be okay. --Martin (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As a former CIA operative, trained in disinformation, psy-ops, etc, Paul A. Goble is clear example of what is NOT reliable source. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering he is named "russophobic" in a blog of an ultra-nationalist/racist hate-monger, I would ignore that claim completely. "former CIA operative, trained in disinformation, psy-ops" is an utter nonsense sounding like it is lifted directly from Soviet propaganda.

However, I think we should use Goble's blog only in case there are no other sources available. As far as I know, a lot of his blog entries are actually articles published elsewhere, i.e. in journals and newspapers - if that is the case, I would link to his blog even if the article is available, as quite a few journals pull the articles after a while (WSJ, Washington Post etc). He is a widely recognized expert in the field, so per WP:SPS we may use the blog unless we are dealing with BLP article, but I would be very careful in doing so.

--Sander Säde 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

tvtropes.org

IS tvtropes.org RS fopr information about plots nad story elements?Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as it is user-generated content.Dlabtot (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That is what I thought, but the user (who is using it) seems fairly new and I wanteed to confirm it using some one uninvolved with the page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dlabtot. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_pinto Nearly all of the articles appear on blogs and not the actual papers. Most of the articles referenced are fringe foreign Hebrew newspapers, and these are the English translations of the site. Please assist as these are not original reliable sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2010

I haven't looked closely at the article; but enough to see that none of it is cited to "fringe foreign Hebrew newspapers". Some of it is cited to Haaretz, which is about as far from fringe as a Hebrew source could be. Most of the other sources cited seem on the face of it reliable. If you have a concern with any particular source, please specify it, so that this can be discussed. RolandR (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
From what I can tell none of the sources are in Hebrew, and none of them are "fringe". One of the 11 sources is a blog, which is problematic, but it's a reprint of an article in a reliable newspaper, so the solution would be to find the article in the actual newspaper. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maths Pages

I'm sure that this question has been asked before, but I need to have some clarification. Are maths pages accepted as a reliable source? I definitely recall reading somewhere that they are accepted as a reliable source, but I now have a situation in which I used maths pages to verify the claim that centrifugal force is a concept which arises in the context of polar coordinates, but that this information is being rejected on the grounds that maths pages are not a reliable source. I don't think that anybody actually doubts the subject matter as such, but nevertheless, for some reason, it is a piece of information which is strongly resisted at the centrifugal force article. In relation to the source in question, I had a very interesting response from an editor which reads as,

The Mathpages is a very intereresting work (- i.m.o. it is piece of art -) but it can never serve as an authoritative source as a basis for Wikipedia content.

This editor, while appearing to concur with the contents is nevertheless keen that certain information in the source is not repeated on the main centrifugal force article. It would seem that his reasons are purely the fact that mathpages are not acceptable for verification purposes. So in order to establish whether this is a content dispute or a dispute about the legitimacy of sources, I need an opinion as to whether or not maths pages are acceptable. And I assume that any such consensus on the matter will be binding across the board, and not just in relation to this particular issue. David Tombe (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This editor also said: "It is someone's personal (and, apart from one chapter, book-unpublished) view. It clearly is an ideal entry for the External links section, and perhaps even for the Further reading list, but the unpublished parts can never be used as a wp:RS, and can certainly never replace a solid textbook source.", the latter apparently being what David Tombe had in mind. DVdm (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"Unpublished" is not the right word to use here... the fact that it is on a web-page means that it has been "published". It is more correct to say that the material is "self-published" by the website's owner. As such, it has has a limited reliability. See: WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that the general policy on maths pages? David Tombe (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the essays on the mathpages website could be regarded as satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. At least some of those essays are simply copies (perhaps with some subsequent editing) of the author's postings to usenet news groups. This essay, for example is just a lightly edited version of these two articles posted to the sci.math usenet newsgroup in December 1995. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says specifically that "internet forum postings" are "largely not acceptable as sources". While it might be true that not all the essays on the website are copies of usenet postings, I don't see how there's any way for a non-expert to distinguish whether any of them that aren't could be regarded as being any more "reliable" than those that are.
Nor does the author of the essays, Kevin S. Brown, appear to be an "established expert" in any of the topics treated in them (although, as far as I can tell from my own knowledge of some of those topics, at least some of the essays are, in fact, very good). So, despite the apparent high quality of some of the essays, there appears to be no reasonable grounds for exempting them from the verifiability policy's normal rules against self-published sources.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David Wilson's analysis. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

David, Thanks for your detailed response, and I'm glad that you thought the author of the article wrote very well. I would agree with you about that. Meanwhile, the problem has been now solved. An editor has acknowledged at WT:PHYS that the polar coordinate centrifugal force exists, and that it should appear more explicitly in the article. Took nearly four years to get there! And as regards maths pages, I'll bear in mind what you have said for future reference, which is that they are not reliable sources. David Tombe (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish diaspora relying heavily on the Joshua Project

The article Kurdish diaspora relies heavily on Joshua Project for the Kurdish population which I consider to be extremley unreliable. The article also uses the Kurdish Institute of Paris which is probably much more reliable. I wish to remove the Joshua Project sources, is there any objections? Turco85 (Talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At a guess a website collecting demographic info for christian missionaries isn't going to be a reliable source, so here's one user agreeing with you.--Misarxist 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Also without looking into it detail, this does not seem like an appropriate source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

The article Toshiaki Imae uses this tweet by Jason Coskrey, who is a professional writer covering Japanese baseball for the Japan Times.

I'm just wondering if twitter can be used to source articles in this way, and, if so, how do we properly cite twitter. If not, do we just wait until the author publishes it in their regular story? XinJeisan (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no editorial oversight of JCoskrey on twitter; it is not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's a better source: "Marines fight off Dragons for Japan Series title", Jim Allen Daily Yomiuri "Toshiaki Imae, who won his second Series MVP Award, ..." --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation from Hiragana?

[47] I need to know what this page says to see if it is a good source or not. I have already found a site that has a semi-translation for the diary entries at the end (though it is paraphrased badly), but if anyone can do the paragraphs before that that would be great Mew Mitsuki (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Humanevents.com

Is humanevents.com a reliable source in general? Is it a reliable source on living persons?

The editors include such persons as Ann Coulter. Its About us main page alludes to theories of a conspiracy to hide the truth:

Human Events may certainly have been a reliable source 50 or even 20 years ago. But that hardly seems the case today.VR talk 05:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most unreliable sources are true the majority of times.
I specifically asked whether it is a reliable source on BLPs, which are sensitive. It has been used to make negative statements about living persons.VR talk 03:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
But to properly evaluate those statements, it would be helpful to know what those statements are. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just beacuse Ann Coulter is also a contibutor there, it does not make it a non RS, some of their articles are opinionated though.Chorlseton (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

VR is referring to this dispute I am involved with on the Newt Gingrich article. He has twice removed material quoting a Human Events writer stating that Gingrich was the first major US politician to speak out on sharia law, saying that it's not a reliable source. I have twiced placed it back, and explained why on the Talk page. I think he means it is a biased source, and it certainly is that. I would be wary of its use for many purposes. But Human Events is a recognized opinion leader in the American conservative movement, so its use here is appropriate. Stargat (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that particular column is a reliable source about a living person. It seems to be an editorial, an opinion piece; and just the claim "the first major US politician to speak out on sharia law" seems very vague. What makes Gingrich "the first major US politician"? He certainly used to be major, but he's not currently holding or even running for any political office, so how major is "major"? And what's "speaking out on sharia law"? It's hundreds of years old, and rather important, surely in the history of the US, some US politician has said something about it. I'd argue we should leave the statement out, on grounds of both reliability and undue weight. There is plenty more to say about the former speaker of the house than something so vague. If you want to say he actively campaigned for a specific law, fine, we can surely cite that with more than just a line of editorial puffery. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
He is expected to be a presidential candidate for 2012, and he's very much in the public eye and on the public airwaves. There should be no serious disagreement that he is a major political figure in the US. Moreover, the state of Oklahoma voted this last week to pre-emptively ban sharia law from being used in state law, so that too is a significant issue on the political landscape. And that is exactly what Gingrich called for in the speech that the Human Events column describes. It's opinionated, yes, but it contains basic reporting. I would support another source being used for this, but I don't see anything wrong with using Human Events here. And deleting the material entirely, which is what VR did, is certainly not appropriate. Stargat (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The article in question: "Gingrich Sounds the Alarm about the Stealth Jihad", by Robert Spencer, 08/03/2010. It's clearly an opinion piece. We don't use opinion pieces for anything except the opinions of the author. If it "contains basic reporting", that's overshadowed by the polemic. If the idea is to write that Gingrich campaigned for the Oklahoma law, that seems reasonable for the article, but we can find a better source that is actually news, not a polemic. Here, for example: NYTimes or CNN If the idea is to puff Gingrich for any hypothetical future presidential campaign, Wikipedia is not the place for it. --GRuban (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I still disagree that a Human Events column is not useful for representing the opinions of conservatives, but the news articles you cite seem like fine sources, too. They also basically reinforce the point, so I'll find a way to work them in. Just for the record, I have no idea who added Human Events in the first place. I responded because VF was deleting apparently verified information. Stargat (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And so I have updated the section now, using the CNN article. Stargat (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing House plagiarism and circular referencing problem

A while back, I found a book published by Global Vision Publishing House that was basically a compilation of Wikipedia articles, published without attribution. The book in question is listed here. What I didn't realise at the time was how big this problem could be, given the risk of circular referencing that it creates. I just did a search for Global Vision Publishing House and quite a lot of articles seem to reference their books. I picked one at random, Geography of New Caledonia, and followed the reference there to a Global Vision book called Foundation of Geology. Surprise, surprise, the book plagiarises Wikipedia and the material that is being used to support the Wikipedia article is from, you guessed it, Wikipedia. The whole section of the chapter is copied from Wikipedia's continent article. Any suggestions for what to do about this problem? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, putting quotation marks around the search terms significantly reduces the number of results returned, so it seems that not many articles are affected. However, the potential for future circular referencing clearly remains. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Another aspect of the same problem: I did an amazon search for "Eleftherios Venizelos" recently and found at least the first two pages almost full of "books" that appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Not having examined these things, I don't know whether they acknowledge Wikipedia or simply plagiarise it. In this case the publishers are Books LLC and (same format, apparently mirroring the German Wikipedia) Bücher Gruppe; also, less prominent, Alphascript Publishing. How many others are there? Andrew Dalby 09:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, more and more. Books LLC is one example, the Icon Group is another. They basically copy/repackage Wikipedia content and print books of that material at extremely high prices. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I followed the Icon Group link and that's pretty depressing stuff. This makes for sad reading, if you ask me. Perhaps this merits inclusion in a second edition of your book on Wikipedia, Andrew! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
For better or worse, publishers without real fact checking have been around since printing began. I suppose they did not affect scientific subjects quite so much in the past though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
They have always been with us, that's quite true, but we on Wikipedia are presenting a lot of raw material to such publishers -- at the very moment when their accountants are telling them they can't afford copy-editors or fact checkers any more. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is depressing in that sense for sure. But then again it is also cheaper for other types of people to publish these days, not just these guys. I am a genealogist, and an over-whelming mass of self-published materials which copy off of each other was already building up before the internet took and now causes quiet a lot of confusion. One could argue it started in the 19th century. But I think it is a nett positive. What I was responding to was the problem for this board. I do not see that as overly depressing, because I think publications without fact checking will always be out there and always need to be discussed. (And for genealogists also there already basic practices that people should have been following concerning how to use and cite sources.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, well in the meantime I've removed the reference from the Geography of New Caledonia article, and another from Patriotic and Democratic Front of the Great National Union of Kampuchea. These seemed to be the most obviously plagiarised of the Global Vision sources. Other references to their books seem to be to older ones, which perhaps predate this spell of plagiarism, although I would still treat them with suspicion given the disclaimer that the books feature saying that the publishers take no responsibility for the content. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

www.kayecorbett.com/Counterfeit%20Hero.html

Is this RS for purposes of stating in Linda McMahon "Linda became President of the WWF as a legal maneuver to save the company in 1993. At the time, Vince had been indicted on charges he distributed steroids to his wrestlers." ? Collect (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That's a pretty controversial claim about a living person, that we want good sources on. The source seems dubious - it's not clear, but it seems to be a book that didn't make it to publication, so is being put up as a web page. Kaybe Corbett may or may not be an expert about wrestling, but for a controversial statement about a living person, we want a non-self published source. Finally, even the source doesn't say that. It merely says:
So even the source doesn't come right out and say it was a legal maneuver, merely that there were snickers and speculation. No. We need a better source, and we need it to actually say what we say it does.--GRuban (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Not true. It is in the reference more explicitly at Chapter 9, Section 1.--Screwball23 talk 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
And in any case, there is nothing wrong with stating that Linda was made president during the trial, and there was speculation that she was made president for purposes of bringing positive publicity to the company. I also want to make it clear that she advanced at that point, making a more visible presence in the public eye from that position, becoming a spokesperson for the company. The reference itself is a book reference, and it is valid. I see no reason why it should be challenged by Collect simply because it does not serve his agenda.--Screwball23 talk 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a self-published book. That means we can't use it for statements, especially controversial statements, regarding other living people. That's called WP:BLPSPS. Stating that she became president "as a legal maneuver" is a pretty controversial statement, you need a much better source. Find a published book from a reputable publisher, or a mainstream news article, that ties her becoming president to the trial. It shouldn't be that hard: the trial got some coverage at the time, and she got a lot of coverage just recently. If you can't find it, then, maybe, the world thinks she became president because she could be a good president. --GRuban (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lulu.com and Academic Associations

Just a heads up for our records, Though my university professors I have learned that at least one Academic Association (in this case Society for Historical Archaeology) has started publishing through with Lulu.com with Editorial oversight on the Association's part. Apparently This could be the start being a trend with second string Academic Association. (First String being orgs like American Anthropological Association and American Academy of Religion) as apparently Lulu.com is offering a bigger cut than typical Academic Publishers. Just a note to have in the Archives. No one has tried to use one of these sources to my knowledge yet nor do I know wether any other Orgs have signed on as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear ResidentAnthropologist. In this case it appears that SHA is still the publisher for wikipedia purposes and lulu is merely the printer. Is the case different? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for all intents and purposes. A copy one of these in my school Library book still says its published by Lulu.com. Depending on how its cited here and whether Or not some one tries to challenge it becuase its assumed to be a Lulu.com- WP:SPS. This it merely to have record of it for future use. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PC Mech and TechNewsWorld

Is PC Mec considered a reliable source? Would this review be considered a reliable source? Is TechNewsWorld a reliable source? Is this review a reliable source? I'm asking following a contention raised at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Vandal_Recently_Changed_our_Company.27s_Wikipedia_Page_Repeatedly.Smallman12q (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source and falsification of sources by User:Jrkso

User:Jrkso is inserting wrong information in the article Afghanistan. And to make his edits look "sourced", he is selectively quoting and linking unrelated sources. For example, he stubbornly sticks to the fabricated claim that in an alleged letter (which seems to be completely unknown to real scholars), Alexander called the inhabitants of modern Afghanistan "lions". To mislead the readers, he links this fabricated nonsese to another quote which has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. From that source, he selectively picks a few words which suite him, totally falsifying the message. Here is the original quote from the book:

It is very obvious that the author is talking about the harsh geographic conditions, i.e. the hot and rough desert terrain south of the Hindu Kush in which Alexander and his army almost died on his way back to Iran from India (they had no water in the desert of Makran and Gedrosia). It is mentioned in the article Alexander the Great in the section Alexander_the_great#Indian_campaign. Jrkso, on the other hand, selectively picks the last part of the information, and turns it into this:

He falsifies the source, making it look like "lion-like Afghans almost killed Alexander and his army".

Despite being asked to provide reliable sources or prove that the author of that one book is a reliable expert, he has constantly rejected or fails to provide any information regarding the author Abdul Sabahuddin. Who is this guy?! What are his sources for this alleged letter?! Is this guy a scholar and expert on Afghanistan's history?! Does he know Greek and is he an expert on Greek history or language?! And why is Jrkso stubbornly claiming that this man is a reliable source, although the fabricated nonsense regarding that alleged letter cannot be found in any scholarly source?! And to make it worse: he believes that "because he is right", it is my job and that of the Wikipedia community to prove him wrong. In other words: it does not matter what sources he uses. If I have a problem with it, I have to prove it wrong. I did try to google the author and the message, but I was not able to find anything. The author does not have any other books, his name is not registered in any university, and the claim is not supported by any scholarly work. Yet, Jrkso still persists that he is right and all others are wrong. Now, he has even ordered me to write an email to the publishing house that published that book and ask them for information on the author. I refused, and now he is calling me "lazy", still persisting on his POV. Some admin help is needed. I have tagged the article, and I am once again asking Jrkso to provide RELIABLE; SCHOLARLY sources for this obvious nonsense. If there is such a mysterious letter, then it should be no problem to find 2 or 3 other sources. Tajik (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page regarding clear, full citations of the sources in question. If the source for the second statement is "Abdul Sabahuddin. [unknown text]. [unknown location:] [unknown publisher,] [unknown date,] [unknown location within text.]" Then the Abdul Sabahuddin text is unreliable as a source is not specified. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's palpable nonsense. There are no letters written by Alexander surviving, of course. Misrepresenting sources is a blockable offence, which could be taken to WP:ANI. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! It'S not just about the author, it's the nonsense propagated by that no-name author. I am removing it from the article. Tajik (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
All we have from Alexander is a letter to the people of Chios engraved on a stone. In fact, Alexander is noteworthy for the lack of contemporary written evidence. There are some well known forged documents, which perhaps the author is claiming to be genuine. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Tajik's behaviour is very aggressive and annoying. He needs to chill out, be civil, and stop lying about me. The Alexander letter info was there in the article for months and when Tajik attempted to remove it the other day I reverted his edit. So now he's angry and is attacking me. He's asking me to show him the original letter written by Alexander in 330 BC. I believe this is a reliable source. Everything in the book is backed by these so many top scholars-professors-historians-contributors, the author has listed the sources in the references list. I picked one of these and you can read for yourself about what happened between Alexander and the local tribes in the Afghan area. It's between pages 68 to 88. So therefore, I didn't falsify anything. On a separate issue, Tajik is trying to falsify information at the Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. He's trying to put the result of an opinion poll about the security situation in Afghanistan as a census report. This is clearly misleading and he knows it too.--Jrkso (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, can you read the top of the page where it says, "A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60."? We appreciate citations here. Abdul Sabbahudin, History of Afghanistan, New Delhi-2: N.K. Singh / Global Vision Publishing House, 2008. is not a reliable source. The bibliographic information page says, "Responsibility…for this title is entirely that of the author." which is the publisher disclaiming any review over the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, all books come with the same or similar "Responsibility…for this title is entirely that of the author." mentionings. And you forgot to explain what makes Abdul Sabbahudin, History of Afghanistan, New Delhi-2: N.K. Singh / Global Vision Publishing House, 2008. an unreliable source.--Jrkso (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
SELF makes it unreliable as the publisher takes no responsibility for the work.
Hill, Howard and Landsbury, Industrial relations: an Australian introduction Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1982 doesn't; nor does Pitt and Smith (eds), The Computer Revolution in public administration: the impact of information technology on government Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1984; nor does Anderson and Zinsser, A history of their own: women in Europe from prehistory for the present Volume I, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988. Is is very unusual for publishers to disclaim responsibility for the works they publish. So much so that this is the first instance I have ever seen of a non-vanity press disclaiming responsibility for a work they publish. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't the have time to list million books here which all give these same warnings about not taking any responsibility, etc. You know there are many but believe what you want. Here is one I quickly found. What you have to say about this?--Jrkso (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You linked to a report whose disclaimer states that the publisher's opinion is not the author's opinion. 1) Reports aren't books. 2) The Strategic Studies Institute didn't disclaim the factual content of the work, and remains responsible, in particular the report says, "Smith of SSI has carefully edited their works...". In the case of Sabbahudin, History of Afghanistan, the publisher disclaims any responsibility Fifelfoo (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Fifelfoo is correct, the source is unreliable in comparison to the vast array of scholarly works published by university presses and peer reviewed journals. The claim of a letter is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary sourcing. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words you're saying we can make anything reliable and anything unreliable. It's fine with me because these things are not worth arguing over. The fact is that Wikipedia is useless without these sources.--Jrkso (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the problem is that no reputable scholar claims we have letters actually written by Alexander. What we do have are reports of such letters by Plutarch, some of which are considered to be forgeries, others taken more seriously. Your source doesn't make this clear, nor does it give any indication of where the letter might be found so that it can be attributed correctly. If you can find the first known copy of this letter, presumably in Plutarch, it might be possible to use it in some fashion depending upon how it is attributed, if it is considered to be a forgery, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The letter is not the issue. The issue is that Alexander and his army had very hard time with the eastern Iranian tribes in and around Arachosia, the ancestor's of Afghans. The letter confirms this and so does this book, pages 68-88. Fifelfoo and Nuujinn are saying that the book by Abdul Sabahuddin is unreliable and made up a very poor excuse, but you skipped that to saying the letter is the problem. They didn't take the time to read these books that I cited. A. Sabahuddin doesn't claim that Alexander himself wrote the letter with his hand. Someone wrote it for him but in it Alexander told his mom that the eastern Iranian tribes were determined fighters. These eastern Iranian tribes are the same people that the US-NATO forces are fighting with today.--Jrkso (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Doug just a remark. There were more Greek historians who wrote about the campaign and whose work survives at least partially. Many were closer to the events than Plutarch. I can't remember off-hand what correspondence they report if any, but at least I'd say that editors do not need to think that the only near contemporary source would be Plutarch.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone other than Jrkso consider Sabahuddin's book a reliable source? Also, Jrkso, looking at the book you mention, pages 68-88. I see no mention of Alexander. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't see Alexander mentioned in this book [48]. Is this some kind of a joke?--Jrkso (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::I meant that it is Plutarch where we find reported letters from Alexander, 30 I believe, although as I've said, they are controversial. We can't use the letter to confirm anything. I don't know what this 'someone wrote it for him' is about. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, please cease refactoring your edits, it's making the conversation considerably more difficult than it need be. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, the 'someone wrote it for him' is a response to your "No, the problem is that no reputable scholar claims we have letters actually written by Alexander." Alexander almost losing his life and his army [49], is that also unreliable? This was removed from Afghanistan. The guy who reported me at the top (User:Tajik) is an Afghan but acting like someone who is anti-Afghan. I find it strange that he is removing all of this interesting information.--Jrkso (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn, I would appreciate it if you leave me alone.--Jrkso (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that you're assuming someone wrote it for him? And I can't think of any reason to use Sabadhuddin's book when we have so many books that are unquestionably reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who wrote the letter, it is claimed "from Alexander to his mother". Read Wikipedia:Truth ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true...") and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. There are so many garbage sources cited in Wikipedia, I can't believe that this book is called unreliable here. Maybe before you guys start criticising it you should review the book and learn more about it and the author, "Professors, scholars, trainers, members of the publishing fraternity, and all those interested in the subject would find this book both interesting and informative." Sabahuddin has written a number of books [50], and everything he stated in his books are properly referenced. If anyone has doubts they can search and verify the info very easily like how I did it. The mention of Alexander's letter and calling the "eastern Iranian tribes as lion-like brave people" by Sabahuddin links to János Harmatta's this scholarly UNESCO work, which is a compilation by Asian-American-European professors (i.e. Ahmad Hasan Dani and many others). This János Harmatta's work obtained its info from the early historians such as Arrian, Strabo, and others. So, in order for someone to claim that A. Sabahuddin is an unreliable source, they must find a proven mistake in his book. We have to respect people from all over the world here, we can't be biased toward Muslims or Asians. We have to accept their work the same way we accept western scholars.--Jrkso (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The guy who reported me here (User:Tajik) stated: "I have removed a dibious claim regarding an alleged letter by Alexander the Great in which he praises the present inhabitants of Afghanistan. That information is given by only one author (who happens to be Afghan) and cannot be found in any other sources..." That's how this whole issue began. Tajik himself is an Afghan but he calls the author A. Sabahuddin an Afghan, where does it mention that Sabahuddin is an Afghan? I like to know why is Tajik biased toward Afghans when he himself is Afghan?--Jrkso (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso, the issue is not about nationality, but about reliability. Unfortunately, like many other Pashtuns here (at least those I have met here), you somehow believe that "national interests" need to be defended on Wikipedia, while I believe that only scholarly and reliable information should be used. Of course, there is always some disagreement about what's reliable and what's not. But when it comes to Alexander, Alexander's campaigns and the occupation of Persia, there are many good sources. Of all those sources, you have picked a source that is totally unreliable. You are not even able to provide any information regarding the author, and as shown above, even the publishing house explicitly mentions that it is not taking responsibility for the book's message, i.e. it only reflects the author's personal view. So far, you have failed to come up with any good source, but you insist that the one book - written by an author who is a total mystery and very obviously neither an expert on Afghanistan nor on Greek history or language - is a reliable source. Well, it is NOT, and the only one who does not accept this FACT is you. Again: this is not about national interests. Yes, I am an Afghan. But that does not mean that I have to support all kinds of nonsense only because that nonsense is published and propagated by another Afghan. That Afghan author - as an individual - is an unreliable source. Period. As for János Harmatta: he is an expert on East Iranian languages (he is NOT a historian) and has published works on the language of the Xiongnu. He is a reliable scholar, but so far, we do not have any reliable work by him supporting your claim. Even the book you have posted above (History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p. 70ff, A.H. Dani/P. Bernard) does not make such a claim. On page 70, it is even mentioned that we do not even know why Alexander took this or that route. It's pure speculation. So: where does Abdul Sabahuddin have his information from? Only because an unreliable author makes a claim and uses the name of János Harmatta as a source, it does not mean that it is correct. If you are convinced that this mysterious letter was directly mentioned by Harmatta, then it should be absolutely no problem for you to find a better source. Until then, this alleged letter should not be mentioned. Not every published work is reliable. I could write a book, claiming that Alexander was a Chinese and then claim that my information is based on research by János Harmatta. Would it then be OK to use my book as a "reliable, published source"?! I do not think so! As for the quote from the book "The Afghans" (Vogelsang, Willem; 2002; p. 11), the author is referring to an incident that took place 500km further south, at the coast of the Arabian Sea in the desert of Makran, in what is now Pakistan. Jrkso selectively quoted a single part of the information, drew it into his own POV regarding that mysterious letter, falsifying the quote by Vogelsang. That "interesting information", as Jrkso describes it, should be quoted PROPERLY and NOT selectively. Tajik (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
First, not everyone can write a book. Most book writers that deal with history are qualified and they will never make any stupid or ridiculous claims such as calling worldly recognized Greek or Macedonian man a Chinese. Secondly, what do you have to say about Wikipedia:Truth ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true...") and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Can you tell me where do you find that A. Sabahuddin is Afghan?--Jrkso (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I repeat, all we have about letters from Alexander is the inscription on a stone and much later reports of letters. If evena report of this letter exists, find a source which says where it originates. Even the best academics can make mistakes, and I've searched for such a letter and couldn't find it, although I haven't yet looked directly at Plutarch. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and we are not short of sources published by university presses and peer reviewed journals covering Alexander's forays. I see no evidence being presented that Sabahuddin's work is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
As one writer has said, "Our sources often refer to the contents of letters of Olympias sent to Alexander and occasionally contain material taken from Alexander's replies or his verbal reactions to his mother's correspondence. These fragments do not inspire much confidence in their authenticity, particularly because the Alexander Romance probably began as an epistolary historical novel. Indeed, the credibility of the correspondence preserved in Plutarch and other Alexander historians is part of the wider issue of the dependability of all letters quoted or paraphrased in the text of ancient writers. Scholarly tradition about the treatment of Alexander's correspondence has been to evaluate each letter on its individual merits." Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What kind of evidence you want? I don't see any evidence being presented about Sabahuddin's book being unreliable. You guys are just trying to tell me to go away, don't edit Wikipedia. I'm just gonna leave it like that because this isn't going to end up in my favor and I know it. The reason is not because I'm wrong, it's because I don't like to focus too much arguing over unimportant issues such as this.--Jrkso (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso, it can be difficult but take Doug's information as a good lead. There were second or third hand reports of letters by Alexander. As he says, they are questioned, but still anything from those old records is notable also. I have not looked at the content being discussed, but if you are just trying to say Alexander and his army had a tough time against the ancestors of the Afghans that should be sourceable. He did. But I doubt the reports of letters are the best way to do that. So there might be sources that could help you get across something of what you are aiming at. But you have to aim at something others will also accept. You can't just use any source and then twist it to fit what you think WP should say. Try to always ask yourself how others see it, or you'll get stuck in discussions like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso, as I have already explained to you on Talk:Afghanistan: it is not - I repeat: it is not - the community's job to prove an author or his sources wrong. It is each author's job and duty - I repeat: it is each author's job and duty - to provide reliable sources. If it were the other way around, then Wikipedia would have been pure nonsense, from A to Z. It is part of the filter mechanism of Wikipedia to check each author and his sources. And if the author cannot provide proper and reliable sources, then his edits will be removed. That easy. Do you understand? Tajik (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It was administrator User:DanielCD who in July 2004 added to Wikipedia [51] the Alexander letter and calling Afghans as brave lion-like people. I'm not the author.--Jrkso (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Administrators of this site don't have any special powers to determine if a source is reliable or not. And the source in question (Sabahuddin) appears quite unreliable compared to other historical works on Alexander. I have notified DanielCD of this discussion. Perhaps he used a different source back then, even though none was cited in the 2004 version of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this, and I don't even remember this article. It was back from 2004?? It was a different world back then. But are you people trying to say I doctored a quote? Whatever. I can assure you I would never do something like that. That was a LONG time ago. Complain as you will, but if it's questionable, remove it and discuss it civilly. I have been around here long enough to have little patience for pointless accusation slinging. --DanielCD (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for this mistake. When you've been around as long as I have, there are always little time bombs out there waiting to go off. I have looked, and will continue to look, for the source I used here. --DanielCD (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Tijfo098, you're comment about administrators is irrelevant. I was just leaving a note about where the info originated. Since DanielCD is an admin I had to mention that. Sabahudding being unreliable is a different issue and I don't feel like arguing over that.--Jrkso (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Tijfo098, you're comment about administrators is irrelevant. I was just leaving a note about where the info originated. Since DanielCD is an admin I had to mention that. Sabahudding being unreliable is a different issue and I don't feel like arguing over that.--Jrkso (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
DanielCD, no need to apologize, and I didn't mean to get you involved here. Also, there's no need to get frustrated over this. It's well recorded in history that Alexander had a very tough time in the land of Afghanistan, it took him 3 years to cross the land from one end to the other. Some of these events are even shown in the 2004 Alexander film. He married a girl (Roxanna) in what is now Afghanistan. There are many books which mention his hard time in Afghanistan, this is well known but some of these editors are not aware of this. I'm very sure you didn't make this up because I've read it in several places in the past, and I know it's mentioned in some books, I'll look for it when I have more time. What I don't understand is why some of these editors are strongly rejecting this.--Jrkso (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso I think people were objecting to very specific things, and not just the assertion that Alexander had a tough and long campaign in Afghanistan. If that is all you want to write then that should be very easy to source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm lost and confused. What very specific things were they objecting to? The "Unreliable source and falsification of sources by User:Jrkso" section name, which is very rude, is saying that I'm a vandal falsifying information in Wikipedia. If you follow my edits, they are totally the opposite of that. If someone doesn't trust a book I cite I shouldn't be criticised. If an error is found in the book I shouldn't be criticised. If I write something in Wikipedia my way others are free to re-write it but they shouldn't criticise me and my writing skill. I think someone just wanted me to get blocked and they succeeded.--Jrkso (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edits and intentions may indeed have been described wrongly. You may also have described the edits and intentions of others wrongly. I'm mainly only mentioning this because I think it shows the way forward.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform people commenting here that the discussion below about Global Vision Publishing House might be of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso's is trying to make a point in here (i.e. proving an obviously unreliable source "reliable") by using a Hollywood movie as a source. That's perhaps the most unreliable way to write an encyclopedia. And his claim that Alexander needed "3 years in Afghanistan" is a very popular myth in Afghanistan, but it's not the way Jrkso (who is not a historian) thinks. Alexander's harsh time in the east was mostly based on the harsh territory of the Hindu Kush and the fact that his army was slowly but surely becoming more and more exhausted. It was not because of the "great Afghan fighters" as is proclaimed in Afghanistan and by Jrkso. For some reasons, Alexander took the long and dangerous route through the mountains, and then had to face a military opposition in Sogdiana (Sogdian Rock; modern Uzbekistan). There, for political reasons, he married the Bactrian princess Roxana (and not in modern Afghanistan, as Jrkso claims). Alexander's marriages had mostly a political character and helped him to avoid direct military confrontation. That was also a major reason why he was able to conquer the western parts of Asia so quickly: he married Persian royals (2 daughters of Darius) and partially recruited Persian military personal. Jrkso's entire argumentation here is pointless and irrelevant. So is the source he is defending. Tajik (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That's your own story. Let's get this straight, you're not a historian or a scholar here, you're just a Wikipedia editor with so many blocks. Instead of spending an hours writing all your thoughts just provide a reliable source so we can read for ourselves. Btw, I didn't use Hollywood movie as source. That shows your weak argument.--Jrkso (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that the people involved in this disagreement make a conscious effort to avoid exaggerating the position of their interlocutors. Ask yourself is there is any way you can interpret what they are saying which is not crazy. You might be amazed at the results.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is this still going on? that bit was removed from the article more than a week ago and hasn't been stuck back in again and the discussion on the talk page ceased. I agreed it is probably nonsense and wrote my reasons on the talk page too. Agree with Andrew Lancaster, and on this particular topic how about just drawing a line underneath it all thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Tim Blair (2010-013-09). "Deletion Johnson". Daily Telegraph. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Tim Blair (2010-013-09). "Deletion Johnson". Daily Telegraph. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference joshua project argentina was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
More