Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130→Archive 135

Is Boxofficemojo a reliable source?

Someone posted an edit request at The Dark Knight Rises talk page saying 'box office wordwide $268,387,000 reference - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm'. Is this website reliable? Floating Boat A boat that can float! 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, yes, unless contradicting evidence is found. It's a standard source here at WP. Check the RSN archives for earlier discussion. --Lexein (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

diputaciondelagrandeza.es

This website is the sole source for a new article, Grandes de España (Current). I know there are a number of websites making claims for nobility that don't stand up when examined, and I'm concerned that there is a BLP article with only one source (and which doesn't even explain much about its subject. Anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks completely genuine and official, either that or a good fake. Grandee has the background, and the list article could do with a few sentences saying what the list is all about (Spanish nobles, in a nutshell). The new article seems to be based on the Spanish Wikipedia one, which makes sense. We have extensive coverage of British nobility, why not Spanish too? Worth querying, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Guys, my thinking when I created this page was that the source was pretty good. I remember looking up most of them at the time to verify the title and did not find any discrepancies. I definitely understand the pervasiveness of the "faking nobility" problem, but really, these Grandees are the most powerful (in title at least) of all the Spanish nobility and it would be very difficult (impossible really) to fake such a title especially given that the Spanish monarchy is still very much active. Just my thoughts. Best, --ClarkSui (talk)

Brevik and Dhimmitude

This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class"[1] is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir".[12]" Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is dhmmitude substantially discussed, or is this the only sentence discussing it? If the latter, the source isn't sufficiently about this topic to really bother with. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have linked the source.As I am involved I really like outside opinion--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The source looks impeccable, since it is peer-reviewed and written by a leading expert in the relevant field. As a general observation, though, I'd be cautious about a disparate bullet-point list of example's of the usage of term, which is what the article currently contains. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I said my problem it would be cherry picking and WP:UNDUE for this article maybe in Brevik article it probably would be ok.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, though, it would certainly also be cherry-picking to arbitrarily exclude the information. If there's a case for WP:UNDUE, that should be made on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have another concern the author of this piece is not an Academic in the field does it acceptable?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a relevant journal and the author also appears to be in the relevant field [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes but she is not scholar I am not even sure what kind of education she has, does being member of the think tank and getting printed in scholarly journal make her reliable source? I have another example [3] what about this? Its peer reviewed scholarly journal but again the article is not by scholar in the field does it acceptable too or no?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Liz Fekete is the Executive Director of the Institute of Race Relations, and head of its European Research Programme.[4] She is a member of the International State Crime Initiative at King's College, London.[5] She is a frequent visiting lecturer at universities.[6][7][8][9] She has published counbtless papers in peer-reviewed journals, including Race & Class, of which she is Reviews Editor.[10] She has been described by Professor Avery Gordon as "one of the best analysts of the complexities of racism in Europe today", and her recent book A Suitable Enemy: Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe has been widely reviewed and cited. In short, she is one of the researchers best qualified to comment in this field. RolandR (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that very nice but I like to hear comment from uninvolved editors--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way am I an "involved editor"? RolandR (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Leaving that question in the air ... I agree, based on the credentials cited, that Liz Fekete should be regarded as an expert in this field. We can and should cite her. If there's reason to suppose her view might be controversial (yes, this is a controversial field!) there is always the option of in-line citation. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white Americans in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No RS/N query made, simply commentary on an article's sourcing Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of info from this article. A sample is below.

In general, the problem is that information is cited to self-published sources.

When it is not, the sources sometimes do not support the statements. For example:

They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various -- and usually, bizarre -- ways.[1]

If we want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. This article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children.

This pattern crops up again and again. Statement that some people think white people are bad. Example of white people doing something bad.

Is the point of the article supposed to be that white people are bad? Or is it supposed to document the stereotypes believed about them?

I think the problem is the wiki community doesn't think this is very important and can't be bothered to improve the article, which means it is neglected and fills up with rubbish.

Some selfpub examples. [11]

A popular origin story in the U.S for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy/useful/pdf/hygiene.pdf

and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves. This also has a strong basis in European history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene#Hygiene_in_medieval_Europe

as personal hygiene was seen as something of a fashion choice, akin to whether one should wear a hat outside or not. dhr.history notes: "The cities Europeans lived in exposed them to "crowd" diseases, or those spread by close contact, poor sanitation, and poor personal hygiene (Europeans rarely bathed). http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html

Risingrain (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Guitargeek.com

http://GuitarGeek.com hosts diagrams and lists of equipment used by famous guitarists. The site was created by Adam Cooper, a published illustrator who interviews guitarists and guitar techs for the info.

Usage: In Adrian Belew#Musical_style "In 2010, Guitar Geek interviewed Belew's guitar technician Andre’ Cholmondeley, creating a list and diagram of Belew's guitar setup at the time."[12]. Here, Cooper directly interviewed one of Belew's guitar techs. I consider this one reliable enough for inclusion in Adrian Belew, at the end of the Musical Style section.

Bad usage: Nirvana (band). GuitarGeek states the reliability of diagrams, such as in Nirvana where it states "STAGE RIG COMPILED FROM VARIOUS BIOGRAPHIES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, CONCERT FOOTAGE AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. THE ACCURACY OF THIS SETUP IS NOT GUARANTEED." As a result, I support this source's recent removal from Nirvana (band).

So, I propose that GuitarGeek is reliable when used carefully. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion: I know nothing about this subject area, so I'm looking at this as an outsider, which is probably beneficial. :)
GuitarGeek.com appears to meet WP:SELFPUBLISH. So the relevant policy is whether the "expert" applies here:
"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."
Google searches on strings like "Adam Cooper" guitar -site:guitargeek.com show that Adam Cooper and his site make significant strides toward meeting the "self-published expert" criterion. Cooper is active and successful professionally in his field. He's widely cited. Where he and the site are weak is trying to find how much they've been "published by reliable third-party publications" as this is a specialist world Cooper's an expert in. I did find this independent, professional site using his work:
Ibanez guitars 1
Ibanez guitars 2
Lexein my feeling is that you're dead-on in your assessment and usage of his work and the site. I'd make sure the article attributes any content that relies on Cooper and/or GuitarGeek attributes it in the article. Zad68 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving Jetpack66's comments out from inside my comment, for chronological order. Thank you for the additional information! --Lexein (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam Cooper, along with Nick Bowcott (of Grim Reaper fame and long-time artist relations manager for Marshall Amplifiers), created the "Vulgar Display of Power" column for Guitar World which ran over 10 years. The popular column featured famous guitar player rigs and was the longest running column in the magazine's history. GuitarGeek.Com has been online since 1995. The vast majority of the rigs are compiled from actual interviews with the artists and/or their techs. Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From Adam's bio: "Adam Cooper's award winning GuitarGeek rig illustrations have appeared in GuitarPlayer, Total Guitar UK, Guitarist, Alternative Press, History of Marshall Amplifiers, Roland/Boss User Guides, Ibanez Steve Vai Jemini & Paul Gilbert Airplane Flanger Instruction Manuals, as well as the longest running monthly column in Guitar World Magazine's history: Vulgar Display of Power. Before launching GuitarGeek.Com in 1995, Adam published the highly respected music zine, Whirlpool, which was distributed worldwide via major record store chains." Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you stand on using GuitarGeek carefully (meaning, not when its own certainty is low, as in Nirvana), with attribution in the article text? --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Vidstatsx

I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Corrected name of section head from "vidstatx" to "Vidstatsx")
I am involved in editing this article with 117Avenue. The source is being used in the following way to support the shown article content:
As of July 2012, [Dave Days'] YouTube channel was among the top 50 most-subscribed channels on YouTube...
Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-50-most-subscribed-channels
...and was in the top ten most-subscribed channels in YouTube's Entertainment genre.
Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-entertainment-channels
Source is also currently supporting similar content at Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill and Charlie McDonnell among others. Zad68 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(unarchived, relisted hoping to actually get comments this time) Zad68 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Unedited, unauthored random website. There is no reason to believe that this website is reliable for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn and Falun Gong

There seems to be a current dispute at Falun Gong at least in part relating to the source www.facts.org.cn here. Does this source qualify as a reliable source for the material it is sourcing, which seems to be basically critical of Falun Gong? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn appears to be an unedited news-aggregator run by a political organisation. There are no named editors in the English version, and the site lacks an "About" page despite the site's producers being broadly familiar with English language expectations (cf: "FAQ"). As an unedited aggregation, do not use. Original copies (ie: unaggregated material) may in itself be reliable, if found at the original source of the material, and if reliably published itself. Don't use facts.org.cn—not because it is critical, but because it is unedited and thus can't have a reputation of fact-checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that it appears to be an arm of the China Association of Cultic Studies, a government-affiliated organization set up after the crackdown against Falun Gong got underway in order to slander the practice and incite hatred towards its members inside China (NB: political slander in the context of a campaign of violent physical repression is different to simply "critical" content). A more detailed discussion of the state's campaign is over at Persecution of Falun Gong, the above is just what I glean from a scan of the sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't matter in terms of reliability. States regularly set up institutions to persecute individuals, such as Centrelink or the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank reliably publishes excellent material. Reliable sources don't have to be "nice" or "neutral;" and when the best sources appear to have a particular position, then as they are the best sources that position is the NPOV one in wikipedia terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Leni Riefenstahl's films were made in a way that would be familiar to many filmmakers but no one would suggest that they are reliable sources for Judaism. But your point is that we ought to look at the source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking - not their political biases - in determining reliability? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Riefenstahl possesses no qualifications regarding the sociology of Judaism, and reviews of her works from the 1930s discuss their cinematographic, fictive and ideological functions (rejecting by silence any competence of Riefenstahl regarding the sociology of Judaism). We reject Riefenstahl because she is unreliable for the sociology of Judaism, not because of the ideological content of her films in the 1930s. We look at sources' reputations for accuracy and fact-checking, and more over their capacity to comment in a field (newspapers are bad for science, historians are bad for contemporary US pop culture biographies). In this case, "facts.org.cn" fails to display core signs of reliability in the fields of news journalism and opinion, or the sociology of religion in China—facts.org.cn's ideological position isn't relevant to their (lack of) reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Right - but how was that determined? Do we look at the source and say "Let's see, this doesn't appear to display core signs of journalistic reliability or the sociology of religion in China, given all the Chinglish and irrational ranting"? Is there a checklist? It would seem that one could make the argument that because the site is supported by the Chinese government, it should have great insight into China's social mores and be able to comment decisively and authoritatively on matters of Chinese religious practice in the country. After all, with the state's vast surveillance apparatus, the organization of the CCP might know as much about the composition and activities of Falun Gong people as any other organization in the world. Why doesn't that make them reliable? (This is not a trick question, I'm seeking to educate myself in a comprehensive way in our RS policies and conversations like this help.) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The absence of named meat—either editorial staff (journalism) or an editorial board (scholarly product). The lack of authors for works. The absence of material discussing the organisation who produced or commissioned these works. It isn't a scholarly output (no discussion of peer review or submission requirements). It lacks the basic apparatus of identity of publications that any website possesses these days. Mostly this is from experience of what sources should look like for scholarly and journalistic pursuits—look at a bunch of international good news sources: SBS, abc.net.au, guardian, bbc, al jazeera, Le Monde, Times; look at how they present information about themselves, and about their products; etc. etc. This website does none of this grounding content, and makes rather extraordinary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a typical advocacy/propaganda web site, possibly even qualify as hate site. I would suggest to blacklist. It has versions on several languages including Russian. This piece on Russian [13](linked to the site) tells that FG is a terrorist organization, the followers are mentally sick, and that policemen in China are allowed to torture or shot them on spot. After looking at this, I would tell that even famous Soviet anti-religious propaganda did not went so far, although there are many similarities. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, that is easy to fix. Are you saying that all they need to do is present a set of mugshots, add some bylines and datelines, and write in the inverted pyramid form and we've got a bona-fide reliable source saying that Falun Gong followers eat their babies and poison beggars? There is surely more to it than the surface issues you raise. Zujine's remarks (they'd been accidentally deleted) below seem apropos. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
As this discussion has gone into the theoretical, and as you've already invited me to discuss the theory of RS/N responding, lets continue this on my talk page as you suggest. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a primary source with no reputation for fact-checking or verifiability. There are some sources indicating that the organisation that runs this site is tied to the Communist Party's 6-10 Office. The 6-10 Office was established with the mandate of eliminating Falungong, including through what scholars describe as a "massive propaganda campaign". For the specific material this source (and another government website) was used to support — the charge that Falungong encourages suicide — there are numerous reliable sources that have discredited these reports, and none of the government's claims in this regard have ever been independently verified. There was a former arbitrator who put it pretty well: "Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable."
Under the right circumstances, questionable sources could potentially be used as sources about themselves, but not to make exceptional claims about third parties. Interpretations of falungong's beliefs and teachings should come from academic sources, not from a Chinese government website.—Zujine|talk 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable." That arbitrator's reasoning is wrong, and I would be very happy to correct them on why they are wrong. The arbitrator is discussing the source's neutrality, not its reliability. Some kinds of sources regularly make claims that specifically take a side in an ongoing social debate. For example, most authors write in a fashion that makes the mid-twentieth century paroxysm of genocidal violence out to be a bad thing. Thankfully, many of these writers are specialist scholars who have the capacity to sustain such a claim, such as Hannah Arendt. The problem isn't that the Chinese government encourages "independent" organisations to anonymously slang off a religious group. The problem is that neither the Chinese government, independent organisation nor anonymous authors are suitable experts for religious slanging off. It doesn't matter if these parties detest and loathe a religion, all that matters is if they're competent to make extraordinary claims about a religion. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited. See for instance secondary reliable source citing this website: Benjamin Penny (13 April 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65501-7. Retrieved 26 July 2012. With that not sure why anyone would want to cite facts.org.cn, given the wide selection and availability of secondary scholar reliable sources on the topic of Falun Gong. In fact, facts.org.cn currently is not being used for any citation at Wikipedia, so it is not a big problem. With that not everything is perfect:

The Epoch Times using epochtimes.com or Falun Gong using faluninfo.net citations appear ridiculous and those citations should be replaced with higher quality secondary sources, per explained above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agada: a hate site meant to vilify a persecuted group is different to a regular primary source used to make claims about the party producing the primary source. That said, it's often a question of context. One would have to look at specific cases. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There is definitely a conflict between China government and Falun Gong. Both sides utilize propaganda. It is interesting that secondary sources note that master Li media activity is modeled after China government one. Li was exposed to it, when Falun Gong was an integral part of the state and enjoyed their support. We as Wikipedia are neutral and don't take side in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed we don't, but the dichotomy I identified above is not my own, it is the frame adopted by reliable sources. And of course the pages should and do discuss Falun Gong's own communications strategies and the doctrines and influences that inform them; those are two different matters. But we've departed from the status of facts.org.cn. The consensus seems to be that at the very least it is not a reliable source TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited." No. It is not reliable for any of its claims, due to lack of editorial process. Its opinion lacks any weight, as it is not comprised of weight-worthy commentators. Do not use facts.org.cn Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good angles and points, 10x, Fifelfoo. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More Information on the history of Bultfontein (the town in the Free State)

WP:SOAPBOX, RS/N is not a venue for political soapboxing regarding national politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I just want to add on the information about the town bultfontein in the Free State. Just for the record I am from this town, my parents are staying there.

  • It is true that that town currently has high rate of ganstarism and satanism. Young boys leave school to attend intiation school, coming back from there they call themselves men and they join the groups of gangsters, some of the groups are :born are to kill, ma- Portuguese, etc
  • The other problem with this lovely place is that there are so many tarvens in that small town, I think there are about more than 30 tarvens in that place, which is having four primary schools and two secondary schools. I mention this schools to show that it is small to have so many tarvens.
  • And this gangsterism is destroying a very strong heritage of this area. This area also palyed a very important role in the fight against struggle which dates back to 1985 during the era of UDF and Black Power because in 1985/6 a beer hall and municipal offices were burnt and subsequently activists involved were encarcerated at Brandfortd prison of which most were released in 1988.And from 1989 we had groups of young activists leaving the country to join Mkhondo we Sizwe.
  • We are also informed that Queen Elizabeth did visit this area. And in town next to the taxi rank, there is a fountain which has been there for ages, it is at the fointain where we used to have "diphikoko".
  • I am just highliting just few of these information to show that these beautiful area of us is beign portrayed bad due to this evil acts, but that area is one of the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Assam#Etymology

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam [16]

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and lastly to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 [14]. Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 [15]).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Haven't been involved before but I sometimes work on etymologies. Your latest text is fine I think.
My impression (could be quite wrong!) is that this long dispute has been caused partly by the desire to place on Wikipedia a justification for the Assam government's proposal to change the name. Unfortunately the misleading statement that "Assam is an English word" became a sticking point. It isn't an English word, it's an English spelling ... but there may still be good reasons for changing it. Andrew Dalby 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This and a similar dispute some time ago on Wikipedia seemed more personal, pushing a POV.
After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?
Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Wikipedia's policy.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now? When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Wikipedia's policy of differences between order and recommendations.

I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling
  • The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit.
  • The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam.
Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting comparison. The situation seems to me very similar. "Orissa" was not an English word, but an English spelling/rendering of the name, and it was perfectly reasonable to say that it is inaccurate, reminiscent of a former colonial regime, and should no longer be official. Wikipedia can be quite neutral on such matters.
The difference is merely, I guess, that someone in Assam has claimed that "Assam is an English word". If so, we can surely say that in explaining the proposed name change -- "it has been claimed that Assam is an English word" -- and we can cite a politician who said it. It seems to me not likely that a linguist or scholar would have said it, but, if any have, we can obviously cite them too. If the assertion is notable, as it evidently is, there need be no difficulty about any of this. As you say, the best place for such an explanation is the full article Etymology of Assam; once it's set out fully there, it'll be even easier to decide what should be said in summary at Assam. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestions. Any official statement of the Assam government is notable enough to be included. We should avoid the word "claim". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the Etymology of Assam (User:Bhaskarbhagawati has challenged it on various grounds) Your help in checking out the sources would be very helpful. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".[16] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.[17] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.[18] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.
The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.
Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
As I've said below, I don't think we can help you further at RSN. We will not comment on what "proposed spellings should have been": that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The statement "Assam is an English spelling" is not controversial and is not affected by whether the same spelling was used in Dutch. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. The disputed statement is not "Assam is an English spelling" but "Assam is based on the English word Assam". Could you recommend where I may go next to resolve this? On your recommendation I spruced up the main article Etymology of Assam, so you may draw the right conclusion. If Wikipedia cannot resolve this, it would be remarkable. I have tried the third opinion, the dispute resolution and now this. As a result of this dispute, the Etymology section of Assam is now unreadable and makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it.
If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. I'm not an admin here (thank heaven) so someone else will have to advise you where to go next :( Andrew Dalby 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall follow the comments made on the statement presented initially and go forward. I thank all for the comments made on Alternate Text 4 and shall not press the issue. I do appreciate the time and effort the people put here. Chaipau (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. If you gone through previous discussions here and in others, you can find that consistency is there what i said based on sources, it is another matter that disputing user tried to misguide here to gain advantage. As matter is controversial, i suggested the disputing user to put POV's of scholars, which is not acceptable to disputing user maybe due to against his interest. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it. The solution cannot be said article because same was entirely developed by disputing user and reverted all of my contribution attempts. Concerns are put in talk page. If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. It is disputing user who seems to waste others time as it is not a matter of reliable sources and should not be posted here.

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.


The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".[19] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.[20] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.[21] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government. Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'. It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati makes some tendentious remarks, but relevant nevertheless.
  • His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4)
  • The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words.
  • The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.([22]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam".
  • It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing.
Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember, we are only advising about sources here. It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks,Itsmejudith. I have accepted a previous suggestion that the main page Etymology of Assam should be fleshed out first so a synopsis could be better written. I started work on it, but it has turned out to be more work than I thought. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.

The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.

The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.([23]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.

It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.

It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.

Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.

Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is repetitive, circular, and no longer a reliable sources matter. I hope some editor who hasn't previously commented will close it. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


This issue is wrongly brought here as it is not case for recommendations for reliable sources. It maybe closed now.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It was correctly brought here, Bhaskarbhagawati, and we resolved the issue for you. You are quite right to admit, above, that by continuing to be a "disputing user" you "waste others time". I am glad you now understand that. I hope you will learn from this experience that, in addition to wasting others' time, you also waste a lot of your own time in such pointless argument. You really can improve Wikipedia, you know! But you have to add information that is supported by reliable sources, cite the sources accurately, and, if a discussion arises, try to find agreement by consensus. Andrew Dalby 08:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding reliable sources i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:

Banikanta Kakati says -

The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.


Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names.

Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link

As for English spelling I like to say, (i) "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya.

(ii) The name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained is matter of another discussion.


Thanks !


bbhagawati (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course "Assamese" is an English word. Grierson's full text, written about 100 years ago, can be read here, thanks to archive.org. In the course of his explanation, yes, Grierson says "Assam is an English word", and goes on to state that it's a "corruption of Āsām", the Bengali name for the region." His terminology is dated -- linguists nowadays leave corruption to others -- but he's spot-on as regards the history of the name. He goes on to discuss its ultimate origin -- the Sanksrit theory, which he rejects, and the connection with the name of the Ahom, which he accepts. He's writing about the language , and his aim is to explain why he uses the term "Assamese", spelt with a double 's', although that spelling has no local justification. His argument is that it makes sense to continue this way until such time as the name of the state gets a new spelling. Fascinating stuff. And I guess it must have made sense to write, in Simla, in about 1910, when the only ruling language of India was English, "Assam is an English word".
Although it's quite legitimate to quote Grierson's full explanation, it doesn't support any modern argument except the obvious one. Grierson confidently traces the history further back from that so-called "English word" to the Bengali name of the region, and beyond that to the Bengali name of the Ahom. It's useless to quote that one assertion and say that all the rest "is matter of another discussion". It all goes together.
OK, so, quote me in what context Banikanta Kakati makes the statement. A great scholar, certainly, but it appears from your brief citation above that on this particular point he is merely quoting Grierson. That's natural enough; but we have no need to cite Banikanta Kakati on this issue unless he is saying something new.
One added point: if what you really want to say is that Assam was the British name for the region, not for a people or tribe, you're quite right, of course. Āsām was the Bengali name for it, and "Assam" was the British name for it. That's not controversial, surely. Andrew Dalby 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Yes last line that Assam is an English word and referred to land not any tribe makes sense and resolves this dispute. Hope this concludes this discussion. I have nothing else to say and signing off from this discussion.


Thanking all !


bbhagawati (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I would like to point out that holding someone to a line or a phrase, devoid of the context, is an example of quote mining.
  • Etymology of Assam was slapped with a number of tags. I have since requested for comments on the talk page.
Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

God helmet article and "Neuroscience for the Soul" source

I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:

I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself.[24]

I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank-you to the IP address and Mr. Uzma Gamal who have considered the situation. This article is not a reliable source. It misquotes the original findings by Gendall and McGrath. Here is an example:
Aaen-Stockdale:
" ... claims these devices are able to modulate emotional states, in addition to enhancing meditation and generating altered states. In flat contradiction of this claim, Gendle & McGrath (2012) found no significant difference in emotional state whether the devices was on or off.
Famousdog :
"Experimental attempts to produce these effects have found no difference in emotional state whether the device was on or off."
Actual quote (from the Gendle study):
"Although the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect on the emotive response to images in this study, additional investigations examining the effects of weak and complex magnetic fields on various aspects of perception and cognition are warranted."
Instead of trying to edit on the God helmet page today, I will instead head your suggestion and re-read the article very closely for other negative information from that article. Once again, thanks for your consideration.Ksirok (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Going to the website for the device in the Gendle study, I found that it doesn’t claim to "modulate emotional states". Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods for people who feel at their worst in the morning, but don't have psychiatric disorders. The Gendle study only examined changes in the way people responded to images with emotional impact. It doesn't look like the Gendle study examined any of the effects attributed to the God helmet, but I'll have to read the full study to be certain.
The Aaen-Stockdale article also claims that the researcher Michael Persinger bases his ideas (about the neurological basis of religious experiences) on the literature of epilepsy. This isn't true. Persinger’s ideas are based on temporal lobe and limbic lability (how easily these brain areas change their state). Epileptics are only one of the groups who have this trait.
Aaen-Stockdale says that Persinger uses field strengths of 1 millitesla. In fact, the fields are much lower - 1 to 5 microtesla. Aaen-Stockdale's information is not correct. He claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything. Nothing can stop a magnetic field (so-called magnetic shields bend the fields, but aren't insulators). True magnetic insulation appears to be as impossible as perpetual motion. Persinger attributes his effects to field-to-field interactions between the God Helmet and the weak magnetic fields present in the brain, created by its electrical activity. This error may have originated with a psychologist in Sweden who attempted a replication experiment, but Aaen-Stockdale's article perpetuates it. Accuracy is more important. Perhaps a physics editor can confirm this.
Looking over the references for the God helmet page, I can see that most of them are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist. I will be looking into this some more, because of my interest in the subject, but for now it looks like the Aaen-Stockdale article is not a reliable source on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 (talk)
Could I please have a WP:CHECKUSER on Ksirok and the anonymous IP 70.44.181.216 who "hasn't been active on Wikipedia recently" (yeah, right. Or indeed EVER) who are trying to argue that a review article with an extensive bibliography published in the official publication of The British Psychological Society isn't a reliable source and that the editor who added the citations to it (me) has a COI? Ksirok has already attempted to out me and this seems to be rapidly turning into a witch-hunt against a single source that they disagree with! I bet you $10 that both these new, single-purpose editors have a connection with Laurentian University in Ontario. Famousdog (c) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ksirok's claim that I "misquote" the Gendle & McGrath study is nonsense. The text that he refers to is clearly a quote from Aaen-Stockdale NOT Gendle & McGrath. I will add the section he quotes from Gendle & McGrath ("additional investigations ... are warranted.") if it will keep him happy, but its a pretty lame, standard conclusion for researchers looking to justify further funding and ignores the very strong conclusion in their previous sentence ("the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect"). Famousdog (c) 09:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous IP's claim that "it doesn’t claim to 'modulate emotional states'. Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods" is a complete tautology. How on earth does one "enhance mood" WITHOUT "modulating emotional states"!?!? If you want to re-word this (consistent with the citations), then that's fine, but stop trying to discredit this source. Famousdog (c) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous IP states that Aaen-Stockdale "claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything." This is true, but actually, Aaen-Stockdale says "the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within". This is a different matter. He argues (in the very next sentence) that "TMS uses field strengths of around 1.5 Tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons..."). Magnetic fields must be strong enough to depolarise neurons, otherwise they cannot influence brain function, whether they penetrate the cranium or not! This is willful misquotation by Anonymous IP. Arguing, as Anon does, that field strengths even weaker than that quoted by Aaen-Stockdale would have bigger effects demonstrates the level of desperation that this discussion has reached. Regarding Anon's argument that "most of [the references] are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist" I'm afraid that the vast majority of these references are by Persinger (which surely introduces the sort of bias that Anon and Ksirok claim to be defending the article against). In addition, secondary sources trump primary sources. Famousdog (c) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Aaen-Stockdale article mis-quotes the Gendle study, and it gets the field strength wrong. It's also wrong in it's statement that, (as far as Aaen-Stockdale can tell - a statement that does not inspire confidence in its reliability) Persinger's theories are based on the literature of epilepsy. This thread is about whether or not the Aaen-Stockdale article is a reliable source. Other issues belong on the God Helmet talk page, like how Persinger explains the effects of weak magnetic fields. I let more than a day go by before responding, in the hopes it would help to cool things down. Please excuse my dynamic IP address. Please, let's "discuss the issues, not the people".
Its becoming clear that there will probably be no agreement regarding this issue. It may be too convoluted for this forum. Accordingly, I will adopt the suggestion of the administrator who started this thread, Mr. Uzma Gamal, and continue to edit the page, paying particular attention to the sources for negative statements. At this point, I don't know if mediation will be called for. Of course, I plan to address how the God helmet's magnetic fields influence brain activity.Ksirok (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Hey all,

I want outside opinion on this source, [[25]] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for wikipedia article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of any source which speaks about this club being liquidated? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

Transcendental Meditation technique

This source is used four times in the Transcendental Meditation technique article. However:

  • 1)The source document is hosted on this Christian website a web site which says it "affirms the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible".
  • 2) The author of the source document, Vishal Mangalwadi, makes his purpose clear in his final paragraph called, Talking Points, which says: "Once we can help a Hindu to see that man’s basic problem is moral, that we are guilty of breaking God’s law and deserve punishment, it will be easier for him to see that Christ is the only way to salvation, [bold added] i.e. forgiveness and reconciliation, because he is the only one who has died for sin.
  • 3) The author of the [source] article, Vishal Mangalwadi, is the Co-founder & director of the Christian organization: Theological Research and Communication Institute (TRACI), New Delhi [26]
  • 4) The author, Vishal Mangalwadi's [self published] bio says: Vishal and Ruth are currently in the United States exploring The Soul of Western Civilization - the Bible. This study was inspired by Vishal and Ruth's recognition of India's need for the reforming power of the Bible."

At present the source is being used to support the article text listed below:

  • "all who want to learn are taught"
  • "Vishal Mangalwadi says the mantras, having the names of deities, are meaningless sounds used in the Japa yoga tradition."
  • "and students are required to bring a clean handkerchief, some flowers and fruit, and their course fee."
  • "The TM teacher is said to "worship" the picture of Guru Dev during the TM instruction, puja ceremony."

Is this an appropriate source for this article and the content specified above? Or should other sources be used in its place? A prior discussion at WP:RSN regarding the Maharishi University of Management article, indicated that sources with a narrow Christian point of view should be avoided. Is it true in this case also? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Vlach claims to have an appropriate PhD for Theology, but his [awarding institution is unaccredited]. Vlach is publishing a tertiary source for non-experts. Non-expert tertiary: do not use for a scholarly field like comparative religious sociology. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, however, Vishal Mangwaldi is the author of the source in question. Michael Vlach is merely the founder of the web site that is hosting the source document. Sorry if my post was confusing, I've added a URL link and some wikilinks to my original post to make it clearer. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how this changes the incompetence of the publisher of this work's importance to indicating that this source is unreliable for religious sociology or theology. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not challenging your position. I just wanted to make sure that my post, which questions the validity of the Mangalwadi source, was clear. Thanks again,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Mangalwadi article, the website hosting it (theologicalstudies.org.uk), and the RSN archived discussion Keithbob mentioned. Considering these, it looks like the rule is that sources with a narrow Christian view should not be relied on as sources of factual information. Here, the website and the book it hosts promote a narrow Christian view and have been sited as the source of factual information. IMO the rule applies here and a different source should be used.Coaster92 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's a good generalisation regarding sources promoting narrow ideological views; it isn't universal. Scholarly theologians publishing in the scholarly mode do have the authority to make weighty opinions or claims in this field, more the moreso their theological publications exist in cross cultural comparisons etc. Theology isn't bad for sourcing religion—non-scholarly theology is bad. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Awamiweb.com and awamipolitics.com

I recently came across these sites being used as references by Mubashir09 (talk · contribs). These appear to be rather disorganized, multi-user blogs trying to be news aggregators. They each appear to have a few main contributors, but allow "guest writers" to contribute. Many of the articles appear to be little beyond opinion pieces. The English is often very poor, sometimes to the point where the meaning is undecipherable. There is no indication of when (or if) they are doing their own reporting rather than simply translating news from other sources. Granted, it's difficult to tell and I haven't spent much time going through their articles let alone looking for possible sources for their reports.

Anyone have time to look into this further? --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it looks like these sites plagiarize, should they be blacklisted? --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the KNMG official viewpoint document be used in this way?

RSN request

"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"
  • Source used:
The Royal Dutch Medical Association's (KNMG's) "official viewpoint" (as the KNMG itself describes it): "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)"
  • Applicable quote from document:
"There is currently not a single doctors’ organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons."

Question Is the KNMG's official viewpoint document a sufficient source to support the claim being made?

Discussion

In my evaluation, the KNMG's official viewpoint document is not a sufficient source to support as strong and as broad a statement as is being made. To call it a "summary statement" as the article claims, I think we would require a statement from a neutral, peer-reviewed source such as a law or ethics journal, with a clear description of how the survey of the many world-wide professional associations of physicians was performed, what the inclusion criteria were, some discussion of the primary sources themselves, and description of how the conclusion was drawn. I'd also expect that a neutral overview to be the stated goal of such a journal article. But, we don't have any of this:

  • First, the KNMG official viewpoint document is clearly persuasive in nature. Regarding circumcision, the document states "[T]he KNMG does believe that a powerful policy of deterrence should be established".
  • The goal of the document isn't to present the summary results of a neutral survey of the world's associations, but rather to justify the KNMG's own position.
  • Take a look at the endnotes in the KNMG statement, they cite:
  • A paper "Circumcision - a Victorian relic lacking ethical, medical, or legal justification"
  • The anti-circumcision site nocirg.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Wikipedia)
  • "Jews against circumcision"
  • The anti-circumcision site circumstitions.com (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Wikipedia)
  • The anti-circumcision site circinfo.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Wikipedia)
among others.
  • The KNMG statement doesn't even match up precisely to the claim being made. The KNMG statement is about "...for medical reasons" and the claim in the article doesn't have that qualifier (although this could be fixed with wording, but this wouldn't address the issues I see here)

I don't see how the KNMG official viewpoint document could be used to support anything other than the positions of the KNMG itself.

Input please! Zad68 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The document is not persuasive, it supports some view that is overwhelmingly prevalent in Europe. In Europe where circumcision was quite rare after WWII and before the recent influx of immigrants nobody did care about circumcision for the 50-60 years while the circumcision-rates were about 0.5-5%. The Netherlands were traditionally the country with the highest percentage of immigrants so they were one of the first to notice the issue. Similar statements were issued in Germany and many hospitals have stopped religious circumcisions in Switzerland and Austria after the recent Kölner Landgericht ruling. Yesterdays Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported about the discourse between Swiss legal experts whether neonatal circumcision is antragsdelikt or offizialdelikt (one that must be prosecuted under any circumstances).
The document is perfectly representative for Europe and should be given adequate weight, any thoughts that the KNMG might represent some anti-circumcision fringe views are completely misleading. Richiez (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of caring more about WP:The Truth than about the joys of finding a perfect sourcefor the footnotes, is there any professional association of physicians that actually does recommend routine circumcision?
The purpose of our sourcing guidelines is to get things right (where "right" is defined in terms of reliably published information rather than Wikipedian's personal beliefs), not to throw up bureaucratic barriers to filling an article with good and relevant information. Do we have any reason to believe that this statement is actually wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Richiez, you and I are both involved at Talk:Circumcision debating this issue, thanks for providing your side. It's good for the two of us to get some opinions from outside editors here at WP:RSN.
I have replied here because it was my impression the you think that the KNMG is some activist organisation with an agenda. This board should clarify whether or not this is the case, content discussions should be discussed elsewhere. Did you ask for input on the Dutch portal? Richiez (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, be careful not to miss the subtlety of the RSN question being posed here. I actually believe that it's quite possible that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is WP:The Truth™, although since the World Health Organization started recommending circumcision as a way to slow the spread of HIV, it also would not surprise me to find out that some small medical organization in HIV-ravaged Africa does recommend it. I don't know.
The issue is that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is not the article content the KNMG statement is being used to support. The article content is:
"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"
so what is being claimed here is that there are multiple "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians" being quoted. The KNMG statement can't be called a "Summary of the views of professional associations of physicians" when it was written for an entirely different purpose. In WP:MEDICAL articles, the word "summary" has a special meaning referring to the easy-to-read analysis of the results of an independent third-party review of existing medical literature. (Look at WP:MEDRS, which talks about the use of the word "summary" in reference to medical sources.) For example, take a look at this summary from the highly-respected Cochrane Library: Zinc for the common cold. To refer to the KNMG statement as a "summary" is very misleading. If the statement were changed to "The KNMG states that no professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons" I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the characterization of the KNMG statement as a "summary statement" in a medical article that I find an unacceptable use of the source.
To expand on this, take a look at this article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics. It states "no medical body has advocated a policy that calls for the prohibition of circumcision", the inverse of what the KNMG says, in addition to "Although they recognise that existing medical evidence does not support that the procedure that can be universally recommended" as well, supporting the KNMG statement. But even this cannot fairly be called a "summary of the views of professional associations of physicians".
I'm not trying to throw up bureaucratic requirements, I'm just trying to get the article to accurately reflect the sources. This has nothing to do with any beliefs I might or might not have. Zad68 02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style. If this is a fact (or a fact as far as the extensive research into sources by Wikipedians has been able to determine), you should report it as a fact.
And the intent of the summary doesn't matter. If the source actually does summarize them, even if it does so as a side issue or afterthought or any other reason, then its contents may be described as a summary of said statements (but only one summary, in the singular, unless you have other sources that do the same). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree "Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style, I don't like that. This does give me motivation to offer some new ideas for different phrasings to the article's regulars. Hope we can get consensus. Also hoping to see input from others here as well. Zad68 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Zad68's post above. I don't think they have the authority to make that broad statement, and I'm very suspicious that it's accurate. Jesse V. (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I think WhatamIdoing gets it completely right in his first post. I'm usually highly critical of editors who attempt to use a single, blatantly partisan source to support such a dramatic statement, but in this case there is no reason to believe the source is unreliable. The KNMG has no dog in this race; their objective is to increase public health.

We have no reason to believe they would misrepresent the facts in order to support a point of view, we have no reason to believe that such a prestigious organisation would lower itself to bending the truth about the matter, we have no reason to believe they would have any motive to do so anyway, and as WAID said, we have no reason to believe the fact itself is untrue. We should include the statement as we have no reason to doubt its accuracy. If a reader is sceptical of the statement they can always follow the reference and decide for themselves. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Allrovi

Allrovi controls Allmovie and Allmusic. Allmusic has the wrong birth year for Kitty Wells and Allmovie has one that differs from other sources for Sondra Locke. Hal Erickson wrote the one bio but didn't have input on the birth date. This is the same for his Imdb bio work of the same subject. Should we compare Allrovi sites to other sources and possibly not use them for birthdates if they aren't reliable? I have emailed two of their departments, asked about their sources, but no response in weeks.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I would generally consider them reliable; mistakes do occur in details like this (for what it's worth, they also have the wrong year of birth for Chris Carter). If a majority of other reliable sources show that they have a detail wrong then use the more-widespread information in the relevant article, obviously, but if there seems to be no conflicting information to what they present elsewhere then I'd still consider them okay to go with. GRAPPLE X 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Ms. Locke's article has both years listed because of this source and a book. I read two reviews of the book author and both said that his dates were unreliable. There is a very long discussion on her article talk page and every other dispute forum we could find. I gave up on it after wikihounding, false sock investigations, block threats, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Interviews on YouTube

Can an interview given by an actor to a tv channel be used as a reliable source?? Roshan (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It depends on the source. By that I mean it depends on who has the video posted as well as who is interviewing the actor. For example, if an actor was being interviewed by their local news station (say, the local crew of CBS or Fox for their area) then that would absolutely be usable. However, if the person was being interviewed by a local public access show that wouldn't be considered as reliable unless the show is considered to be exemplary (having attracted attention and notability on their own). Generally that aspect of that would be easy to guess. Where YouTube sources tend to go wrong is in who posts it. Any interview is copyrighted by the channel/show that produced it. As a result, YouTube videos should really only be used if they're posted by the channel/show that interviewed the person. Even if the video is posted by the actor being interviewed and it's clear that the video hasn't been edited, the issue here is copyright and per WP:YOUTUBE we shouldn't link to videos that aren't posted by the official sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
the authenticity of a clip posted by a generic user on youtube is also a consideration. if it is "tho official" you-tube channel for the organization that recorded the clip then it is validated, otherwise people can doctor media clips and in addition to the copyright issues, its authenticity is also in question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The verifiablity of the source is also likely to be an issue. How could another editor check the material. If the answer is "YouTube" then that's probably tricky. But if another means is available, you should be able to cite the show giving the details needed to access that, without the need for a YouTube link. Formerip (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HSY article

I would like to know if this particular hellosomaliyouth article is a reliable source. It has been linked to using the Wayback Machine because the original webpage is dead. The HSY link is in a foreign language, Somali. According to WP:NONENG, although "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones", non-English sources can be used unless "a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information", in which case "relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". However, no one seems to be able to provide a professional translation of much less understand/WP:VERify what that Somali language page actually says. Despite this, it is being used on the Scouting in Somalia article to reference sensitive WP:REDFLAG material not covered elsewhere in mainstream sources. Specifically, the following statement [27]: "In February 2007, UNICEF sources reported the existence of a local Scout group, Boy Scouts of Somaliland, in Ceerigaabo, Somaliland." This is problematic because the HSY page does not use the term Boy Scouts of Somaliland anywhere, while other sources [28] indicate that it is specifically the local Sanaag administration where Ceerigaabo is situated (a disputed region which Somaliland claims) that is actually responsible for this scouting group. The HSY article also seems quite spammy in that it features a bunch of porn- and cheap laptop-related links in the comments section. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's questionable I wouldn't use it, but keep it a mention of it on the talk page in the event another source is found.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian Rockwell Williams

Brian Rockwell Williams contains the statement:

At the time of her death Briana Williams was 18 years old,[6] and had recently graduated from Mount Carmel High School.[7]

Citation #7 sources The Huffington Post (i.e. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/brian-williams-not-guilty-plea_n_905671.html) which is an excerpt credited to RanchoBernardoPatch (i.e. http://ranchobernardo.patch.com/articles/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering-mother-sister-in-rancho-peasquitos). I am wondering if one is more credible than the other and which, if any, should be cited? Thanks! Location (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had editors tell me that the Huff Post is a blog and so not considered a reliable secondary source. From what I can tell, the Patch is a newspaper. There is an editor but I am not sure if it is OK to assume that there is fact checking. I couldn't find anything online but would like to hear other editors' input.Coaster92 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Patch.com has been discussed before. here is one [29] it appears that each locality has an editorial board of sorts, and the qualifications of that local board may or more likely may not be up to snuff. if it is a national story, there should be other more consistently reliable sources available. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I normally would accept The Huffington Post as a reliable source and reject Patch.com as having reliability that is suspect, however, I'm not sure what to do in this case when a normally reliable source reposts an article from a source that is suspect. Thoughts? Location (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the Huffington Post is mirroring patch.com, there's no justification for citing the Huffington Post. Reliability can't be magically added in that way. So it all depends whether patch.com is reliable. Andrew Dalby 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BuySoundTrax

Hello. This would be quite a handy article to use in the Sherlock (TV series) article, but I'm concerned about its reliability. Before I spend time integrating it into the article, just for it to be removed later, I would like some thoughts on its reliability. Thanks. The JPStalk to me 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find someone famous that Randall D. Larson interviewed who mentioned it on their website, this should confirm the authenticity of the website. The more you can find the better. Also be careful with what you want to add, the interview is filled with trivia that wouldn't belong in an article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Early Childhood and Education paragraph

Having trouble with Wiki reviewer accepting the following as reliable source: Book: Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Troubador Books, UK (Isbn: 978 1780882154) plus my edits <His mother Lina was a devotee of Santeria, a fusion of African mysticism and orthodox Catholic scripture> I have published 10 books by mainstream publishers and am an expert in child and adolescent mental health- hence a reliable author to add to Fidel Castro's biographical details and especially his childhood. Note these previous books: Walker S (2003). Social Work and Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S. (2003). Working Together for Healthy Young Minds, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S & Beckett C (2004), Social Work Assessment and Intervention, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S & Akister J (2004), Applying Family Therapy, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S (2005) Culturally Competent Therapy- working with children and young people, Basingstoke, Palgrave

Walker S & Thurston C (2006), Safeguarding Children and Young People: a guide to integrated Practice, Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers.

Walker S (2011) The social workers guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health, London, Jessica Kingsley

Walker S (2011) Social Work Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed), Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers

Walker, S. (2012) Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Leicester, UK, Troubador

Walker, S. (2012) Effective Social Work with Children and Families- putting systems theory into practice, London, Sage Walker, S. (Ed). (2013) Mental Health Madness- an antidote to modern psychiatry, Herefordshire, PCCS Books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

We have a rule about self-published books. Note the two bits of bolded wording in WP:SPS. This really isn't something Wikipedia can be flexible about, I'm afraid.
Presumably, you got the information for your book from somewhere. It is possible that the information could be included in the article, but not using a self-publication as a source. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You are evidently a published expert in child and adolescent mental health, but that doesn't make you, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source on Fidel Castro's biography. So I agree with FormerIP: assuming you used reliable sources for this information, we need to cite those sources. Andrew Dalby 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Collin, aka Frank Joseph as a reliable source

Could I get some feedback on whether this author Frank Collin, writing as Frank Josph and used as a source for these additions to Adena culture, is considered in any way a WP:RELIABLE source, not to the mention the obvious WP:FRINGE problems? After removing here and advising the editor, User:Iansayers, what the problems with this author were here, they have re-inserted (although I have once again removed). Since the editor declined to bring the matter here as I advised, I figured I would and get it out of the way. Thoughts? Heiro 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am probably more New Agy that most wikipedia editors, but I am pretty clear that Joseph is not an author that should be considered a reliable source. The responses given by User:Iansayers tend to lead me to the conclusion that wikipedia will be better off without his supporters too. Carptrash (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer - I was notified about this on my talk page. I'm well aware of Frank Joseph, the original editor-in-chief of the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American[30](whose editorial position "stands firmly on behalf of evidence for the arrival of overseas visitors to the Americas hundreds and even thousands of years before Columbus", co-author of The Lost Worlds of Ancient America:Compelling Evidence of Ancient Immigrants, Lost Technologies, and Places of Power, editor of Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History and Legends, Unearthed and Explored[31] featuring such luminaries of archaeology as Zecharia Sitchin and David Hatcher Childress. Definitely not a reliable source for anything except for perhaps in a pinch fringe opinions. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

University of al-Karaouine

A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:

  • Aslan, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.

Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education (see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic was already discussed here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, no it was not. Neither of these sources are mentioned anywhere in the ANI report. Please dont misrepresent the content of that page. This page is specifically used for opinions on the reliability of a source. The ANI report was specifically about a user edit-warring to try to force in a favored version of an article. Please dont conflate the two subjects, as it only distracts from the purpose of this page. Thank you. nableezy - 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Highly disingenuous of you to include the second source, as if to say, "Hey is this source reliable, even though mine is better?". The second source has no bearing on whether the first source is reliable or not. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. I am asking about both, because you rejected the second as "generalist" but said the first was "reliable". So I am asking about both. That you rejected the second while accepting the first isnt my fault, now is it? nableezy - 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, yes, which is probably why no one has responded to your request. If you wanted to ask about the second source, you should have posted a separate request. The only reason I can think of why you would post both together, is that in case someone said Fergusson was reliable, if they also said that Ednan was reliable, (and they both are) you would then claim that Ednan was "more" reliable, since he is a "professor", while Fergusson is a "freelance journalist" (your own words). Disingenuous and dishonest. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, not even a little bit. You rejected Ednan as a "generalist" source, so I asked about it here. Now saying that you think that he is reliable makes your past dismissals disingenuous and dishonest, especially when contrasted with the claim that a book on the Taliban is reliable for the history of a Moroccan university. Im guessing that this hasnt gotten any response due to the silly responses initially posted (including, to be clear, yours). But fine, since you now acknoweldge that Eslan is reliable, in contrast to the rather asinine judgment you made on the talk page, Ill start a new thread specifically about Taliban: The Unknown Enemy. But "freelance journalist" is not just my own words, and if you cared at all about the material you push in articles you would have checked his qualifications before saying that. It is what he is. nableezy - 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some uninvolved commentary on whether the Taliban: The Unknown Enemy is a reliable source for the article University of al-Karaouine, and also if the book Islamic Education in Europe is a reliable source for that same article? Thank you, nableezy - 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The only intellectually honest thing would be to post individual requests for each source, everything else is noise. You should also be advised that being incivil and shrill does not help your cause, rather it hinders it. Probably another reason why no one has responded to your request. Athenean (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and immediately calling somebody disingenuous, that's being civil? Seems my madrasa skipped that lesson. nableezy - 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the third noticeboard which has been plastered by Nableezy in a quick succession, and this inquiry demonstrates yet again that he still does not understand what board is good for what. The question is whether Taliban: The Unknown Enemy by Da Capo Press is a WP:RS, not what this Aslan says here. As for him and your claim that madrasas were universities, there has been already lots of top-quality sources provided to Nableezy refuting this claim (e.g. here and here). That he forgets to mention any of them, indicates that he is actually not much interested in a discussion based on objective criteria, but rather in pushing his own views. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
What nonsense. I am at this board asking if two sources are reliable for the statements attributed to them. You reject any source as "generalist" that you disagree with and accept a source if it agrees with you even if it is on a completely unrelated topic. And I do know what each board is for, thank you very much. This one is for discussing the reliability of sources. Your repeated edit-warring was reported to one noticeboard, and the neutrality of ignoring any source that you disagree with to another, and the reliability of sources to this one. That you play this "who me?" game everywhere you go is amusing, but not productive. nableezy - 23:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
JUst an observation, Ednan Aslan is the editor of 'Islamic Education in Europe', we should really be sourcing the info to whoever wrote the chapter that pages 220-1 come from. Both sources seem only to mention al-Karaouine in asides, but I would say that Fergussons lack of qualifications/expertise in religious education makes him a very poor choice of sourcing for this area. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So I looked at these sources.

  • James Fergusson is a journalist who doesn't claim academic credentials. I don't see a reason to treat him as unreliable on the things that journalists are trained for (reporting and analyzing current events). However, his mention in passing of this institution is too peripheral to the topic of his book to be treated as a reliable report. So a clear negative on this one.
  • As 94.195.anon pointed out, Adnan Aslan is the editor of the compilation "Islamic Education in Europe" and not the author. The chapter of the book this quote comes from is called "Islamic Knowledge in Italy" and was written by Yahya Sergio Yale Pallavicini. The subject of his chapter is Islamic education, which is a lot closer to the topic than Fergusson's book, and it is clear from his bio that he is an expert on this topic. On the other hand, I don't see credentials in ancient history and he could be fairly described as an activist (though an unusually moderate one). On balance he could be cited with "according to...".

As a personal comment on this debate: We should remember that places like Oxford in the early days had the production of clerygmen as one of their prime functions. It isn't really clear to me that the choice between madrassa and university is one with an objective answer. Quoting both viewpoints would be good (but find a better source than Ferguson). Zerotalk 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. Would you be so kind as to offer an opinion on this source as well [32]?

Reliable source for criticism

What counts as a criticism bearing weight? For example, a notable author wrote an article criticizing Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. How should I prove that his criticism bears weight and should be mentioned in the article? Is it enough to show the place were the original article was published was a prestigious magazine or newspaper? Or the fact that the critic was cited by other people?(perhaps by those who wrote other criticism books in response to Dawkins). Your help is appreciated to avoid a dispute on Dawkins page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

News magazines are generally not appropriate sources of criticism for academic works. Seek peer reviewed journal's book reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think The God Delusion makes the bar as an academic work, more a mass market offering. Bantam (the publisher) isn't known as an academic powerhouse. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument is about a comment Richard Dawkins makes about suicide terrorism [33], and the book is The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath quoting a paper[34] by Robert Pape. Dawkins is talking about religious motivations in suicide attacks, and is clearly not stating all suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Pape's paper looked at some (he says all, but I think that's debatable) suicide bombings and concluded that the majority was not religiously motivated. McGrath uses that to try to discredit Dawkins. Clearly Dawkins didn't say all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, and Pape isn't saying suicide bombers are never religously motivated (just the majority of attacks he looked at wasn't), so the use of Pape's paper in this situation is fallacious in my opinion. — raekyt 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the hook for all this is a single paragraph comment by Dawkins in The Guardian, written in 2001 in response to 9/11? If so, drop it, Kazemita: undue weight. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What my friend Reaky forgot to mention is that McGrath is not alone in using Pape's paper to criticize the new atheists, relating suicide bombing to religion: https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+pape+atheism&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And I responded to that link on the Richard Dawkins page is that the search doesn't mention Dawkins, just because other people use Pape's paper doesn't mean it's a valid criticism of Dawkins comment. And just because a bunch of people say something doesn't mean it's a valid argument, what does Pape say about Dawkins views, or what does Dawkins say about people using Pape's paper to argue against his views? — raekyt 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And my response to that argument was that you do not have the authority to declare whether a conclusion by a notable critic(McGrath) is valid or not. You can only research if it is reliable, i.e. if his reasoning is backed up by multiple sources and that link in Google books shows it.

@Andrew Dalby: the authors who criticized Dawkins (directly) did not mention the Guardian article as the hook per say. The Guardian article was just an example of such claims by Dawkins that is currently present in the article. User Reak has no authority to read the author's mind.

You may want to bear in mind the reception of McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion and how much citation Pape's paper received, before drawing a conclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article it looks like it barely meets WP:NBOOK... — raekyt 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wondered whether that was really the only hook, but you will admit, Kazemita, that your initial query was so studiedly vague you were lucky to get a response out of us at all!
Notable criticism of any book by Dawkins (which was the topic of your initial question) belongs principally in the article about the book. Reception of the MacGrath book belongs principally in the article about that book. I'd start there. Andrew Dalby 10:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, read my beginning statement before judging me. I wrote: "a notable author wrote an article criticizing...". I was clearly not talking about McGrath's book. If you must know, it was Terry Eagleton's article I had in mind. Although I can see the root of this mis-understanding is due to user Reak (who wrongly guessed what my original question was about)
As for criticizing Dawkins' book, am I correct understanding you that in any Wiki page of a person, we are not allowed to bring criticism if the criticism is about a statement something the person mentioned in his book? --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't make people dig for it, give them the link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching — raekyt 10:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And I guess I have to start from the beginning here to since your not giving us anything, what claim are you trying to put criticism against, or what statement do you want this source (or another? link?) to say against Dawkins? Hes a literary critic, I don't see that he has degrees in Theology, but maybe he does, i donno his article doesn't specifically say. So basically what do you want to use this source to say? — raekyt 11:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(Continued question)@Andrew Dalby: If material from books that criticized The God Delusion is not allowed, what exactly qualifies as acceptable criticism in Dawkins article?--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think as a general rule of thumb, you should only add criticism to any particular statement into an article if that original statement is notable enough to be covered in reasonable depth in the article. In this particular case, I don't see the suicide bomber claim in the article to begin with (going by a quick search, not a careful reading). Dragging it in just to be able to criticise it seems somewhat perverted to me - I don't see how this serves the reader. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the claim Stephan(in the article):

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!Kazemita1 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mere mortal. I don't judge, allow or forbid ... Had you linked Eagleton and the London Review of Books, Kazemita, you might have saved some time. I would consider LRB opinions to be often notable, and Eagleton often worth citing. That's it from me. Good luck to all. Andrew Dalby 11:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment "You can only research if it is reliable," suggests a possible confusion by Kazemital about what we mean by reliable sources. Kazemital, have you read WP:Verify and WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Ladies and Gentleman, Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper:

"If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&q=good+bet#v=snippet&q=good%20bet%20suicide&f=false

This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing.

@Stephan and company: Please revise Kazemita1 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically quote mining if you read the whole paragraph, that starts on page 347 and ends on 348 it's clear he's talking about religiously indoctrinated children, specifically an admonishment for faith. He's not claiming _all_ suicide bombing is the result of religious faith and if you just pull that one sentence out of context it makes it sound like all suicide bombing is, but you can't pull just once sentence out of context and make him say something he's not, that's intellectually dishonest. By WP:AGF I'm going to assume you've read The God Delusion, have a copy, and just misread that passage, I'm not going to immediately assume you was being intentionally dishonest by quote mining. If you haven't read this book, don't have access to a copy of it, how do you expect write a credible criticism of it by just relying on snippets online? — raekyt 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@Raeky Let everyone know if any more quotes from the mentioned pages is necessary to draw a sound conclusion:
"More generally (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them-given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for further jihads or crusades. Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr's paradise, the authentic faith -head deserves a high place in the history of armamaents alongside the longbow, the warhouse the tank and the cluster bomb. If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in ther religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities and that martyerdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardents of Paradise. And they were taught that lesson not necessarily by extremist fanatics but by decent gentle mainstream religious instructors who lined them up in their madrasas, sitting in rows, rhytmically nodding their innocent little heads up and down whlie they learned every word of the holy book like demented parrots. Faith can be very very dangerous..."

Kazemita1 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably a copyright violation to put such a big quote on wikipedia, but I still stand by my assertion that hes not claiming all suicide bombers are religiously motivated and discounting suicide bombing out of desperation for guerilla fighters that Pape says makes up the majority of the attacks he looked at. Is there secondary sources to back up Pape's conclusion, additional papers that back up his conclusions, reviews of his paper in other peer reviewed journals, etc? Is there any evidence that Dawkins really believes all suicide bombers are religiously motivated? You seem to be really pressing this criticism, which to me seems a bit petty, something that could easily be attributed to a miss-wording, or misunderstanding. Surely there's better criticisms of his work then this? — raekyt 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a reliable sources matter, if it ever was :) I find the back-and-forth confusing, and probably not conducive to measured conclusions, but since Kazemita has asked me to comment once more, I'll give my opinion for the very little it's worth. Dawkins was saying, in the passage quoted, that suicide bombers are motivated by faith. It is fair, on the basis of the passage quoted, to take it that, when he wrote that text, he meant all suicide bombers. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that would be fair at all. I.m.o. it would be fair to say that when he wrote that text, he meant that suicide bombers generally are motivated by faith. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any justification, in the passage quoted, to introduce that word "generally". And I don't see how to square the logic of "if" X "it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers" with the view that he was not writing about all of them, but only some. Perhaps our dialects are further apart than is evident, DVdm, and I guess, if so, we don't know whether Dawkins's dialect is closer to yours or to mine. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont think this is a matter of logic of or dialect, but of common sense. Make that "not writing about all of them, but most of them" —i.o.w. generally— and we're in business. That's where the "good bet" comes in. If he had explictly meant "all of them" he would have said that it is a "sure bet", not merely a good one. But that's how I read this, of course. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, our views are not so far apart. Andrew Dalby 20:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

sfcrowsnest.com

In H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), the website http://sfcrowsnest.com is cited for news, reviews and interviews. It is published by Stephen Hunt, with articles contributed by writers. In my opinion, the site seems to be reliable based on its longevity, and editorial staff. I don't know how much it has been cited in other works, so I'm bringing it up here. --Lexein (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are better sources, such as File 770 and Ansible; but the crow's nest is reasonably reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll keep those other two sources on tap. --Lexein (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the editors of both Ansible and File 770 are people who read the stuff, and their coverage of visual-media trivia is minor and in passing. If you're looking for gossip about films, the Syfyllis Channel, and the like, they are not your best sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't seeking gossip, but actual news, reviews, and interviews of the principals involved in the filming of the 2005 Pendragon film and its various recuts and reissues. SFCrowsnest provided a reprint of Mark Leeper's initial review, and an interview with the director. I'm still seeking more. The SFCrowsNest material had been deleted as "unreliable" (see edit history) so I asked here. --Lexein (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Could this [35] be used for this claim[36].It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a "blog", it is a well-regarded non-profit organization that, among other things, tracks hate groups. Attribute it if you want, but remove it? No. nableezy - 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a self-published source so is only a reliable source about itself. Ankh.Morpork 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
by that definition a newpaper is self published, SPLC is a highyl respected orgnaisation, however ot should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I encourage you to read the actual definition of self-publishing, which contrardicts your assertion that newspapers would ever be considered self-published.
Anhk, the SPLC would generally be regarded as an "expert" under WP:SPS. So although nearly all websites are technically self-published, that need not infringe on our ability to use their website to describe organizations or companies like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC is an eminently reliable source on the radical right. Contra OP, the article's poster is identified in the byline, and SPLC has editorial oversight from a board of directors and a program staff. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Glasswerk

Does Glasswerk appear to be a reliable source for music-related articles? I am unable to find an 'About us' information section from the site. Till I Go Home 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything either, and clicking on the author [37] brings up a "jenny.editor@glasswerk" e-mail address. Since it features prominently a "Log in here/Participate" link, it would appear to be a community posting site and without evidence of a qualified editorial board (sorry Jenny, we cannot assume that you are qualified) that controls quality, I would say no we dont use it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party

The question is whether [38] is an RS or not. The proposed change is below, reproduced from the talk page on the New Party's article:

Proposed article change

Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results).

Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).

Reasons it could be considered an RS:

1) Stanley Kurtz is a researcher with a PhD from Harvard University.
2) TNR is a well-respected source.

Reasons not -- I'll let opponents speak for themselves.William Jockusch (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


WP enforces a neutral point of view. National Review is a reliable source on conservative opinions, whether or not their views can be rebutted. In the case of a dispute, both sides, pro and rebuttal should be included. Otherwise, any source that can be characterized a crazy lunatic right wing partisan operative can be summarily deleted by any editor who is a crazy lunatic left wing partisan operative who disagrees with that opinion, which appears to be the poor justification for the case presented below. Redhanker (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not even close. The source in question is an opinion piece written in the first person, accusing Obama and some other people of lying, which should end the analysis right there. Kutz is a partisan operative who has made it part of his career to make accusations against President Obama (the usual Republican points - he's a "stealth socialist"[39] and a radical,[40] he's cozy with terrorists, Jeremiah Wright,[41] he was part of Acorn's election fraud,[42] etc.) in the context of political campaigns. Between elections (in 2010) he published an entire book to argue the debunked Republican talking point that Barack Obama is a socialist. The proposition of adding material from Kurtz into the Obama article has been discussed several times without gaining approval.[43] Now, writing one of his regular anti-Obama pieces for a conservative opinion forum (the National Review Online) he repeats an old accusation that failed to gain any traction before the last presidential election, that Obama was a secret member of a third political party. As it stands, there's next to nothing. This was the buzz of the day a month ago (at the time this question was asked) in the conservative blogosphere, and it quickly died down there and here (there was a long discussion that did not gain any consensus to include). Although the allegation itself, that in the course of an election Obama signed a pledge with an obscure left-of-center "fusion" party in exchange for an endorsement at the same time he was also nominally a Democrat, is hardly scandalous, Obama's campaign has denied it and although various innocent interpretations are possible the Kurtz camp has basically said the President is lying. That's an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, not partisan editorials. If there were any merit to this claim and if it were relevant: (a) there would be stronger sources for it, and (b) reliable sources would have covered the fact of Kurtz' making these allegations. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Media Matters is regularly considered an RS. Is this so different?William Jockusch (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not just a RS issue, it is a WP:BLP issue and and WP:UNDUE. And so even if the source is reliable for his opinion, it miserably fails the other criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Trying to deal with this one issue at a time. I know that opponents of this and related additions are going to raise multiple issues. But one has to start somewhere. William Jockusch (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content." Attempting to "to deal with this one issue at a time" smacks of Wikilawyering. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If you read the article, the evidence given for the claim that Obama signed the piece of paper is not the piece of paper with his signature on it, but the minutes to a meeting of New Party members, which say that he signed the piece of paper and joined the party. This seems beyond sketchy to me. The allegations may or may not be true, and may or may not be a big deal, but they rest on the flimsiest of evidence, and should not be considered reliable. That is to say, even if this article was reliably fact-checked, all it says is that someone said that Obama signed this piece of paper. There is much sound and fury in the article to attempt to divert the reader's eye from this plain fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. Abhayakara (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well documented. I suppose somebody may have forged and planted the New Party meeting minutes that described Obama's involvement, along with the New Party membership rosters that listed his "join date" exactly corresponding to the date from the meeting minutes. And no doubt the New Party event announcement flyers dug up during the 2008 campaign that described Obama as a member were part of the grand conspiracy as well. Just like the newspapers in Hawaii that carefully falsified Obama's birth announcements back in the 60's even though he was born in Kenya. (joke) In case my sarcasm isn't obvious, I would suggest that Kurtz has done his homework, he has made a slam dunk case via compelling original documents, and the burden is considered by many mainstream writers to be now on the Obama campaign to explain the campaign's false statements from 2008. The president's campaign has been castigated by editorials in major newspapers for this, and I would suggest that Kurtz deserves more respect than some editors give him here. Most of the complaints against Kurtz are simply that he has a conservative perspective and documents facts that are unfavorable or embarrassing from Obama's past. Many of Kurtz's views that give people heartburn above would only be considered "fringe" by political liberals, and would be considered legitimate opinions by wide swathes of intelligent and informed Americans. Most people who have read Obama's biographies and autobiography are aware that he can be fairly said to have moved to his present position from the political left. So some of these revelations (NP membership, ACORN involvement, listening to Wright's sermons weekly, seeking out Marxist associations in college, mentorship by a communist as a young person) are not really all that earth-shattering. Don't get me wrong -- Kurtz's view that Obama presently is a socialist is firmly in the realm of opinion, since it is contradicted by Obama's public statements and current policies and actions as president. Kurtz may be right, of course, in terms of what Obama desires deep down, even as he works pragmatically within the political system. But none of that really matters for purposes of this Wikipedia debate. What does matter is Kurtz's well-documented facts, which are not statements of opinion. Wookian (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be surprising if someone noted in the minutes on January 11 that Obama had joined, and yet the membership rolls didn't list him as having joined on that date. The fact that these two data points coincide does not therefore make them reliable evidence that a document has been signed. The person who has access to these minutes should have access to the document, yet it hasn't been produced. Why not? Possibly because it doesn't exist. Kurtz says only one other journalist has covered this at all, and says that that journalist disagrees with him. So Kurtz' view is a minority view; even if the source were reliable, which it is not, you still couldn't use it. See WP:BLPSTYLE, under Balance. This qualifies as a tiny minority, and hence is disqualified from inclusion in the BLP. Abhayakara (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You could also demand to see the chair that Obama sat in while he signed the document or the pen that he used, but I suggest that you are laying artificial constraints on the discussion. The New Party's "Candidate Contract" was not a legal document per se, but rather more of a political campaign promise to uphold the NP's agenda if elected with the endorsement and support of the NP. Wookian (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
and candidates make all kinds of statements and campaign promises - why would this one be of any particular special notice, especially when we have lots of verifiable content from extremely reliable sources about dozens of actual campaign promises made to large voting constituents? it would still be UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
We hashed this out at great length on the New Party talk page. There are few, and perhaps no, reliable sources as to the facts. There are several semi-reliable minor sources as to the making of the claims by Kurtz. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and the claim being made here is that the President or his administration are lying and covering up Obama's supposed radical history. Additionally there are WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns, as this is almost entirely a creature of conservative blogs and happens to play into the narrative that Kurtz and other operatives have been promoting during the past two presidential election cycles. The underlying facts may well be true (or maybe not, or maybe distorted), but the mainstream media and reliable sources have not deemed it worth covering, and Wikipedia is not the place to uncover scandals. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Completely Inappropriate for reasons already stated. It fails WP:RS as it is simply an opinion piece by one person, written in a tabloid style. Trying to puff up Kurtz by mentioning his degree is irrelevant. It completely fails WP:BLP, as extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. To say that a single editorial (by someone who has made a career out of attacking Obama) is an exceptional source is ludicrous. Where are the corroborating articles by reliable third-parties? If the material were both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Skirting BLP by phrasing it in the form of a quote is an old trick that is not allowed, either. But primarily, it fails WP:UNDUE on all counts. It is such a minority viewpoint that no major reliable sources have picked up the story and run with it (and trust me, if it were true, they would have). Kurtz attributes this to some vast-conspiracy by the entire media umbrella, all of which is "pro-Obama" except for him, but in fact, they recognize that there isn't any evidence to support the claim factually and it's almost certainly not true. We don't print rumors, gossip, and unfounded allegations in biographies of living people. Period. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"rumors, gossip, and unfounded allegations" -- this is just absurd, Looneymonkey. Kurtz isn't spreading rumors. He found original documents. That is why the Washington Post found it worthwhile to mention his finding. Unlike you, the Washington Post thought it was notable. Wookian (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion here is raising a meta question Editors are replying with allegations of undue weight. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place for such allegations (and my replies to them?) It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could comment on that sub-question.William Jockusch (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Any uninvolved editors on the meta-question? Part of the problem with this discussion has been continual changes of subject. So, if the pro-inclusion folks appear to be winning on the RS issue, anti-inclusion folks bring up undue weight, not news, etc. If those are shot down, they switch back to RS. So nothing is ever resolved. There ought to be a way to break this cycle, but I'm not sure what it is.William Jockusch (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you have accurately captured the situation. The situation is that some people (including me) are asserting that this is not a reliable source. And then in addition we are asserting that it's silly to argue about it, because even if it were, it couldn't be used in the article because of these other problems. The reason to mention the other problems is just to point out the futility of the debate, not the consequence of having conceded that the source is reliable. Abhayakara (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is rather obviously a partisan election-season talking point ginned up by a partisan writer and published on a partisan website. We should be exceptionally cautious about accepting such things at face value as encyclopedic. If such partisan claims become part of the general discourse (as evidenced by discussion in independent, reliable sources), then their inclusion is arguably appropriate with suitable caveats. But in this case, I don't see a lot of independent support or coverage of this attempt to manufacture a campaign issue, at least as of yet, and so it doesn't warrant coverage.

    Put another way: on the day after the election, will anyone care about this? We don't work on a deadline, and we're not a news site. If you feel this is essential to include, would you be willing to wait until after the election to include it? Will you still feel the same sense of urgency? MastCell Talk 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Some anti-RS folks appear to be raising the question of whether or not Kurtz is believable. First of all, I just want to say that I find this question wholly appropriate, and 100% germane to this discussion. Therefore, I am going to summarize the reasons I do find him believable:

1) His statement that Obama was an NP member is supported by at least one contemporaneous source: [44]. An additional contemporaneous source writes about Obama encouraging NPers to act in a certain way.[45]. I will concede that these sources, by themselves would not be considered reliable. But their existence does give credence to Kurtz's statement.
2) An Obama supporter wrote in 2009 about talking with Obama at New Party meetings in the mid-1990s. [46].

The next issue is whether or not Kurtz' allegations have been "widely reported". In this regard, it is worth noting that it has appeared in the National Review, the LA Times, a WaPo blog, and Fox Business With Lou Dobbs. This shows wider reach than merely appearing on Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, etc. [all of which it has also done]. William Jockusch (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The material, properly ascribed as opinion for opinions, and as fact for uncontroverted facts, is usable. I found no source saying the minutes were fake, so what the minutes state is clearly allowed. The opinion that Obama lied is clearly opinion, and is properly ascribed to the person holding it. I do not consider the LA Times to be a politically disreputable site, thus it is absolutely RS for this sort of issue. There is at least as much solid sourcing as for the "dog incident" which has its own article re: Romney. Collect (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

that wikipedia fucked up somewhere else is not really good reason to do it again. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's break this down. We can't verify the meeting minutes as a fact if it isn't established by a reliable source. As of last time we hashed this through, nobody other than Kurtz has confirmed that these minutes exist. Kurtz's piece is not a reliable source for facts about Barack Obama or the New Party. It is reliable for establishing that Kurtz has written the text found in the piece, but it's contentious material and we can't just add it to any article without some sourcing as to relevance and weight. A handful of minor sources (blogs, news blogs, several at most) report that Kurtz holds this opinion. The Washington Post does not, it merely posts a blog link (no journalism, no fact check, no editorial control, just a link). The LA Times blog gives it a minor mention in the context of a colorful opinion piece on Sarah Palin's supporters, which means it establishes no weight at all except as to Sarah Palin's supporters. That's why I say that no sources or almost no sources establish it as being relevant to Obama or the New Party. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes any difference to the "extraordinary claims" contingent here, but it doesn't seem that Obama personally denied involvement in the NP -- it was a campaign manager who spoke on his behalf in his 2008 Fight the Smears website. So Kurtz's research would seem to imply that Obama's campaign issued a false statement, not necessarily that Obama personally lied. (shrug) Wookian (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

True dat. There's an innocent, or at least simple, factual explanation to all this. Does anyone know a major media reporter we can encourage to write just one more piece? Then we'll have an RS. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not too worried, as I think more treatment of Obama's NP fling will eventually come back into prominence in national media. If not in the fall debates, then probably in David Maraniss' next volume of his biography of the president, which will probably come out in a few years. I agree with others above that an attitude by conservative editors to push it in before the election is not a good enough reason by itself -- while equally disagreeing with seemingly pro-Obama editors whose primary reason for opposing it appears to be frantically covering Obama's posterior from an embarrassing minor scandal (a NPOV cuts both ways, of course). I think "the truth will out" as the saying goes. So while I personally see no reason Kurtz can't be a reliable source for his discovery of these remarkable and credible primary documents, I have accepted that for whatever reason, the consensus hasn't gone my way in these discussions. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

stupidcelebrities.net re Nik Richie

In November 2010, Richie was interviewed by Dr. Phil during a nationally-televised hour-long episode devotedly exclusively to the subject of online bullying and gossip entitled “Dirt, Lies and the Internet”. Dr. Phil questioned Richie about the morality of a website which allows users to bash each other with hurtful comments, to which Richie responded, “well, there’s a marketplace for it.” Unimpressed, Dr. Phil observed “Well, there’s a marketplace for heroin too, but that doesn’t justify being a heroin addict.”

  1. Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2010/11/nik-richie-of-the-dirty-on-dr-phil-show/
  2. Article: Nik Richie
  3. Content: See above
  4. Additional remarks: This article is up for AfD right now (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nik Richie). The quality of the article's sources is, in my opinion, a major factor in whether notability can be established for the subject. While I'm not prepared to singlehandedly analyze all the article's sources, This one struck me as worth mentioning because I can't immediately conclude that this source isn't reliable for the material in question, but it seems incorrect to use a gossip website as material that helps the subject to pass notability guideline WP:BIO#Basic criteria. As it stands, the Dr. Phil interview represents an important example of Mr. Richie being the primary subject of coverage, but the interview itself is a primary source and that's contrary to the basic criteria. BigNate37(T) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on the disclaimer I found on the stupid celebrities website, IMO the site would not be considered reliable. Here it is, from their site:

    DISCLAIMER: Stupidcelebrities.net contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information.Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Stupidcelebrities.net makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims. Â If you see any images that are in violation of some form of copyright infringement, just contact us and we’ll remove the items.

    Coaster92 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A clearly unreliable gossip site is not usable. But you have an official Dr Phil website link that should be usable as a reference instead. As to whether a Dr Phil appearance contributes to notability, that's a bit out of scope for this board. Siawase (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of various coin and stamp websites as reliable sources for the name of an occupied territory

G'day all, I am currently having discussions with a couple of editors about the reliability of several websites to support the name of an occupied territory per

In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia...

Essentially these editors are stating that the word 'Serbia' on a coin or stamp website) is a reliable sources that 'Serbia' was the name of the territory. This is a long-term issue of contention as you can see from the discussion on WT:MILHIST here. That discussion concluded that the official name of the territory was in fact Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, for which there are reliable published secondary sources. The websites are:

[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
Advice on the reliability of these sources to support the quoted statement would be appreciated. Obviously there are other places I will need to go as well, but I just wanted to clarify this issue here first. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Coin and stamp websites are not reliable sources on official names of territories -- that isn't their field of expertise.
The stamps and coins themselves are not "official documents" in the usual sense: if referring to them, call them "stamps and coins". They are primary sources, not necessarily for an official name (official names are often too long) but for a short name that is acceptable to the administration concerned. But the ones visible on your links say Србија, not Serbia, and in any case, if this is a contentious issue, we prefer not to use primary sources. Andrew Dalby 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Stamps absolutely are "official documents" per international treaty (see articles on the history of the Universal Postal Union). They are not "primary sources" (the primary source is the document authorizing release of the stamps). US bonds etc. are also "official documents." They do not necesarily give "full official name" of a country, but the names thereon are generally considered to be representative of the country. Some exceptions exist - the UK proudly puts no country name on its issues, and the first Israel issues were labelled "Do'ar Ivri" etc. Collect (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, no dispute, stamps are technically "official documents". What I meant was that it's vague and misleading for us to say "official documents use the name X" if what we mean is "stamps and coins use the name X". Most readers seeing the term "official documents" would not suppose we were talking about stamps and coins; therefore, for the reader's sake, we should say exactly what we mean. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If the stamp itself is used to verify the statement that "The stamp was issued with the name X a green background(ref: see the stamp)." then it is a primary source. It would, in all cases, be better to use a reliable secondary source. Particularly because we cannot verify from the stamp alone if it IS an official releasing from any body with any authority or just a fake.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree: see comment below. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at the article and the statement being supported. I agree coins and stamps are "official documents," but it must be said that they are "official documents" only of the authorizing body that minted them, and the possibility exists that the name printed on the money was chosen to further their certain political purposes. I can easily think of cases where two different, competing authorities issued "official money" within a single disputed territory. I think Confederate States of America dollar qualifies as an example. So, whether or not the international community recognizes the government authorizing the issuance of the money, or uses the same name to refer to the territory, is another question entirely, and the name printed on the money can't be used to support such a statement.
In the article, I see the money is being used to support "In official documents this territory was referred to either as Serbia..." and I'm a little uncomfortable with that, especially as pictures of the stamps and money are the only sources provided for it (the "http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia.html" isn't useful to support anything stated). Unless and until a reliable academic source can be found to provide additional support, I would change the article statement to something like "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers referred to this territory as Serbia...." striking out this part, explanation below
Regarding "Србија, not Serbia", our article Serbia shows "Србија" is the native-language spelling of Serbia so that shouldn't be an impediment to using it.
Zad68 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edited to add:) After reading the comments of Red Pen and others, I am striking out my recommendation to change the sentence to "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers..." because of the danger of using the stamps, etc. as primary sources in this way. We as Wikipedia editors should not be making the assumption that pictures of individual stamps offered for sale on essentially WP:SPS sites are genuine and that the descriptions are accurate. If a philatelic or numismatic WP:RS reliable source can be found that explains the stamps, what is printed on them, who authorized it and how, etc. then the "On coins and stamps, the occupying Axis powers..." sentence could be supported with it. I apologize for my embarrassing recommendation! I should know better. Zad68 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I also believe that stamps or coins can be considered as RS to support the assertion in context used in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Websites which post images of stamps as part of their sales efforts are purely commercial and not WP:RS. The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name ... or primary sources of simple propaganda by feuding entities. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. This is about the usage of the country/entity name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
G'day Vsmith, could you clarify something? Do you mean that 'The stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name on the actual stamp', or do you mean that 'the stamps themselves might be primary sources of their existence and the usage of the country/entity name by the country/entity'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Red Pen of Doom's comment above is relevant to this. Wikipedians aren't stamp experts and can't be sure, in contentious cases, of knowing what's genuine and who the issuing authority really was. Another reason not to rely on primary sources in a case such as this. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments and recommendations. Sorry about not getting back on here, but I now appear to have an editwar on my hands with this issue of the name of the territory, with more than a dozen articles having reliably sourced information removed, and I really don't have the experience to deal with it. I know this isn't the place, but where is the best place to report it? Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One Day in September+

Simon Reeve's book One Day in September: the full story of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and Israeli revenge operation "Wrath of God" ISBN 1-55970-547-7 (published by Faber and Faber in the UK and Arcade Publishing in the US) is used extensively as a source in the Munich massacre article (and elsewhere). Reeve is also used as a source in that article via other publications such as The Independent and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He is used both with and without attribution (based on a decision procedure that is a bit opaque...I'm not very familiar with the article...but I assume at least some of the instances are covered by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV...and attribution doesn't hurt).

I'm interested in views on the reliability of the book as a source, Reeve as a source, but not just that.

Background

  • Another editor, Shrike, removed all of the content with this edit, edit summary = "Not reliable source for such claims this should be done by military historian not some journalist also not scholarly publishing house".

I contacted the editor and it was a trivial matter to establish that the ~200 people killed were all innocent people including women and children, all PLO members, and all terrorists, obviously, as is often the case in this topic area. Setting aside the inevitability of there being a variety of conflicting published material about this issue and the NPOV requirements that follow from that, I would like some opinions about the sources themselves.

The sources

  • One Day in September
    • The reliability of Simon Reeve's book One Day in September has been challenged on the specific point detailed above and it is used extensively as a source for a variety of statements so I would like some views on its reliability (and Reeve as a source on the Munich massacre when he is published elsewhere if possible) on this specific point and in general.
      • Was the complete removal of this information+citation consistent with policy as explained in Shrike's edit summary ?
      • Is it reliable enough to be restored ? If so, does it require attribution (and I'm assuming attribution must be necessary because there appear to be conflicting narratives that will need to be added).
      • If it isn't reliable for this information even with attribution, what else isn't it reliable for given its extensive usage in the article and elsewhere ?
  • One Thousand One Facts Everyone Should Know about Israel
  • Targeting Terrorists: A License to Kill?
    • Shrike also found Targeting Terrorists: A License to Kill? by Avery Plaw which says that Israeli forces killed "a reported 200 terrorists as well as 11 Lebanese civilians". This is possibly based, in part, on page 95 of Aaron J. Klein's Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response, ISBN 1-920769-80-3, a source that is used with attribution a few times in the article (note red link for Aaron J. Klein, Time magazine's military and intelligence affairs correspondent, not to be confused with blue link for WorldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein). I can't see page 95 of Klein's book so I'm not sure. Is Plaw's book reliable (presumably with attribution) to say that the 200 people killed were terrorists ?

Thanks in advance. I'm now seeing the advantage of the original text that just said "people". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the Simon Reeve article cites his production company's website shootandscribble.com for media reviews of the book rather than the actual reviews themselves, but that's a separate issue. What I'd like to know is what if any references Reeve provides. Casualty counts, especially determining who is a civilian, are notoriously difficult. Is this figure from the PLO? The Lebanese government? The Israelis? The UN? Journalists? Even if it was made by a relatively independent group, there's a big difference between a news report published a day after the incident and a report published months later. GabrielF (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, unfortunately I can't help much with that. Reeve cites tonnes of references, not for this particular information though. The only thing there is on the page after p. 152, note 21, "Further details of the attack are given in The Economist, September 23, 1972." which is presumably about the September 16 attack rather than the attack on interest here on Sept. 8. The same can be said for the Avery Plaw source which says "a reported..." without saying where. It's unclear where anyone's figures have come from. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've done a little digging into the contemporary sources: A NYTimes report from September 10th claims that women and children were killed in at least one of the 10 villages targeted (Rafid in Lebanon) and quotes the PLO's WAFA news service as setting the death toll at 66.NYT article The 200 figure pops up in a September 13 Washington Post article: "Comprehensive casualty totals for Friday's widespread raids against guerilla areas in Lebanon and Syria are still not available. Syrian officials have indicated that as many as 200 persons were killed or wounded, but have not released details. Observers here feel that the total fatalities among civilians and Palestinian commandos may reach as high as 200, but conceed that this is only a rough estimate." It's also worth noting that the WaPo report identifies four commandos killed at Rafid, the same place where, according to the NYT report, locals claimed that there were no militants.WaPo A 14 September NYT report says: "in which diplomatic estimates put the dead and wounded at more than 200 persons. Many of these were at a Palestinian camp just outside this capital (Damascus)".NYTSept14. I don't see anything that says that 200 casualties were either all militants or all innocent people - it seems that there were some of both and that the 200 figure was itself very rough and from a questionable source (Syrian officials or unnamed "observers"). Unless better sourcing can be found, I think "an estimated 200 people" is the most accurate statement we can make. GabrielF (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary or not, OR or not, on Konigsberg.

On the basis of this source: [52] an anon IP has added [53] this text to the article on Konigsberg:

Unlike in other administrative districts of Eastern Prussia like Rössel, Lyck or Sensburg a Polish minority in Königsberg or the surrounding districts is not documented in the official Prussian census of 1900.

with the edit summary statistics.

On the talk page I pointed out that

  1. This appears to be a primary source, basically an online copy of "Statistik of Deutschen Reichs", 1903. I see no material on the web page beyond the presentation of numbers from the Statistik.
  2. The text being added is original research. There is nothing in the source which says what the anon IP is claiming it says. Obviously the person looked through this primary source, didn't find "Konigsberg" under the "Polnisch" column and drew his own - original research - conclusions.
  3. Even as far as OR goes, this is pretty bad OR. A quick look through the table makes it obvious that "Konigsberg" is simply not listed AT ALL for ANY ethnic minority, not just Poles. It's just not one of the places that is included in the list. The word "Konigsberg" does not appear anywhere on the website. So yeah, if it's not included, of course it will "not document" presence of ... well anything what so ever.

I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious, but now, on the talk page User:Skäpperöd chimed in in support of the IP saying "The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. " [54]. Am I missing something? I mean, there's an obvious confluence of common POV-pushing between Skapperod and the IP, but this just seems like denying the obvious.

VolunteerMarek 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source. You can only cite a source for what it says, not for what it does not say. It is OR for us to say that the minority is "not documented in the official ... census", or even to say that Konigsberg was excluded from the census. We need a secondary source, either to confirm the absence of Konigsberg data, or to tell us where the data is and how to interpret it. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.VolunteerMarek 13:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The source is the historian M. Rademacher at verwaltungsgeschichte.de, citing pages from Statistik des Deutschen Reichs Bd 150: Die Volkszählung am 1. Dezember 1900 im Deutschen Reich, Berlin 1903. The primary source would be the cited book. Since it is only cited, in-text attribution should be to the census, not to Rademacher, though, that's why I said "properly attributed." I agree though that Rademacher here is not a secondary source as he did not process this information, I did not notice that. It is not simply a scan of the 1903 book either, though. The "POV-pushing" bit of VM's post is nasty and uncalled for. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I really can't add anything to what Andrew has already said. And yes this is an instance - as often with original research done with primary sources - of POV pushing.VolunteerMarek 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't comment on that. My impression is that Skäpperöd sees the problem. Yes, Rademacher would be a secondary source and might serve us -- but (so far as I can see) Rademacher simply mirrors the absence of Konigsberg data and does not comment on it or explain it. So there's nothing we can cite. Andrew Dalby 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

  • The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
  • It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
  • If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
  • It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have initiated a section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I would judge (if I may intrude on that question) that it's very difficult to say. Early medieval genealogy is not an exact science, and that's the reaon why each link in the chain or each branch on the tree needs a footnote. If it lacks a footnote, it wants a "Citation needed" template. So the answer to WhatamIdoing's question would involve a measure of probability on each genealogical link: one couldn't possibly answer for the table as a whole.
It's a bit like the historical maps made by Wikimedians. They are very handy, and may be preferable graphically to anything we can copy from PD sources, but are they accurate? We don't know. Are Wikimedians reliable sources? Well, no, they aren't. So do we accept such graphics in Wikipedia articles or not? It's a hard question. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but "it's not cited and probably okay" doesn't bother me much. The rule is that it must be possible to verify information, and if we think it's probably right, then it's probably also verifiable. But if we have some reason to believe that it's probably wrong, I'm going to be much more concerned. Uncited good information is okay. Uncited bad information can be a disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
What does probably ok mean? The problem is that the standard of proof which many editors that add genealogical information is below that used for notable events. For example in this case neither the text that was replaced or this graphic representation has even one citation (nor are there any on Wikicommons). Often when asked for, if it is provided, it is from web sites which do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources criteria. It is usually fairly easy to check the father of the subject from the sources in the text and in some cases the mother. But each generation back the number of ancestors doubles and the sourcing often becomes less and less reliable. My position is the same as Andrew Dalby's on this issue. One needs to be able to highlight for the reader those parts of a tree that have no sources, those based on unreliable sources, and those based on reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"Probably okay" means that the information is likely to be verifiably accurate, should someone actually go to the trouble of searching through sources. You may have noticed that I contrast "probably okay" with "probably wrong" in that comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a worthwhile goal. What the chances are of achieving it on Commons I don't know. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Next to nothing I suspect. Commons worry about copyright not about the reliability of sources used to validate images such as these. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Where an image from Commons would fail to meet policy concerns at Wikipedia regarding Original Research or the reliability of sources used—we should not use that image. This is relevant for Genealogy due to the interpretive element in Genealogy, and the need to independently reproduce copyright okay diagrams from questionable source data. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Map graphics giving modern information (statistical, administrative, etc.) are generally safer: they are often derived from just one or two highly reliable sources and it is evident or is stated by the creator what sources were used. Historical ones are more dubious. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
One possible solution for family trees is a development of an idea I used in an an image I introduced into an article Bodiam Castle. It has letters on it for rooms, which are then listed in the Wikipedia article. If an image for a family tree, was to carry superscripts for each entry then a bundled citation could be used to link the names to sources within the usual footnote system. Preferably the sources could be added to both the Wikicommons description and a Wikipdia article that uses it. Even if the initial editor does not introduce any citations with the image other editors could request sources by using the hooks in the image to do so or add them (just as is done in a text section on ancestry). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would work ... if we can somehow encourage the incorporation of hooks in images of that kind. I don't quite know where we'd start ... Andrew Dalby 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do I complain about a user who is inserting dubious links.

Hi This is probably my first complaint. I want to complain about a new user/account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kanoonkhojer whose sole purpose seems to be substituting / adding links to laws of India on various Wikipedia articles to point to one particular (dubious / non-reliable) website ie "http://khcaa.org" he is promoting. Incidentally the User name "Kanoonkhojer" translates to "Lawfinder". So please can some BigShot/Admin at Wikipedia resolve this without involving me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghore (talk • contribs)

The URL redirects to the Wordpress blog of an activist group and is clearly not a reliable source for general information about India laws, and does not seem to meet WP:ELYES for inclusion as an external link. I am no "big-shot" or admin but I'll give the editor a warning telling him what he's doing is not in line with Wikipedia policies. If he keeps doing it after that, he can be brought to WP:ANI for administrator attention. Zad68 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Editor warned, addition of external links reverted. Let's hope that's it. Zad68 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If that's not the end of this, then WP:BLACKLIST is your next stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Global Nonviolent Action Database

Just a quick question regarding the reliability of the Global Nonviolent Action Database published by Swarthmore College. I'd like to use this page in a future article about the 1962 Asturian miners' strike or possibly a broader topic. Not sure as yet what specific statements I'd be sourcing or using it as a source for – for now I just want to check whether or not it's something I can use in general. Thanks – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the site's Who made the database? page, its content was largely written by undergraduate students. While that page states that the the students operated under supervision of academics and their entries were edited by research assistants, it doesn't appear that there was any kind of formal review or fact checking process from the information provided there. As such, I don't think that this is a reliable source in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Book by William F. McNeil

References to the following book on a couple articles are being aggressively purged by a couple of editors who are hostile to the subject matter, with the claim that it is "unreliable". I say, it is being used on these articles to reference a school of thought or viewpoint, following on the books of Barry Fell, Gloria Farley and actually several lesser known authors. What say ye? Is all talk of this stuff now suddenly verboten on wp?

  • McNeil, William F. Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus. McFarland, 2005. ISBN 0-7864-1917-2

Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press, and the author is an expert in baseball, not archeology. Neither have the book nor the theories it contains ever been mentioned in independent reliable sources. As it is not an element of the scholarly debate on a scientific topic, and has not been discused, either positively or negatively, by independent scholars, it remains a not-notable fringe source. This has already been exhaustively discussed on the article talk page [[55]] and at FTN [[56]]. At best it would be reliable only for the opinion of its author, and then only if that opinion were notable, which it is not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As this is basically what I've been saying, I can only agree. A book by a non-expert which hasn't made more than a tiny, tiny ripple anywhere, even among the fringe. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. Sure, scholarly sources are MORE reliable than non-scholarly ones... but there is a difference between relative reliability and complete unreliability.
A lot depends on the context in which we use the source... In this case, we have to look at the type of statement we are supporting with a citation to McNeil's book. McNeil would not be reliable for a statement as to archeological fact ("X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus")... but he can be considered reliable for a statement about the beliefs or opinions of a certain group of fringe theory advocates ("Fringe theorists believe that X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus"). Context also determines whether or not we should mention the opinion of this group of fringe theorists... see: WP:UNDUE. In an article or section about the pre-Colmbian contact fringe theory, it is not undue weight to discuss what advocates of the theory say (in fact it would be undue not to mention what the advocates say). Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Not if the "theories" have never been mentioned by reliable mainstream sources. We would have no basis for deciding whether the "theories" were notable or not, or how much weight to assign to them, if any. Absent substantial discussion in reliable independent sources, scholarly or otherwise, we can only conclude that the "theories" are not significant, and therefore should not be mentioned at all in WP. To do otherwis would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You should mention what statement you want to support and which article. Since the book is published by McFarland & Company, it meets rs, although it is probably not the best source. However, the opinions expressed in the book probably do not meet WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The information from McNeil's book on Pre-Columbian contact theory that was in particular question, is found on page 223. There he describes his fellow Pre-Columbian theorist Gloria Farley, who discovered the Turkey Mountain inscriptions in 1975. She showed the carved letters to Barry Fell, another Pre-Columbian contact theorist who read the markings as Punic and Gaelic. Nobody else has ventured a reading, but some sources describe them vaguely as "runes" without interpreting them. There are plenty of sources that describe all this, and photos of the inscription, etc. - yet every last one including mainly McNeil, Fell, and Farley's own book on the discovery, has been declared "unreliable" or "insufficient passing mentions" by DV and DW, and I have thus been accused of "original research" just as if I made up the whole reading out of my own head myself, and the longstanding article informing wp readers of the existence of these petroglyphs has even been put up for deletion now, as they are obviously quite committed to making certain nobody finds out about the Turkey Mountain Inscriptions from wikipedia, regardless of how many other sources they could easily get such info from. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
McNeil would be reliable for an attributed statement as to what McNeil says in his book... such as: "According to author William McNeil, the inscriptions were discovered by Gloria Farley in 1975. McNeil states that she showed them to fellow enthusiast Barry Fell, and that Fell believed them to be Punic and Gaelic." However, this is probably a round about way of discussing the issue. If your intent is to cite Fell's belief, then it would be better to cite Fell directly. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's a reliable source for the type of statement that Blueboar suggests. It sounds to me like the question is really one of DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Book used in Pantheism article by leader of pantheism movement

A question has arisen at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about whether or not the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books) by author Paul Harrison (pantheist), founder of the World Pantheist Movement should be used as a source for the Pantheism article. The book is used for about a dozen facts, mostly about modern pantheism. The issue is whether the source is too much of a primary source; or is written by an author that is too much of a partisan. The DRN discussion has quite a bit of background information. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Harrison appears to only possess appropriate scholarly qualifications in geography and other humanities other than Theology or comparative religious studies—he isn't an appropriate expert regarding religion. Element Books appears to be a trade publisher with an interest in non-standard topics, rather than a scholarly comparative religious studies or theological publisher. I don't see why the work should be used at all, given that it appears to be the first publication of a unique theory that has received no scholarly attention (a defunct curriculum document, and a claim that pantheists believe "These aspects of @ ["the actual physical universe"] tend toward divinity and inspire pantheism as ‘nature worship’ (Harrison 1999)." (10.1017/S0034412503006814 p70). The criteria commonly used to establish scholarly worth are: field appropriate research level qualifications; publication by a scholarly press who publishes in an appropriate field; recognition of a work other than the above in the appropriate field's scholarly review process (review and citation). This work was published by a writer with no field appropriate scholarly publications, it was published in trade by a less than esteemable publisher of non-fiction, and has received no attention in the literature. Pantheism is an article regarding a religious or philosophical opinion about the outside world; the standard for religious and philosophical articles is either scholarly expertise, or high level practicioner expertise ("professional Theologians" etc.) This work fails to meet those criteria. Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, as Harrison's work lacks the capacity to possess a notable opinion, or to generate appropriate "facts." Harrison's work could be used regarding his own views on pantheism (for instance, on an article regarding Harrison), but only while avoiding Undue, (for instance, where popular criticism of Harrison (for example) draws attention to the importance or notability of specific elements of his views on pantheism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Chart News (Twitter)

Since new users keep using it as a source, I think this discussion/consensus on Chart News (some Twitter account) should be mentioned at this noticeboard just as a point of reference for addressing the users who use the source; its consensus was unreliable. Here's the diff from the original discussion at Talk:The Light of the Sun, basically revising the date and sales figure in that article. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the reasoning behind that consensus, and agree with it. It is published by a non-expert who has no reputation for fact-checking. (It is equivalent to an unedited blog). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

thesavior.com - a reliable source?

Is this interview[57] a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing[58], a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I dont agree with you deleting the Healing Iraq reference - it is not 'just' a commentary but represents a deep source of Iraqi news (which english sources lack), the author himself reads local arabic news sources and performs fact checking (including on english sources). He studied journalism and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian [59] [60].

While he seems to have quit dentistry, (Quote: I have been reluctant to change careers, but quite frankly there is nothing that I can add to dentistry in Iraq, whereas the field of Iraqi online and print journalism is lacking in many aspects, and I hope to contribute to filling that gap.) [61] he still displays 'dentist' on his website and is reluctant to called himself a journalist (possibly because he wants readers to still view him as just an ordinary citizen who is interested in Iraqi news). I dont think its enough to discredit a source just because he states he is a dentist. Healing IRaq is one of the most read blogs for Iraqi news (and maybe even one of the best sources), Ziyad is known for his accurate reporting. Regarding using the 'Healing Iraq' reference for the wiki (especially regarding the battle of najaf), this quote from the OTB journal gives support: "I still haven’t found an official release on the military action that occurred in Najaf but, if you’re confused about what happened there, you’re not the only one. Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq has collected more than a dozen different descriptions of what happened, ranging from..." [62]. Im not too familiar with the wiki rules but this would seem to give support, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources: "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."

As for using the-savior.com as a reference, it is the website created by his representatives (who are in contract with Ahmad Al-Hassan), I believe it should stay to get some information on him, from him, as per [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source].

I didn't intend this to be an essay, but hopefully it can contribute to the building of the article.

What claims are these self-ublished sources supposed to be supporting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, the Healing Iraq reference was used in various places not for new claims.. it was mostly support to things already known by other articles. However, I specifically quoted from Healing Iraq, his analysis of the Battle of Najaf on the conflicting reports of 'reliable' sources. Is it ok to discredit a reference because its hosted on a Blogspot? what if the author is a journalist with extreme interest in Iraqi news and his articles were published in 3rd party sources??
As for the the-saviour.com reference, its used to get basic facts on the individual (birth place, occupation) and details on his movement (specifically, the period of time around when he began his movement).

I realise references are limited in english (and I will try to find arabic sources), however this article should be notable considering it constitutes a new movement/sect within Iraq that is spreading internationally (the movement has websites in english and other languages). Further, Middle Eastern issues (Security or other) are of major concern to international policies of US, UK other alliance countries.. which would encompass these rapidly emerging ideologies.

I still believe the Healing Iraq reference is more than reliable with regards to this article.
Self-published sources may not be used for information about any living person except for the person writing/publishing the source. So the birth place, occupation, etc., simply cannot be supported by a self-published source.
The journalist might qualify for the expert exception, but it could then be used only for claims that are not about living people. So "Journalist John says that media reports about the battle were conflicting" might be okay, but "Journalist John says that Jane was on vacation during the battle" is never okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your help and assistance. ok I think I understand this now, so the site the-savior.com published by Ahmad AlHassan can be used for claims about himself, but the Healing Iraq reference cannot be used on Ahmad AlHassan because he's a living person. But I can use Healing Iraq (expert journalist on (post-war) Iraqi News) as a source regarding non-living person? This is what I wanted to quote from Healing Iraq, (and it is an extremely relevant analysis of the battle of Najaf reports):

Iraqi American commentator, Zayed, criticised the difference in official reports, “The official U.S. and Iraqi story about what happened in Najaf today, which was swallowed and propagated by news wires (and apparently also the New York Times), is complete nonsense. First of all, they can’t even decide whether they were fighting Sunni insurgents or a “violent Shi’ite cult,” as Reuters’ unnamed self-appointed expert put it in their story. Secondly, the U.S. and Iraqi descriptions don’t match and both contain gross inconsistencies…” [63]

Just one last question.. its a really technical one, if I cant use self-published expert sources on a living person, can I use it on a person's Movement (group of people who follow his ideology)? Many Thanks Truth&bytruth (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it. I'm not sure about the person's movement question, because it's complicated. Sometimes a statement that is supposedly about a group is effectively about an individual, in which case we err on the side of caution.
And now I give you the next level of complication: even though the website might be "reliable" for the statements (e.g., the quotation from the journalist's blog), it may not be WP:DUE, or important enough to bother mentioning. So if this one journalist is the only journalist in the world who thinks the media coverage was screwed up, then it's probably not actually useable, even though it is technically reliable. Verifiability/reliability is only the first of several requirements for including information in an article. For help dealing with that question, you want to start a conversation either on the article's talk page with an WP:RFC or at WP:NPOVN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Homa Katouzian

Homa Katouzian has PH.D in Economy but he wrote Modern history of Iran (because he know Persian language). Recently he wrote a book about History of Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History of iran with name "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" that University Yale has published. i have question that writing a book with University Press can put someone (historian) non-scholar to scholar of Medieval historian scholar ? and can we use Opinion pieces (Interview with radio) by this guy in wikipedia Persian (Medieval) history entries ?--Espiral (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We would make the presumption that his knowledge is broad enough for a press like that and the multiple referees it will have consulted to consider him an expert, or sufficiently an expert to write a general book on this very broad topic. It would be relevant to find reviews of his book from other experts, including those who are expert specialists in narrower topics. Even the greatest expert is not definitive, especially in topics like historical interpretation. All responsible views must be presented. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to make any assumptions. Dr Katouzian teaches modern Iranian history at Oxford University.[64] According to the website of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, "Dr Homa Katouzian is the Iran Heritage Foundation Research Fellow, St Antony’s College, and Member, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. He received all of his university education in England and has taught, as visitor or permanent staff, at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, and the University of Leeds, Kent at Canterbury, Shiraz, UCLA, UC San Diego and McMaster University. He is editor of Iranian Studies, Journal of the International Society for Iranian Studies, joint editor of the ISIS-Routledge series in Iranian Studies, and on the editorial board of Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. His current research interest is in Iranian history and politics, the comparative sociology of Iranian and European history, and modern and classical Persian literature."[65] He would seem to be an excellent and eminently reliable source. Indeed, if he is not, it looks as though someone should inform the experts in the field that we do not consider him to be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
he wrote modern history of iran but it`s different between modern history and medieval history of iran. for example you must know arabic language and i don`t think he knows arabic. he doesn`t wrote any ancient or medieval book exept "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" until today. i think he wrote the book "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" with References of other orientalist`s books and he doesn`t use any primary book. he must Express an opinion on modern history on iran (which is his field) but in interview with france radio he Express an opinion on medieval history of iran (which is not his field). my question is can we use his Express an opinion on medieval history of iran ?--Espiral (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
In writing a general history you are likely to go beyond your field of greatest expertise. Same thing if you are on the editorial board of a journal.
But the real point is not Homa Katouzian's field of expertise. If he publishes a peer-reviewed academic paper or monograph on the topic in question, we would surely want to cite it. The point is, why on earth should we be quoting a radio channel on a detail of medieval Iranian history? Unless that's explained (and a precise link is given) this is just timewasting. Andrew Dalby 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:HISTRS for the reasoning behind this. Katouzian published a scholarly survey history in a scholarly press. Their early work (and thus PhD) appear to be in Political Economy, a bastard child of economics which has a focus on analysis of texts and structures, far more so than Economics. Katouzian transitioned their academic career towards history by publishing historical scholarly works in historical presses and teaching history; and in Iranian studies the text was cited in specialist scholarly journals off-hand for truisms. Katouzian's PhD may be in Economics, but for the purposes of scholarly expertise, they're accepted by the community of historians as a historian—as evidenced by publication in scholarly presses that get expert and discipline specific reader reviews done before acceptance, such as Yale University Press. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly relevant (yet). The question is about quoting a radio interview concerning a detail of medieval history, and we still haven't been told what detail or on what page. Live radio interviews (if it was live) can't be fact-checked. The preliminary answer should certainly be "no". Andrew Dalby 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh god, I see your point. No a radio interview with an academic isn't an acceptable source for historical articles. Academics do not have time to check their sources, and are not held to standards of peer review. Regardless of EXPERTise, academics have access to acceptable publication formats (as shown by Katouzian's access to YUP). Academics talking outside of their profession's publishing structure often say dodgy things, or things that lack appropriate context. Even if the radio interview were available as transcript it shouldn't be used. Use Katouzian's published works. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded impatient! Andrew Dalby 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it make any difference if
  • The radio interview was not live
  • The scholar vouched for his statement in the interview later in a correspondence (say an email to a Wiki user)

24.94.18.234 (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't cite private letters, and radio interviews are not appropriate sources for medieval history. If he publishes the statement in a peer-reviewed or academic medium, that's different. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal correspondence is never an acceptable source, nor is it an acceptable source regarding sources. "What my mother told me last night before bed," is not verifiable. Radio interviews are not the usual genre for the exposition of historical fact as they invite trivium. Show me a radio interview published by OUP as part of a scholarly series and then we might start talking. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
and by the way, the disputed content that user Espiral is talking about is the alleged claim of Omar commanding to burn the books in library of Academy of Gondishapur as suggested by Ibn Khaldun in Muqaddimah and refuted by the English translator of this book, Franz Rosenthal here. Dr. Katouzian in the interview is also refuting the alleged book burning in Persia by Arabs.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Homa Katouzian Claimed that persians doesn`t have Mental Sciences before "Arab conquest of Iran" or it`s Negligible to compare to Mental Sciences that produce after "Arab conquest of Iran" . but Ibn Khaldun , islamic historian says :

Among The Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persians dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to Greeks from the Persians, when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians

or another mistake of his interview with radio france in another time, he says :"cyrus cylinder had freedom to people of egypt and Babylon and Jews and Chaldea which cyrus the great was capturing them " but in fact cyrus the great didn`t capture egypt .

all of his interviews is in persian language. how ancient and medieval historian of iran can Notificat of his opinion (for Review of his opinion), when he had too many mistakes and Large claims in persian language ? how many of scholar heared persian (language) interview with a Unknown radio ? --Espiral (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If Katouzian stated uncontroversial facts in this broadcast, there will certainly be better sources for them (which might include his own published and peer-reviewed writings as well as those of others). If there are controversial opinions we should wait until he publishes them in print, and then consider whether they are notable or not. If there are errors of historical fact, their occurrence in a radio interview is not notable -- sadly, it happens all the time. So I can't see any reason to cite this interview, unless published reactions to it by other scholars cause it to become notable. As Fifelfoo rightly says, "use Katouzian's published works." Andrew Dalby 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Per Andrew Dalby. Uncontroversial facts will be available elsewhere (such as in the University Press published monographs). Controversial facts are not acceptably supported by radio interviews as historians do not publish controversial facts by radio interview. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to please request a clarification on what exactly constitutes a "third-party source" in a specific case. If a scholar had been involved in a lawsuit against a person, is he/she a third-party source on the credentials and social standing of said person? Or should the testimony and statements of the scholar on that subject (e.g. during the said trial) be considered to some extent unreliable on the basis that they are directly involved with the person? -- Director (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This relates to Talk:David Irving#Historian or writer, and is (in my biased opinion) a fairly non-neutral way of expressing the issues there, as the material in question goes well beyond statements made during the trial, as it includes expert reports and professionally published books. But views from other editors on this issue (as well as the other issues under discussion) would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow.. you're following my contributions. I don't know if I should be creeped-out or flattered.
I grant that I remained vague on the names as I did not wish to prejudice anyone, but I don't think it matters. And again you are misrepresenting what I write (its quite remarkable, really, that you do so every time). I did not limit my request only to statements made during the trial, I merely mentioned that as an example since you're using Evans's actual testimony. I did not post this here looking for input on the article (as this is hardly the venue), but I also would welcome additional participants.
For goodness' sake: you're quoting 1) the prosecutor against the person, 2) a scholar that was repeatedly harangued and actually sued by the person, and 3) a scholar hired by the defense (allegedly for 250,000 dollars) as a witness against this person. In my opinion, these are not third-party sources. And you're using them, not only as "impartial third-party sources", but as the (quote) "foremost experts on the person". In addition to this, I'd like to point out that the case falls under WP:BLP and its more stringent criteria for what constitutes an RS. I don't like the fascist guy any more than the next person, but imo this is really too much. Hitler has a more fair and balanced lead. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"Third-party" or "third party" in WP:RS refers to the publisher, and means not self-published, although self-published sources are acceptable under some circumstances. It has no relevance to the dispute. Also, you should assume good faith. Nick-D follows this notice board, and has posted numerous times to this notice board, including above where he commented eight minutes before you started this discussion thread.[66] TFD (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
So the author can be anyone, but the publisher should be entirely independent? I find that rather hard to believe. Self-published sources are certainly a good example but they're hardly synonymous with a non-third-party source. To my knowledge, such a source is one that is not entirely independent of the subject being covered. And prof. Evans hasn't even published his opinion given in the trial, which arguably makes using that (primary) source to draw conclusions - OR. He doesn't even expressly deny that the person, strictly speaking, is a historian. He basically says that he does not meet his personal definition of a historian. And all these sources are reliable and perfectly fine for a BLP article? And its kind of hard to AGF every time with the kind of subtle-yet-belligerent behavior Nick-D's been continuously displaying from the start ("so you're saying he's Mother Theresa reborn? you madman!"). But I have and will try again.
Fellas, I've heard your position back at the article, and perhaps you're right. But lets hear from the community. The sources we're discussing, now that we've gone into the specifics, are here. -- Director (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This specific discussion is about what "third-party" means in WP:RS and it is referring to the publisher. But I do not think the issue is RS - no one challenges that Evans said Irving is not an historian. The issue is weight - what weight to we assign this view as opposed to the view that he is. If we assign zero weight to Evans' opinion, and to those who have endorsed it, then we can say unconditionally that Irving is an historian. But if we assign any weight to Evans' view then we cannot. TFD (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually we can call him an "historian" and we can also say Evan's opinion is that he is not an historian for the reasons Irving gives. The ideal is NPOV - and it is clear that Evan's opinion is not related to Irving's training and background, but to Evn's opinion of Irving's opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Which is precisely what I've been saying and advocating. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion thread, where you ask, "what exactly constitutes a "third-party source""? TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me, but it was not I who began disclosing the dispute here and asking for feedback. -- Director (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the edit where you set up this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"Third party" has nothing to do with the relationship between the author and the publisher (whether the source is self-published or not).
It has to do with with relationship between the author and the subject matter. In this case, the author is definitely not independent or disinterested, but he might technically be a third party. (Reality is more complicated than Wikipedia's policies are prepared to cope with. Good sources are both independent and third parties.)
See Wikipedia:Party and person#Doesn't "third party" mean "independent"? and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources for more information.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 August 2012
This discussion is about policy, not essays that "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints". In any case the essays do not claim to discuss WP:RS, which uses the term "third party" in reference to publishers, not writers. "Third party publisher" means that the article was not self-published by the writer. TFD (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. WP:RS talks about third-party "sources" and third-party "publications", but never third-party publishers. And it also links to the same "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints" essay on the subject twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement attributed to a person

I would like to have the following statement's source be reviewed from the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War:

"He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state."

which is sourced from this book:



which further cites it from this opinion based article:


I asked about it at the talk page but the major contributor of that article is of the opinion that this opinion based article is cited by an academic published book and that is why it is a reliable source. --SMS Talk 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the statement in the article is supported by Hossain and Tollefson's book. Hossain and Tollefson cite Manik's article. You disagree with the statement, and therefore you want to say that Hossain and Tollefson's book is wrong because they cite Manik's article, and you believe Manik's article is just one person's opinion and therefore unimportant. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes you got it right, but that is my opinion. What I would like to know is that can an opinion based article be cited for saying that someone called a person/group of people traitor, enemy of state, etc.?
If this political statement is well-founded it should be possible to find less oblique sources which report it (eg newspapers or political histories). The citing of a source of unknown reliability by a single academic article on a tangential topic is not enough to confer reliability on the source and thus the statement. Martinlc (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree with you, given the source used is a secondary source citing a primary source it falls well within RS guidelines. But here is another source which also supports it. Encyclopaedia on Jinnah p56 2008. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
UNDUE would come into play. If it is an important quote representing an important view, there will be multiple sources to support it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Another editor just posted another source on the talk page Braj B. Kachru; Yamuna Kachru; S. N. Sridhar (2008), Language in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, p. 138, ISBN 978-0-521-78141-1 That is three academic sources, how many do you want? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The text in "Encyclopedia on Jinnah" is exactly the copy of this source (which I already gave above) without being attributed to the author, I guess. The second source "Language in South Asia" quotes Jinnah as saying this:

"it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your province. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan"

which clearly can't be used to source the statement in the article (quoted above in my first comment). It will need to be altered. --SMS Talk 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the source used is not only RS the person they are citing is am academic also.[67] So I really am not seeing a problem with the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In this speech by Jinnah he called those who supported Bengali traitors, fifth columnists and enemies of Pakistan[68] Darkness Shines (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find the words "traitor", "communist" in this weblink that you gave. In fact there are Jinnah's speeces/quotes related to the issue and he doesn't call anyone more than "enemy of Pakistan" on this issue. Some of his speeches: [69], [70], [71]. --SMS Talk 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And about the author (Wahiduzaman Manik), his article says it all about the neutrality. --SMS Talk 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SMS, what do you think a quisling is? But for your ease "I tell you once again, do not fall into the trap of those who are the enemies of Pakistan. Unfortunately, you have fifth columnists --and I am sorry to say they are Muslims --who are financed by outsiders. But they are making a great mistake. We are not going to tolerate sabotage any more; we are not going to tolerate the enemies of Pakistan; we are not going to tolerate quislings and fifth-columnists in our State, and if this is not stopped, I am confident that your Government and the Pakistan Government will take the strongest measures and deal with them ruthlessly, because they are a poison" From one of his speeches [72] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is undoubtedly a reliable source. The general rule is this: a reliable source does not have to cite its sources at all. Therefore, we do not dismiss sources simply because we believe the reliable source is citing weak sources, except in the extraordinary case of us having another reliable source (such as a newspaper correction notice) directly saying that there is a problem with the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok I accept that I didn't read this speech of Jinnah before, it will be useful if this speech is read completely, to understand the issue, since it is the one from which Manik concluded that he called anyone supporting Bengali as Communist, Traitor and enemy of state. --SMS Talk 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Comics Database wikia reliability and use as a reference

I am wondering about the reliability of the Marvel Comics Database. Its a Wikia, and - on a lark - was able to sign up myself in about 30 seconds. Nott hat that means anything, but I'm not seeing a lot of editorial oversight or permanence. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can create an account and edit then it fails as a reliable source. I thought wiki's were automatically failed as RS given anyone can edit them? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Per Darkness Shine's reasoning. A closed wiki with evidence of possessing an editorial policy equivalent to a traditional media object of an equivalent kind could be reliable. Almost all wikis are open, almost all wikis are not edited in an equivalent manner to a traditional media object. Of course, on top of this, a wiki would need to be relevant to the article, and the scope of the claim—even if the author and publisher were acceptable "generally speaking". Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if Marvel (and the rest of the big comic book companies for that matter) would gett off their posteriors and set up their own databases. I have a feeling there wouldn't be half the amount of retconning that currently goes on if some writer could actually read What Has Gone Before™. Sort of a "Bible", like tv series and the like. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be, or if the fan communities realised that if they want to cite their own work they need to establish proper editorial procedures to raise the standard of their works. There's nothing wrong with an open wiki, except when you try to cite it on wikipedia. As far as the absence of house bibles by the comic book houses—I think they value selling an exercise in interpretive hermeneutics, 24 pages at a time. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not so much hermeneutics (though I get the reference, since we are talking about "bibles"), but rather revisionism. Considering the way that comics books treat women and anyone who isn't Caucasian, I'd even go so far as to term it misogynistic xenophobia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski

This source [73] appears to be self published and unverifiable outside of the owner's website. It is extensively used in the Star Wars articles, and I feel it might provide undue weight towards the author's bias.--203.29.131.98 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is published by legacy books press[74] who say they are not a vanity publisher, they seem to be to me :o) I am unsure of this publisher, I would have to say not RS given the lack of other books by the same author, anyone know who he is? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of passing interest, the Legacy Books Press books section only lists four publications, one of which is co-authored by the domain owner. Maybe not a vanity press, but not exactly a mainstream publisher. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Gawain

I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory to believe his/her own theory of how Gawain died is more accurate, but there are many theories, compared to User:Cagwinn who thinks it is idiotic,when there nothing idiotic of how Gawain died and its theories and will you tell the user to stop edit warring I have kept part of the source from this user and added another source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, will some one please explain the user to stop edit warring, now.--GoShow (...............) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is probably not the right noticeboard. Cagwinn is correct regarding his content point, and GoShow isn't using RS and is trying to insert content in the wrong place. However, Cagwinn has left uncivil edit summaries[75][76], and deleted my comment from the Gawain talk page when I saw the notice here and attempted to offer some guidance to GoShow as to why his edits were being reverted. Deleting another user's neutral and appropriate comment from an article talk page is a gross violation of WP:TPO and indicates issues of ownership. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not intentionally delete your comments, Cynewolfe, and wasn't even aware of the fact that I had apparently (and accidentally!!) done so until I checked the history just now. I still don't know how it even happened.Cagwinn (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I meant only to suggest that this was the wrong noticeboard. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly not the right place for this discussion. GoShow has not introduced a source for others to vet. This is a content issue.Cúchullain t/c 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop, trying to acknowledge each other know the facts from others, this is not yours or my article it is Wikipedias and every other reliable source is under representation is allowed to use their edit--GoShow (...............) 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

On this article there is a dispute over the use of a book published by International Business Publications, USA. This publisher is a print on demand company, as can bee seen on their website and also on the Cambridge information Group site[77] which ranks them alongside Books LLC AuthorHouse and other self publishing company's. Do books form this publishing house fall under WP:SPS? The book in question is India Foreign Policy and Government Guide, Volume 1 Here on Google books and no authors names are given. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the entire text, but a large chunk appears to be copied from here. It would be better to just use the US department of state source. If text is in question is not from the section copied from the US Department of State, I am fairly certain you will be able to find it somewhere more reliable on the web. Ryan Vesey 05:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Print on demand houses that publish without taking editorial responsibility are identical to other texts published by their author—they are self-published sources as the publisher printer has not editorially intervened into the text. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Page 102 and onwards in the source is what the content in question is cited to. Please read through the pages and check before commenting. The information in the source is entirely fact-based and reliable. The information is highly valuable for the India and state terrorism article. It does not appear to be SPS, as the filer of this thread seems to imply. Also, I do not believe that International Business Publications is the author of this work, I am quite sure it is written by someone else. International Business Publications is unrelated and is just a publication group. Mar4d (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the material in the source can also be found on this Daily Times article: ‘RAW very active against Pakistan’. Global Security (Globalsecurity.org), described as an "an authoritative US security and intelligence information group" based in Washington D.C. appears to be the author. So the information can stay in the article and be attributed to this group. Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And what exactly makes Global security a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And if they actually wrote this "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement." then they are not reliable at all, pure conspiracy theory junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is far more reliable than the junk that you're supporting on Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Your standards as far as reliable sources are concerned are appalling, I must concede. Mar4d (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from commenting on myself and concentrate on the sources in question please. If you feel the sources being used on another article are not RS please start another thread. As i said, and source which writes that the Indian government hijacked an aircraft to frame kashmiri separatists is junk, please refute that. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d if you have some problem with the sources presented by Darkness Shines your action should not be to include another non reliable source in a different article, this discussion is about the source presented by you.--sarvajna (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse the momentary outburst there. It just came as a bit of a shocker to see a user who insists on academic sources all the time suddenly supporting the use of opinionative webpages as sources while at the same time challenging a notable source like Globalsecurity.org. Someone's seriously screwed up. Mar4d (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stanglin, Douglas. "Facebook photo of duct-taped kids prompts couple's arrest". USA Today. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_128&oldid=1143714467"