Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Industry specific trade journals?

I found what I thought were 9 non-trivial sources for an article about a company in an AfD disucssion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrightsoft using the EBSCO database from my public library. They are from various trade journal from within that companies industry. Several other editors say that because they are trade journals they do not count as reliable sources. I could not find anything in WP:RS, WP:N, WP:CORP that specify that trade journals as not reliable sources. I realize that many trivial trivial articles can appear in trade journal. Has there been any consensus on trade journals as reliable sources? Here are the sources from the AfD discussion.

• Wrightsoft Is 20 Years Old. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 11/6/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p6-6; From abstract: The article focuses on the accomplishments of the Wrightsoft Corp., which has celebrated its 20th anniversary, to contribute to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry with many software programs.
• Wrightsoft wins design award. Contractor Magazine, Aug2007, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p26-26; From abstract: This article announces that Wrightsoft was given the 2007 Dealer Design Awards.
• BITS & BYTES. Engineered Systems, Jan2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p122-122, 1/2p; (AN 23835654) From abstract:The independent panel of 45 contractors chooses the Wrightsoft Corp., in partnership with Uponor to win a gold medal award for its innovative design of the Uponor System Design software.
• HR Expo 2005 Innovation Award Winners. Supply House Times, Feb2005, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p28-28 From Abstract: The article announces the winners of the Air-Conditioning Heating Refrigeration Expo 2005 award. The winners of the award are Wrightsoft Corp. and Danfoss AS.
• HVAC-City: A home on the Net. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 10/13/97, Vol. 202 Issue 7, p19 From Abstract:Reports on the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and Wrightsoft Corp.'s development of the HVAC-City, a full service Internet site.
• Software Products That Boost Profits Win Raves From The Contractor-Judges. By: Skaer, Mark. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/19/2004, Vol. 222 Issue 12, p32-34, 2p From abstract: Highlights the winners in the contractor services and software category of the 2004 Dealer Design Awards for the U.S. heating and ventilation industry. Right Proposal Plus Module from Wrightsoft Corp.; Luxaire Business Analyzer from York Unitary Products Group.
• Winners Have the Right Stuff. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/17/2006, Vol. 228 Issue 12, p52-53, 2p; From abstract: The article announces awards given to outstanding heating & ventilation products in the contractor services and software category in the U.S. The company Wrightsoft Corp. has won the gold award for its Uponor System Design Software.
• Software Winners Selected. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/16/2007, Vol. 231 Issue 11, p46-46, 1p; From abstract: The article announces that Jonas Software has won gold, Wrightsoft Corp. has won silver and FastEST Inc. has won bronze award at the 2007 Dealer Design Awards ceremony in the contractor services and software category.

I would say the trade journals are reliable. If the issue is whether they indicate notability, I would think we need something beyond the industry for that. Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The caveat I'd add is that the trade journal is actually a trade journal, with some editorial standards and oversight, rather than a fee-based "Who's-Who" sort of advertising or promotional rag. The sources you list above look OK to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A leading trade journal is a reliable source--usually the most approrpiate one for many things. It is necessary to distinguish actual major editorial content from repeat of PR, but that can be a problem with most sources. DGG (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

These sources seem fine for establishing the awards that the company has won, and if that helps establish notability then that is a suitable use. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center

There is currently a discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center concerning whether it is appropriate to describe a source as "peer reviewed". Any additional comments would be welcome. Hut 8.5 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please post the source here. It looks to be part of a much larger discussion about other sources, so please post the source and describe the issue very briefly.PelleSmith (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. (The relevant talk page sections are Talk:7 World Trade Center#Regarding that Bentham article and Talk:7 World Trade Center#Steven Jones's response to this discussion - both those sections are only discussing this source).

The source cited is [1], from the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal. It is being used to assert that the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has received coverage in a peer-reviewed journal (which is strange because the hypothesis is rejected by almost all of the engineering community). The problems with this source are:

• The journal has been known to spam for reviewers, including to review submissions in subjects they have no expertise in.
• People who have contacted the editorial board and the publishers found that peer review standard were not followed. Specifically, the publishers bypassed the editors regarding the peer review so even the editor-in-chief was not able to find out how the source was reviewed, and contact enquiries about how the source was peer reviewed were forwarded to the author.
• The authors have spent a year trying to get their work into a peer reviewed journal, and in the process they had 4-5 papers rejected. --Hut 8.5 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware another journal that calls itself peer-reviewed, but, in practice, accepts papers that the reviewers reject. Is there any documentation regarding your journal with regard to its impact factor, the proportion of submissions it rejects, or comments in higher ranking journals that documents problems with the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal?

Global Beauties

My previous comment on this page here didn't get any comments so I'm hoping someone will take a look at this. Putting it simply,

is Global Beauties a reliable source for beauty pageant articles?

Per WP:SPS I believe that it is not. It has been wrong in the past, although it was accurate for Miss Universe 2008 (of course we didn't know that until the official list came out). I've put notes on certain pages asking people not to source from there and it lead to this riot. I'd appreciate comments on whether it should be considered a reliable source or not. Thanks. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the reason you may have gotten no response earlier is that most of us don't know this site or field at all. You say in that discussion that the site has been proven wrong before, but don't spell out the details of when and how. Personally, knowing nothing about the field, I would hesitate to use it, but like I said I don't know the field. I guess the relevant questions are whether anyone has ever cited it as a source elsewhere, not on wikipedia, and the specific details of where and how it was wrong before. Several reliable sources do occasionally make mistakes, so that can't be an absolute bar from being reliable. Where has it been wrong before? John Carter (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They've had their contestant lists wrong before (that's the area where its most contentious as a source). For argument's sake, assuming it had been correct in the past, would it still be reliable? In my opinion its a glorified fan site but I'd like a neutral take. As far as I know it hasn't been used as a source in any third party news sources or anything like that. I'm more than happy to be corrected :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The relevant criteria would seem to be related to WP:RS. It would help to know how often they've been wrong about contestant lists, as, for instance, a single typo mistake over five years would probably not be enough to disqualify. But, if it hasn't been used as a reliable source by other independent entities, then it would seem to fail to meet RS standards, and probably shouldn't be used. Also, if it hasn't been cited by anyone else, then it probably doesn't even qualify under WP:NOTABILITY. Unless someone produces evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proof is one the person seeking to use it as a source in instances like this, I think that, based on what I've seen, the source doesn't clearly and demonstrably meet RS standards, and shouldn't be used. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Atrl.net

Is the site http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/no.html reliable? This is being used in an article I wrote that is currently cooked in FAC. --Efe (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would lean towards no. Do you know who created this website? Was there any editorial oversight to the author? Do you have any reason to believe the data is reliable? From WP:SPS Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Do you have any reason to believe that this source is not self-published (ie - a personal website)? DigitalC (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont know. I am not expert on this and cant even access the site for now. Its being used here: "Baby Boy (song)", in the music video section (paragraph 3). --Efe (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at atrl.net? [2]. This seems to be where they get their information from, and they state "TRL recap was originally posted by various members of the ATRL forums." I would think that indicates that it is NOT reliable DigitalC (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Also note that data from that link contradicts what is listed in the article. I would just nuke that whole sentence about the video from the article. DigitalC (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which line? --Efe (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would remove ""Baby Boy" premiered on MTV's program Total Request Live on 25 August 2003 at number ten and reached the top spot.[19][20] It stayed on the show for forty-one weeks, the same chart run "Me, Myself & I" earned.[19]". DigitalC (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead. thanks. --Efe (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com review

is this review allowed? http://www.amazon.com/Iowa-Slipknot/dp/B00005A46T. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Such reviews are never considered RS. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that you understand it is the "Amazon.com Editorial Review", the one written by the employee of the site wrote, not a fan review. Is he not a legit critic simply due to his employer? Blackngold29 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! That could make a difference, but I still would be hesitant to use it, in spite of it being well-written. If it were published in another and better source, then we'd be on more firm ground. How about Rolling Stone, or some other music magazine? There ought to be good reviews there. I assume you're referring to the paragraph starting with "Right from the introductory shriek...", written by Dominic Wills. -- Fyslee / talk 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We have used many reviews in the article (including Rolling Stone), but we used this one more as a description of how the music itself sounds. It's not used in the Reception section. Since most reviews are "This album is good" or "This album is bad" and don't describe how the music itself sounds; this one does describe it. Blackngold29 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is even more questionable. Describing the music? By the way, who is Wills? In the first place, amazon.com fails as RS. So, let assess Wills if he passess the criteria. --Efe (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've seen the quote in the article. I don't understand how we can question the guy just because he works and writes reviews for Amazon, and not Yahoo or Rolling Stone, it's not like those guys are well known either. Like I said if there's no one else that supports it we can just take it out; we aren't really starving for material in that section. Blackngold29 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not question whether that person writes for Amazon or for Rolling Stone. The issue is how this site or the writer himself passes WP:RS seeing that the content used in the article is not for the reception but for the music and lyrics section which are highly technical, demanding writers who are in the expertise. In this phrase where you cites the source, "Amazon.com's official review said that Taylor's performance on the title track was "a deeply unsettling heavy-metal Midnight Rambler", Fricke also stated that the track is a "vivid evocation of a makeshift-cornfield grave at midnight".", is more on a review (an opinion) and not the description of the music or lyrics. --Efe (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he in the right position to give reviews? I mean, is he in this field? --Efe (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not really that big of a deal, but it was a unique review. If Fyslee doesn't reply again we can remove it. Blackngold29 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not in being unique. In the first place, Amazon as a source fails to meet WP:RS requirements; commercial-related websites usually fail. The next question is if the writer is in the right/related profession to write reviews. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "unique" as in the comments and comparrisons he made were unlike any other reviews that the traditional "critics" made. Blackngold29 00:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. And I would consider user Amazon reviews reliable evidence for the fact that a certain sentiment exists, as well; if a book has 100 reviews with an average of 2 stars, that's pretty good evidence that it wasn't liked very much...but perhaps I'm radical in this belief. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those sentiments? --Efe (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case I don't think the source is problematic if attributed, so that the reader can see that it is no more and no less than a signed opinion in an Amazon Editorial Review. Using this is quite different from taking the average of readers' reviews on the Amazon website. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen books on pseudohistory which are absolute rubbish (eg Fomenko's stuff) get loads of rave reviews on Amazon. I've even seen reviews which are clearly by the author writing under another name. On the other hand, when it comes to fiction I do pay attention to them if there are a substantial number of reviews. Doug Weller (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check WP:ALBUM, I believe it prohibits using Amazon as a source for anything. indopug (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor removed the source in the article as well as the sourced content. Article now passed as GA. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

Following a question here, I would like to ask if Human Rights Watch can be considered a reliable source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Note that on the talk page in question, HRW is not used used as a source for a given statement, but a HRW report is mentioned.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 14:34

Of course it not only 'can be', but is widely regarded the world over, by mainstream journalism and governments, as a reliable source. They started out, in the full Cold War period, as monitors of human rights in the Soviet Union. All governments are annoyed by NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty etc., and it is normal that states, and their citizens, get upset by their reports, which are, in any case, in the case of Israel uniformly critical of abuses by also by Hamas and Hezbollah. Your fellow editor does not seem to realize that if a repeated practice of violating people's rights in, say, the West Bank, is recorded, filmed, analysed and published by an international NGO, this does not make it any more anti-Israeli than the EEC is anti-Italian because it has been highly critical, and opened a formal review of recent laws in that country which, in discriminating against immigrants, appear to violate EEC norms. It's a no-brainer.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani. Possibly to be used with some care in that one should not focus on some tangential remark that might be in a report in passing, but it's hard to think of a better - or more even-handed - source on rights-related issues in that conflict. (oh, by the way, Nishidani, these days it's the European Union, not the EEC). - Jmabel | Talk 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. My age is showing! thanks!

I'll briefly summarize a few points here: HRW has been shown by independent analysis through respected observers [3][4] to have a longstanding demonstrated anti-Israel bias, and specifically, on the topic of the article [5]. Trilemma (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of your "independent" analysts appear to be pro-Israel lobby groups: the Anti-Defamation League and NGO Monitor (an Israeli organisation based in Jerusalem). Paul B (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize ADL as a "lobby group", but I would certainly characterize it as "pro-Israel" and, more narrowly, "pro-Israeli-government". I respect a lot of ADL's work - they've been very good over the years in addressing anti-semitic and even anti-black violence in America - but I'd never call them evenhanded: just try and find a case where they've shown equal concern with anti-Muslim or anti-Arab violence. ADL calling someone anti-Israel really doesn't carry much water. One could as easily find people with a comparable stake in the matter from the other side who would call HRW anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab. HRW has been very critical of Israel, of the Palestinian Authority, and of Hamas. Each rankles at the criticism of itself and praises the criticism of the others. - Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I really hoped that this could be discussed without having to delve into Mearsheimer and Walt's widely ridiculed postulations :\ Trilemma (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

HRW clearly adheres to WP:RS, regarding "ridiculed postulations," I remember alot of ad hominems but few rational discourse on the merits of their thesis.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

R. James Woolsey published a rather thorough deconstruction of M&R's sophism in the National Review; Marty Peretz and others likewise did the same in the New Republic. I can't supply you with the actual articles (if you have access to an academic search engine, they're quite easy to find), but there are plenty more out there, too. I could give you specifically citations, if you wish ;). Trilemma (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If Trilemma imagines Abe Foxman is thought of outside of his own mind as both 'independent' and a 'respected observer', then our Wikipedian's got no leg to stand on in his complaint, and is wasting our time.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ADL is respected in camps that are not rabidly anti-Israeli. Trilemma (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That comes dangerously close to being a tautology. I.e. the ADL is respected in its own camp, since they tend to brand every group or observer disagreeing with them as (rabidly) anti-Israeli. In any case, someone should try to define for the community what 'anti-Israeli' is supposed to mean. By usage, it tends to mean, people, opinions, groups whose interpretation of events regarding Israel's actions with an occupied people do not reflect the official views of the Israeli government or its spokesmen of the day. If the said views substantially differ, they are also called 'rabid'. The problem with this definition, which after years of laborious research, I've drawn up for my own clarification, is that it means a considerable part of the Israeli elecotrate and certainly of its commentariat is anti-Israeli. I hope Shin Bet is watching them! Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. It is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israeli to criticize the Israeli government for what it does. It is, however, both anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government for what it does not. And you ought to know that the internet is proliferated with blatantly anti-Jewish sources. I did a simple google search of "gaza beach gunboats" and page one turned up such darlings as, "Gaza Beach Libel", a page on "www.honestreporting.com" that is, most ironically, not honest, "The Gaza Beach Party Massacre- by Justin Raimondo", a demonstrative and false claim, "Gaza, Israel kills children on Gaza beach, zionisim, Jewish ..." a video whose leanings you can surmise, and "Atlas Shrugs: "Baked on the Premises.............pita" ATLAS EXCLUSIVE" which references the earlier "blood libel". Trilemma (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish, i.e. Human Rights Watch? You can google up anything you want to prove. You can get a huge swathe of falsehoods put into circulation by considerable numbers of zealously pro-Israeli critics and organs by the same token. If one wants to feel encircled, imperilled, under attack by existential threats, you'll find plenty of hints of a conspiracy if you look at the world only for evidence of the same. That's why we stick to WP:RS, such, as in this instance, Human Rights Watch.

Have you looked at the actual articles? You allege falsehoods and yet you do not cite a single one, because it is cogent analysis that demonstrates the bias of HRW. Please, if you haven't, read the articles :) Trilemma (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not easy to recognise what is really going on here, since it can take a very long time to discover who has lied and cheated. It took 51 years (2005) to finally acknowledge and reward the agents who bombed UK and US assets in Cairo in 1954. (The famous "Lavon Affair", a failed "false-flag" bombing operation on Egypt - which was still allowed to pay big political gains for the Israeli conspirators). I don't think David Ben-Gurion ever retracted his ridiculous denials of Qibya in 1953. But most people would be satisfied by reports in an Israeli newspaper only 2 months ago that Israel was running at least one spy in the US despite repeatedly promising (since Pollard) that they were not doing so. When we find evidence this good against HRW, we can re-assess their status as an RS. PR^talk 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issue

I see nothing to suggest that Human Rights Watch is not an RS. Please do not let this devolve into a discussion of what is or is not accurately labeled as "anti-Israeli", because that is off topic. Despite the blanket accusation by pro-Israeli (and pro-Chinese, etc.) groups that they are biased I see no criticism that addresses reliability. As of now it is impossible not to side with those who believe it is an RS. Please only bring forth evidence that suggests it is NOT if you have it and keep the more general Israeli Palestine conflict banter in more appropriate forums. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did bring forth the evidence to show it is biased. Have you looked at the substantive quality of the articles or are you going to attempt to dismiss them? Trilemma (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, "bias" does not equate to "unreliability" though it could contribute to it and "accusations of bias" certainly do not equate to unreliability. Your examples come from two organizations that are themselves not reliable sources for these types of accusations. Two pro-Israeli sources claim that an organization critical of the Israeli government's policy is biased. What's new? That said I don't see these sources accusing Human Rights Watch of being unreliable, but being biased in their judgments. HRW's "judgments" should NOT be presented as fact in an entry regardless, and should always be attributed to the organization. There is only a reliability issue if they are distorting or misrepresenting facts and those facts are being sourced to Human Rights Watch. Is that the case, and if so do you have a reliable source that questions HRW's reliability?PelleSmith (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Abe Foxman's piece has no evidence of the kind one respects. It is opinionizing/editorializing. I read it, though I had to grit my teeth to push through the boredom threshold in doing so, especially the victimization topos, pulpit oratory evoking the usual Davidic conceits. It was short on substance. In fact what looks liked substance evaporated under the warm eye of scrutiny. It's full of this sort of thing, which has nothing to do with HRW. Finis Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the good ol' dependable ADL told us there was no Armenian genocide. But in August 2007, that changed, when Foxman suddenly announced: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Isn't reflection a wonderful thing? The ADL didn't need to check established facts, or the documentary record, or send experts to investigate, or anything of the sort. Rather, Foxman sat and "reflected" in solitude. Well, not absolute solitude, but the relative solitude of conference calls with Shimon Peres and Israeli foreign ministry officials, with whom to coordinate their "reflections" and announcements in consultation with the Turkish president, who until then had veto power over historical truth for Foxman's ADL, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles here. PR^talk 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ADL could be use as example of some point of view, but not as secondary source, especially not about its opponents or friends. --Dezidor (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The timeline NGO monitor provided clearly shows that HRW is NOT reliable for this topic. Not only are they anti-Israel, which is analytically established, but they acted as an unreliable merchant of Palestinian propaganda in "covering" this incident.

Example:

• Marc Garlasco, a "senior military analyst" at Human Rights Watch (HRW) sent to Gaza in response to the incident, holds a press conference in which he concludes that Israel is responsible and echoing the Palestinian call for an "independent international investigation". HRW's evidence includes unverified Palestinian claims and evidence provided by Palestinian "security officials". HRW issues a press release on June 13 repeating these charges:
• "The evidence we have gathered strongly suggests Israeli artillery fire was to blame," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "It is crucial that an independent investigative team, with the necessary expertise, verify the facts in a transparent manner."
• June 15 - HRW issue a second press release headlined "Israel: More Evidence on Beach Killings Implicates IDF. Palestinians Agree to Independent Inquiry" claiming that the time stamp from a Gaza hospital shows that the incident coincided with the IDF artillery attack.
• "'The likelihood that the Ghalya family was killed by an explosive other than one of the shells fired by the IDF is remote', said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch."
• June 19 - Marc Garlasco, HRW's military researcher, meets with Maj-Gen Klifi, who headed the IDF investigation, and accepts that the explosion could have been created by unexploded ordinance.

"Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF's system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians. "Lucy Mair - head of the HRW's Jerusalem office - said Klifi's team had conducted a thorough and professional investigation of the incident and made 'a good assessment' when ruling out the possibility that an errant IDF shell had killed the seven Palestinians on the Gaza beach." All of the sources and further explanation is [6].

Your attempt to dismiss the legitimate criticism of HRW as "Israeli propaganda" is disconnected with the facts. Trilemma (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You just stated that they are unreliable in reporting Palestinian propaganda--please be more careful in how you express your self. I think you misunderstand the nature of reliability and assume that since someone thinks there is bias in the conclusions drawn by this organization that they are also "unreliable" in reporting facts. These are two rather seperate issues. You fail once again to present any evidence of unreliable reportage (note that your own assessment of their statements is OR, you need a reliable secondary source to make the claims for you). This is not the Wikipedia:Bias of opinions/Noticeboard, and once again your pro-Israeli sources are pretty much the most biased in assessing the matter of bias even. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to rephrase it as "Palestinian activist group HRW", then that's a different matter. But you seem to be saying, "yes they're blatantly biased against Israel, BUT..." Well, the problem is that they went with unreliable, unsubstantiated rumors, passing off these wild claims as facts. That makes them uncredible. Trilemma (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NO, I'm not at all saying they are blatantly biased against Israel AT ALL, I'm stying that bias does not equate to unreliability the way you claim it does. Beyond this, and in terms of bias, the accusation of bias by two known pro-Israeli groups is tenuous at best. It should also be noted here that the use of HRW in the lead is in the form of a fully attributed "criticism" and not as a source for a factual statement. Please stop wasting space here on this non-issue, at the very least until such time that you can make it a real issue with reliable secondary sources questioning HRW's "reliability". Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're simply ignoring the facts. You're ignoring the documented evidence that HRW recklessly reported unsubstantiated rumors as facts. They're reliable, alright--they're reliably anti-Israel. Maybe that meets your standards, but it doesn't fit wikipedia's standard. Trilemma (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You report an initial assessment by HRW which was later reconsidered. Antisemitic propaganda outlets, or anti-Israeli sources, let alone rabid ones, do not reexamine the evidence, check their conclusions against adversarial criticism, consult with those whom they have criticized to examine their evidence to the contrary and, at times when they, like all other human agencies, err, admit to being wrong. Your own evidence gives the lie to the smear you wish to slap onto HRW. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is absolutely no evidence of unreliable reportage. What facts were wrong? How do we know they were wrong? And what has HRW response been to criticism about them being wrong? You need to understand that their "assessment" or "judgment" is not a reportage of "facts" and again should be, as it is in the entry, attributed to them. This discussion is beyond moot. Please also have a good look at WP:V and WP:RS. When you want to argue that something is unreliable there are guidelines though which you does this. We don't just make up criteria for reliability on the fly.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"The evidence we have gathered strongly suggests Israeli artillery fire was to blame," was the statement by Sarah Leah Whitson. That was false. The evidence did not suggest that, let alone strongly. Trilemma (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is making this assertion? Are you, because you are not an RS the last time I checked. Also, do you mean the evidence now available, or the evidence they had themselves at the time? Also, since they are clearly admitting to making an interpretation of evidence, and not suggesting facutally that the evidence "proves" X, Y or Z, I'm unclear how you consider this, even if wrong, a statement of false facts. Again, entirely moot. Please review our policies as I suggested and let this be. I will disengage now because there is nothing to discuss. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been proven that HRW spread misinformation, baselessly and with bias. I will not continue to try to convince you of this, because you are clearly letting your anti-Israeli bias overwhelm your logic. That's your problem. Trilemma (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to substantiate these accusations or even substantiate that they represent a view held by anyone but yourself, which you are incapable of producing, has nothing to do with "logic". As I said already, please do review WP:V and WP:RS. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By these criteria, the Israeli government (like all governments) the IDF etc.etc., cannot be sourced, since every government, and every agency, and every military in the world has shown a consistent tendency to stuff up the facts, improvise with false or misleading information, cover up uncomfortable facts that come to their attention, etc.etc. The reverse assumption in Trilemma's polemical game is precisely this, i.e. Israel's official spokesmen have never erred in their public reports or statements, or never misled anyone on any issue. Thus stated, we can close the case per absurdum. The editor here does not understand policy Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is a failure to understand the purpose of that organization. HRW is focused on one thing and one thing only: human rights. They call it like it is, in this respect, regardless of fear or favor. As far as I'm concerned, they have been on the front lines of fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. It is not their purpose to resolve conflicts, rather they focus on the human suffering and abuses caused as a result of such conflicts. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed and archived; it verges on frivolous. HRW is not only acceptable as a source; it is – with Amnesty International – the best possible source on human-rights violations, period. They've been criticized as "biased" by every country they've ever published reports on, which is pretty much the whole world; this, as others have pointed out, tends rather to enhance their credibility than to diminish it.--G-Dett (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same thing - that HRW and AI are second in reputation for accuracy only to the very circumspect ICRC. What Trilemma is pointing out is that there seems to be some inconsistency between HRW / Garlasco's statements reported by HRW and their statements as reported by the Jerusalem Post and picked up by NGO monitor. The answer is not to accept one side as truth, but to search carefully for later statements clarifying the situation, or report both, and not make a big thing about a garden variety discrepancy. If there's a question of weight, HRW should probably be given priority for standard reasons - it's their own opinions and they have a better reputation for impartiality. Just an ordinary content, rather than reliability issue.John Z (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jobfutures.ca/en/listing_organizations.shtml

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm having a hard time getting up to speed on WP:RSN issues; I often run down this page and realize that I have no idea what the answer is going to be until I see the experts weigh in. I'm wondering if that's going to hamper my ability to be a good reviewer at WP:GAN.

Anyway, my specific question is about http://www.jobfutures.ca/en, which includes the disclaimer: "Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. ... Disclaimer: The material herein was prepared under the direction of the department. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents, the Government of Canada assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of the contents of this product." You'll see a list of organizations that they relied on for their information at the given link above. Reliable source? If not, where do I find this kind of employment information? (The article I'm reviewing is Mechanical engineering). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55. I've seen your reviewing at Cold fusion and honestly, you have no cause for concern. This source is as reliable as anything you will find. One question that we first ask ourselves about a source is: is it fact-checked? In this case, certainly. If a government says that it has made every effort to ensure accuracy, then it has. A further question is: could it be factual but biased? In this case, unlikely. The Canadian government has no interest in presenting biased information about careers. So the source meets RS for fact and interpretation. It is up to you now to ensure that you are using it for an appropriate purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Are university professor's blogs RS?

Specifically, this one: http://www.alicedreger.com/home.html

She's a professor in the Department of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwester University, has written books published by the Harvard University Press and the University Publishing Group, has recently received a Guggenheim Fellowship award, has multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals, and is a columnist for the Hasting's Center.

Any input would be appreciated about whether her blog regarding her field of expertise meets WP:RS.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They would be subject to the same restrictions as any other self-publication. This includes the restriction that they can't be used to make claims about third parties, which effectively excludes them from making claims about anything but themselves.Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, no. You linked to the wrong section -- look at the one directly above that, SPS. They can make claims about their field, whether that's medicine, history, physics, or anything else if they've been published in that field previously. This person clearly has, so it is a reliable source. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But there is a very important caveat in that policy: "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." You really have to ask yourself, why is a reputable scientist putting something on the blog instead of getting it published in an appropriate scientific venue.

If the material doesn't have mainstream acceptance, we have to be very careful. The history of science has shown that seemingly crazy ideas can turned out to be the right ones. That's the whole point of the American tenure system, so that brilliant people can pursue crazy ideas without immediately losing their jobs, but until an idea is accepted, we should be very careful in how we report it.

Why do you need to use a self-published source? Merzul (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you (and WP policy) entirely about exercising caution. I agree also about appropriately differentiating the opinions of individual experts from the collective opinion of the field of experts from the collective opinion of the public.

Dreger has written several articles and books on how intersex children are treated and how they (in her opinion) should be treated. She is, for whatever reason, the only professional ethicist to have done so. That doesn't make her correct, of course, but her opinion and examples of types of cases would certainly seem relevant to pages on those topics.

To answer your question: several reasons. Although the most important statements she makes (important, in my opinion, anyway) she does publish, but not everything. Sometimes, her (or any other expert's) opinion is informative, but isn't a substantial enough addition to the published literature for publication; this is akin, in my mind, to an expert given a quote to a newspaper about some event, but not publishing an entire article of their own on the topic. Their quote to the newspaper would be citable as an example of what one expert thinks, but would not be expected to become a pub on its own.

Second, information can be added to an SPS instantly, whereas the publication process takes months to years. Of course, one can wait for the published source, but I (personally) prefer to add material to a page as I run into it. I'm (personally) unlikely to remember to look out for the print pub months from now.

Finally, when I see a statement from a reliable source on the web, it would be more effecient oftentimes to add it to the relevant WP page and attribute it to the source's webpage, rather than to look up the print version of the same material.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely good answer in my opinion. You seem clearly aware of the dangers and benefits in using an expert's blog. I would completely trust you to use this source properly. Merzul (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice to hear.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess things seem to be figured out here. Apparently I was mistaken about self-pub sources.Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not mistaken, per se, they really are often misused and should be approached with caution, but I certainly share Merzul's assessment that the source is not being misused and will be handled with the appropriate caution here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a little trickier than it looks, and the difficulties have not been alluded to in the question. Her expertise is highly praised by some, strongly doubted by others. She gives opinions on matters which may or may not lie within the fields of her actual expertise, and it is not at all undisputed how far her actual expertise extends. (I take no sides on the question--I'm just reporting the controversy.) With this highly polarized context, I do not think her blog can be cited for any controversial matter whatever except her personal opinions, and in particular, it can certainly not be cited for criticism of other living persons than herself. There is no reason to assume the reliability of any of the unedited statements of any of the people on any of the sides in the controversy. I don't see myself why it will ever necessary to cite it--she has published quite a bit, and her opinions can much better be cited from published sources, where what she says is subject to some degree of editorial oversight. I advise those involved in the articles on this topics not to use sources such as this--there are enoguh problems with the questioned neutrality of the published sources. DGG (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess things were not quite figured out. Thanks for clearing it up, DGG. It seems that when answering here, one can't quite so naively rely on posters pointing out that their source is somewhat controversial. ;) Merzul (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe DGG mistakes my purpose.

It is entirely true that I am in a related content dispute[7]. It is also entirely true that the relevant portions of Dreger's points are published. (I cite them in the dispute.) My purpose for asking for input here, however, regards a separate issue, albeit one that involves some of the same people.

This other issue regards the page about Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM), a standard psychiatric book put out by the American Psychological Association. An editor, user:Dicklyon, has been adding to the DSM page that there is controversy over two (of the many) editors who have been appointed to revise the book, using as his source an on-line petition[8]. (The two editors will be involved or were previously involved in the portion of the DSM that includes transsexualism.)

None of the mainstream press have picked up on the issue. My own opinion is that small news items like that don't belong on the DSM page, that on-line petitions do not meet WP:RS, and that Dicklyon is merely using the DSM page as spill over from another dispute.

I objected on the DSM page (and its talk page) about on-line petitions failing to meet WP:RS, and I recommended to Dicklyon that he use the RS/Noticeboard for input before re-including the petition as a source.[9] Dicklyon did not seek external input and repeatedly inserted the on-line petition as his source.

Because the mainstream press have not covered the DSM issue (part of why I don't think it belongs on the the DSM page age all), there is little to go on at all. (Some GLB newspapers have mentioned the issue, but Dicklyon has presented only the negative half of what those papers have said[10].)

The main transsexual activist groups have released statements that are much more moderate than the ones that appear in the on-line petition. Although those statements do not appear in the mainstream press, they do appear on Dreger's website. So, since I appear to be unable to convince Dicklyon that the issue is not worth covering at all, I wanted at least to include the statements from the transsexual activist organizations. However, because Dreger's is a self-published blog, I did not want to do what Dicklyon did and merely cite Dreger without first asking for general input on this noticeboard.

I apologize if I failed to indicate that there existed a contested issue here, but in reading the prior posts here before I posted my own question, it seemed to me that all issues were contested by somebody...that's why they were here at all. I saw no indication in any instructions about supplying the noticeboard with any more information than I had.

All that said, I would be grateful if someone could point me in another direction; I'm not actually seeing what I have done incorrectly.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I absolutely didn't mean that you have done anything wrong, but it was naive of me to not look into the background. I still stand by what I said above. Based on your posts here you do seem to understand reliable sourcing perfectly, and in this situation I would at least go ahead and use it. If Dicklyon objects, we can take a look at the talk page of the article. But most importantly, many apologies, if it sounded like I accused you of not divulging information, that's not quite what I intended. Indeed, why else would you post here, if it wasn't controversial to some degree. Cheers, Merzul (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Trakai Voivodeship

A recent discussion about renaming a historical geographical entity - Trakai Voivodeship - (not a single source has been found to support this name) - to a referenced Troki Voivodeship has generated a stalemate on talk and an edit war in the article (since a Lithuanian webpage is being added over and over to support the Trakai name version, despite the fact that it does not contain the English "Trakai Voivodeship"). Do note that the entity which was never named with Trakai (the historical name in official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Polish - was województwo trockie). Since Trakai is a Lithuanian name (the city of Trakai is currently in Lithuania), and Troki is a Polish name variant, Lithuanian editors prefer Trakai despite no English source supporting this name, Polish support Polish and input of neutral editors is needed to break the stalemate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, the mentioned reference ([11]) seems to include that name (as "The Trakai province (voivodeship)") in part "ATITIKMENYS:" ("translations", "corresponding words", "corresponding terms"). It also gives a further reference to the dictionary ("Mokomasis anglų kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: 2002"). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of WSWS

World Socialist Web Site is a site run by the International Committee of the Fourth International. There are nearly 700 links, many of them as sources for commentary in articles on living individuals. I found it because a lengthy diatribe was linked as a source for the uncontroversial fact that Ken Livingstone keeps newts, probably the single best-known fact about his private life. Is this actually a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for their own opinions, I'd say almost certainly not. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My God, Red Ken and Gussie Fink-Nottle have something in common!

If the opinions of the World Trostkyite movement are required for an article, we can quote the WSWS. Otherwise, best not. Not quite an advocacy source, as Troskyism doesn't really have anything specific to advocate for any more; also not as muckraking as some others, as they focus on meta-issues more often than not; but even so, definitely overpoliticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the WSWS material is simply material previously published elsewhere. If the WSWS has not been authorized by the copyright holders, then linking to the WSWS reference would be a policy violation. If the republication is authorized, then linking to those stories would completely comply with policy.

Participants above write as if it is so obvious it goes without saying that being run by the International Committee of the Fourth International means material it publishes is not reliable. Sorry, IMO nothing is obvious. Without regard to whether the site's original publications are, or are not, reliable sources, it is in the wikipedia's interest for those making the case against to explicitly spell out their reasoning.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole reliability of "Marxist" sources was very recently discussed here. I've not examined the arguments very closely (and am quite reluctant to believe them anyway), but I quite liked: "Political Marxism holds that workers will come to control the means of production and supports revolutionary movements directed toward that end. Marxist scholarship is a different thing. It offers rigorously materialist accounts of history, literature, art, etc., is skeptical of grand meta-narratives (often, oddly enough, including the meta-narratives of Karl Marx), and emphasizes the role of systems and institutions over that of great leaders, artists, geniuses, etc. Both have genealogies tracing back to Karl Marx, yes, but those genealogies are as separate as yours and the orangutan's are to the ancestor you have in common. No offense." PR^talk 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely a website like this is unreliable. The name itself screams bias. We disreguard conservative websites, some of which seem at first glance to be professional, because they have a right wing bias, and certianly we should not give marxist/socialist websites a double standard and call them reliable when they are just as bias in the opposite direction. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

JewsAgainstZionism.com

Should we accept the web-site JAZ.com as RS to policy?

It is apparently published from within the Satmar community of c.120,000 Orthodox Jews in Williamsburg and Brooklyn, NY. They have a number of convincing contributors, I have been able to find Reuven Waxman, Jacob Dershowitz, Leizer Fishberg, Hersh Lowenthal making detailed contributions, more or less speaking for the the "organisation". A brief letter at Rense.com written by "M. Katz" on behalf of JAZ is apparently signed by Rabbi Joseph Dershowitz, Rabbi Meyer Weberman, Rabbi Menashe Filipe, Rabbi Joseph Schmilovitz, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, Rabbi Jeremiah Teitelbaum and Mr. Russell Waxman. (At least one and possibly two self-identified members of their community editing here have stated it speaks for them all, though this is not confirmed).

Despite JAZ.com being anti-Zionist (on religious grounds) they were sharply critical of seven Neturei Karta members who went to Ahmandinejad's "Holocaust Conference". The differences between the two groups seems to depend on whether it would be right to wind up Israel immediately, whatever danger this presented to Israelis - JAZ does not want Israel abandoned like this. It is possible that NK could be dubbed "extreme" on these grounds, but I see nothing to indicate that JAZ has the same problem. (The NK has a similar web-site, JewsNotZionists.org - examining this, I see no reason to doubt their reliability on factual matters either).

JAZ claim to be speaking on behalf of c. 150,000 anti-Zionist and around 1 million non-Zionist Jews, and it looks as if their numbers add up. Depending on how you define it, this makes them a substantial proportion of practicing followers of Judaism in the world. They have been accused of being unreliable, extreme and publishing "hate-speech" - no evidence for this has ever been produced. (Three sources describe them as "fringe", whatever that means - it's not the same as WP:FRINGE). The most contentious single article from JAZ is a transcript of an interview by a 1929 Hebron survivor, Rabbi Baruch Kaplan (also published by the NK here). We are led to believe the original is at the Otzer Emunah Tape Library of Monsey, (845)426-6812 (I've not checked this myself). Kaplan went on to be a principal (headmaster?) of the Beis Yaakov Girls School in Brooklyn, in the 1980s he was adamant that this famous massacre was caused by something that Zionists were doing in Hebron. This version is at least partly confirmed by interviews and a film made of all (?) of the remaining survivors in 1999. If there is more than simple prejudice to stop us treating these people as reliable, I'm not seeing it. I think their carefully collected evidence deserves its place in articles. PR^talk 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

JAZ's unreliablility and status as a fringe group has been thoroughly explained to PalestineRemembered here. I recommend that PalestineRemembered stop causing trouble and wasting people's time. His arguments are a dead end and have been for weeks now. --GHcool (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This innovative method of determining RS will be better understood by examining this (note the first statement) and then this. This particular example was against a consensus I calculated to be 4.5 to 1.5. The most disturbing thing is that in all cases the JAZ, written by devout Jews, tends to preach tolerance (as well as richen historical understanding). While other sources currently favoured in articles treat entire ethnicities as being diseased, ascribing incurable violence to them by means I can only call absurd historical fabrications. PR^talk 08:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

JAZ and the Satmars are certainly politically "fringe", and I'd never use them as the main source in any broad historical treatment, but we certainly know who they are and there is no reason to doubt their basic honesty. It seems to me that an interview with a specific survivor of the Hebron massacre that they published would be exactly as citable as any such document published by a Zionist group. - Jmabel | Talk 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all Zionist groups are fringe, but I appreciate Jmabel's understanding that JAZ is fringe. PalestineRemembered's argument is a tu quoque, and an especially poor one because it relies on false premises. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From the limited feedback at this noticeboard, there seems nothing to indicate that JewsAgainstZionism are anything other than what they claim to be, a collaborative venture speaking for a major community of devout and anti-Zionist Jews. To what extent they speak for the other devout non-Zionist Jews (they claim there to be 1 million of these in existence) is not clear. Their POV is obvious, but their honesty and historical care is not in question and they pass all the tests at WP:RS. PR^talk 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The group may be biased, but that can be dealt with by directly attributing their statements if need be (ie turning material that is cited to them into statements of opinion as opposed to statements of fact). I would say the source is generally reliable... and especially reliable for statements of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I refer anybody who claims that JAZ is reliable to the discussion here in which this was proven categorically false. I recommend that PalestineRemembered (and others) stop the argumentum ad nauseum. --GHcool (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is absolutely no "proof" there at all about JAZ either way. All I see are several editors who clearly represent a POV different from JAZ engaging in argumentum ad nauseum with claims that it isn't reliable. The fact that an admin decided to also claim unreliability in his block of PR does not add any "proof" either. Now, on the other hand I don't see any proof that JAZ is necessarily a reliable source either, but this emphatic claim just above my post is rather annoyingly empty (since I had to read through that other awful exchange to figure it out). I agree with Blueboar as well that attribution is really the key here. Don't source facts to them, but use them for statements of opinion, whether theirs or whether from interviews conducted by them, but attribute appropriately.PelleSmith (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliability isn't the only problem with JAZ. They are also a fringe group. Wikipedia wouldn't necessarily benefit from editors who cite the opinions of fringe groups within articles. Imagine: "According the ElvisIsAlive.com, Elvis Presley has been spotted taking a stroll in Central Park on June 12, 2008." --GHcool (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So in your diversion I take it that you commentary actually has nothing to do with "unreliability" at all? As such it is entirely unappreciated here. Its clear that this website should not be used for facts, but there is no "reliability issue" in using them for opinions--at that point it becomes about WP:WEIGHT and adequately understanding the difference between the two, "opinion" and "fact".PelleSmith (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe group? Definitely not. Reliable? Probably not either. They appear to be just another website out there (like Jewish virtual library, Camera etc.) They may be used on an article about themselves. They may also be used (and I say this with great reluctance) for presenting anti-Zionist views on anti-Zionism and maybe even Zionism. However, I wouldn't use them for facts on Hebron massacre or other articles on history, even if they are attributed.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe" per WP:FRINGE refers to theories. It doesn't refer to political positions. —Ashley Y 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)JAZ is an internet-vocal fringe group that should not be used on anything outside their own articles or articles about their members. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The "major" community they speak of is maybe a few hundred people. They warp and twist the words of other Rabbis and scholars to make it appear as if they represent much more than they actually do. They are similar to rense.com and cannot be used for anything outside their own existence. Check PR's talk page archives for more discussion. It's not as if he has not discussed this with multiple editors and admins. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think PR can be faulted for bringing this issue here, even if has been discussed on his talk page. His talk page is visited by a select group of people, not by the community in general.Bless sins (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we could really say that " their honesty and historical care is not in question" -- their intentions may well be impeccable, but their commitment to one particular position is so strong, and their belief in their own correctness so unquestioning, that I do not see how anything they say is evidence for anything other than their position on the questions they discuss. DGG (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting to see what you would say about his matter. The core of it is whether they can be used in any way as a source for this. Personally I strongly doubt it is a fabrication. That Kaplan existed and was injured in the massacre is not in doubt and is attested in the NYT and the FRUS, and considering the general anti-Zionism of the Hebron community and very religious Jews at that time, what it says is not terribly surprising. The matter has been kicking around for years. However it is admittedly a free translation of a transcript of a tape at a site which is not too clear about who is behind it. What would you think if someone got hold of the original Yiddish tape, which may be publicly available?John Z (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points. The position Kaplan held, as an anti-Zionist Jew, was not a WP:Fringe viewpoint at the time of the 1929 Hebron massacre. It was throughout the 1910s and 1920s a very widely held view among both the Orthodox and Ulta-Orthodox rabbinate. It has become fringe because of practical accommodations to the fact of Israel's establishment, the foundation of which, however, unless I am mistaken, is interpreted, theologically, as de facto and not de jure. To lose sight of this is to retroactively interpret the past according to the conventions of the present. But the past, as Hartley reminded us in 1953, is 'another country'.

Specifically, on the 1929 Hebron Massacre, most of the points PR wishes to make with Kaplan's speech are already made by an appropriate reference to the event as described in the Hebron article in the Jewish Virtual Library. The only point Kaplan makes that differs is in attributing the specific cause of that massacre to Zionist meddling (a gross simplification, but legitimately his view).

Somewhere in the talk pages on this, I have a memory of my having asked, as John Z does now, if anyone could find out if those who hold the tapes might yield their tape by putting it in the public domain. I second his suggestion. These things take years, but one never knows who may be reading. The only serious point against the use of Kaplan's evidence however is methodological. We are supposed to privilege secondary reliable sources, and not fossick (WP:OR) after the strange gods of primary evidence Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a doubt, Kaplan's opinion belongs in Kaplan's article. The question is whether JAZ is a reliable source on Kaplan's opinion. I believe I speak for the majority when I say that JAZ is not a reliable source on Kaplan's opinion in part because JAZ is a fringe group. The argument that anti-Zionism among Orthodox Jews was not a fringe group during the time of the British Mandate for Palestine is disingenuous for the reason that Nishidani notes: the reality faced by Jews during the 1940s (namely the Holocaust and the events surrounding Israel's establishment) have weakened the anti-Zionist argument to the point of negligibility, with followers that are extremely out of touch with the historical and present reality.

In this way, anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews are like segregationists in the United States after Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are a handful of segregationists still active in the United States, but the historical and present reality of the situation have made their arguments unconvincing and they are rightly condemned by all reasonable people. We would no sooner include Kaplan's opinions cited to JAZ into the Kaplan article than we would include William J. Simmons's opinions cited to a Ku Klux Klan website into the Simmons article. --GHcool (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you were a tad more careful about your language, GHcool. There is nothing 'disingenuous'('lacking in candour, morally fraudulent'O.E.D.) in reminding the somnolent about the different shape of the past, about which they occasionaly show deep confusion when not caught up in ignorance. Neturei Karta and associated 'fringe' groups cleave to a majoritarian tradition that is now forgotten, and we ought to bear that in mind. Their perspective on the state is, technically, still shared by the Orthodox rabbinate, in so far as the latter withhold formal de jure recognition of its legitimacy, unless I am mistaken. 1948 didn't weaken an argument, it simply placed a different order of facts on the landscape of Jewish interests. Historical events do not necessarily 'weaken 'arguments, they simply, as Alexandr Zinoviev once acutely remarked (The Yawning Heights)) simply ignore them. The analogy with segregationists is one of convenience. The Supreme Court has endorsed laws that have done away with, in the view of many authoritative legal scholars, fundamental guarantees inn the Constitution and its Amendments. Not for that does this mean that the new dispensations by, for example, the Bush Administration have put paid to, 'weakened' the views and perspectives of constitutional scholars who vigorously oppose that Court's judgements, as motivated more by a political vision than by any deep attachment to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Such misfetched analogies are a pure distraction from the point at issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Historical events do weaken certain arguments, and those who continue to make arguments similar to the losing side when the issue was hotly debated are considered fringe. No reasonable post-19th century person argues in favor of slavery in the United States, although the issue was hotly debated during the 19th century. No reasonable post-20th century person argues in favor of racial segregation in the United States, although the issue was hotly debated during the 1960s. No reasonable post-20th century person argues against the necessity of a modern democratic state in which Jews can govern themselves, although the issue was hotly debated during the first half of the 20th century. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I note you now say certain arguments. 'Historical events do weaken certain arguments'. Sure, Jerusalem and the West Bank will form, if they do not already, part of Israel, and those who argue against the 'reality' are fringe. No really, just 'fringe-dwellers' as the geopolitical preponderance of power makes them out to be.

In Italy, we have a man with a tremendous record for being criminally indicted at the head of a government, who is now revising by popular mandate all laws of the kind which got him and 25 of his cronies, also elected to Parliament, some of them with Mafia backgrounds, into deep trouble. Down the line, he will impose his will in law and in perceptions on the way the real landscape of Italian life is interpreted. He even controls all 6 major TV channels so his line is dominant, and the critical voice that recalls his shady past has all but disappeared and is branded as 'fringe' or 'extremist'. Slavery again has been abolished, but, in some views, not fringe, simply reconstituted in the market place, and generalized over a large part of the working population. As to 'no reasonable person', you are dismissing a good many thinkers within Israel's religious centers who are not wedded to Israel because it is a democracy, but because it has become for them the hearth of Judaism. They are not interested in 'democracy', they are interested in a state governed by halakhic prescriptions. If that means you are saying that they are not 'reasonable post-20th century persons' I'd probably agree with you. But then the category 'reasonable post-20th century persons' is one I don't really understand, since reason died (WP:SOAP) some decades ago, though few have read the obituaries.

More germanely. A Christian could use the same reasoning theologically with regard to the New Covenant and argue that Jews who were 10% of the population of the Mediterranean in the Ist cent.BCE., were beaten into the margins by a small heretic sect of Jews which, by apostasy, oppression and politics, eventually reduced them to a fringe minority in the world (by natural growith they would be some 200 million now), whose rabbinical interpretations, being fringe, are thus not pertinent to understanding the bible. I don't think you realize what peculiar implications your position leads you to embrace. For the record, I am indifferent to religion, and would be the first to jump on anyone who used the reasoning above to brand the Jews as 'fringe'.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be saying the same thing, but I am going to put it in a different way. This JAZ group appears to be a religious group as well as one that takes a political view. We cannot base decisions on the reliability of the publications of religious groups solely on the basis of the number of adherents. Judaism has fewer adherents than, say Christianity. Orthodox Judaism is one current within it, therefore has fewer still. But that does not indicate fringeness in the sense of deviation from the mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Hersh Lowenthal, one of the editors at jewsagainstzionism.com. It looks like no one in this discussion doubts the demographic facts about the Satmar group: about 120,000 people. See the WP article on Satmar. The dispute seems to be about whether our group truly represents Satmar, or is a fringe group similar to or identical with Neturei Karta. The confusion is compounded by the fact that NK calls itself "Jews United Against Zionism", a name similar to ours.

With that in mind, I would like to direct the attention of anyone who understands Yiddish to the articles published on December 13, 2007 by Der Yid and Der Blatt, the two main Satmar newspapers, heartily endorsing our group Natruna a.k.a. True Torah Jews Against Zionism, and describing the annual dinner at which 1500 people attended and a few major Satmar rabbis spoke. These articles are available on our Hebrew site http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/deryid kinus.htm and http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/derblatt kinus.htm. Anyone who thinks we fabricated these articles can just call up those newspapers and check it with them.

As to the much-disputed Kaplan interview, it's true that the English version published by us and NK is a free translation, and we said so openly. The original Yiddish transcript is available at http://www.natrina.org/gedolim/kaplanyiddish.htm and a word-by-word Hebrew translation is at http://natrina.org/gedolim/kaplan.htm.Natsmith (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, those links I gave to Der Yid and Der Blatt came out wrong. Here are the correct links: http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/deryid%20kinus.htm. http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/derblatt%20kinus.htm. Natsmith (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the discussion above about the reliability of the material on the site is pretty much irrelevant. As has been explained to PR multiple times, jewsagainstzionism.com is an anonymous personal website. The owner is unknown, and the "About us" page leads to a Post Office Box. Per Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." That's really all there is to say on the matter, and it's conclusive. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for this discussion that Natsmith is telling the truth about at least two things: (1) that his real name is Hersh Lowenthal and (2) he is one of the editors of JAZ. As far as his arguments are concerned, I'm afraid they are rather weak. The unstated major premise in all of Natsmith's arguments is that because JAZ is ran by religious Jews, then it must somehow be an authority on Jews, and therefore on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In truth, JAZ is not an authority on anything (except, perhaps, for itself). --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Senseis Library

Hi, just though I'd ask what people thought of this wiki being used as a reliable source. It is basically a repository of Subject-specific common knowledge so does that mean it is acceptable for referencing work about Go?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link for it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

http://senseis.xmp.net or see the wikipedia article about it--ZincBelief (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's are not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is linking to a specific version of a wiki page contained Subject specific common knowledge not a valid reference in all instances? A wiki can be a reliable source.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability of self-published sources says that open wikis are largely not acceptable as sources. There are numerous books about Go in various languages; I think it would be a much better idea to use some of them as sources instead. If the information is common knowledge among Go players, it ought to be sourceable to a book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If information is common knowledge amongst Go players it is subject specific common knowledge and doesn't need to be cited in the first place. One book is often not a reliable source in itself. Wouldn't it be better to use both in combination? --ZincBelief (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability... if this is common knowledge a reliable source will discuss it, but an open wiki is not considered reliable. The problem is with the source, not the information. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read it actually. Common and Subject Specific Common knowledge do not need a reference in the first place. It is entirely possible that linking to a specific page version of a wiki would and can be understood to contain accurate knowledge.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Even though it is likely that most of the information in Sensei's Library is accurate, it is still an open wiki and thus less subject to editorial control than a reliable source should be. Besides, if the information is common knowledge, whether general or subject-specific, then it should be easy to find a proper reliable source for it rather than using an unreliable source. If it's information that doesn't even need a reference, then using an unreliable source isn't going to improve the article.

To use an analogy, suppose that I needed to include in an article a statement that as of 2008, George W. Bush is the president of the United States. Well, that is common knowledge, so I could probably just leave it as a bare statement with no citation and it's unlikely anyone would make a demand. But suppose I decided that I should include a reference. So I call up my dad and say, "Dad, I need a reference for a Wikipedia article. Who's the current president of the United States?" My dad answers, "George W. Bush, of course." So I thank him and put the following reference into the article: "Personal interview with User:Metropolitan90's father, June 16, 2008." Now, my father is a well-informed person and his information about who is the current president of the United States is accurate. Yet citing "As of 2008, George W. Bush is the president of the United States" to a conversation with my father would make Wikipedia look silly, or at least it would make me look silly, because there are sources out there on this topic which are not only much more reliable but are also easy to find. By the same token, we shouldn't cite to open wikis if we can find more reliable sources, even for common knowledge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is a pity it gets used at all, but it is very useful for satisfying demands for subject specific common knowledge (which doesn't need cited). You don't deal with the instance where your father is say, a leading expert on presidents of the united states. Not to be frivilous, but in many cases you can link to a page version in senseis library where the editor is a published author. Is this perhaps different?--ZincBelief (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This case would be the same as any case when an author whose works are usually reliable is on this occasion writing in a non-checked publication, like an academic writing in his blog. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

List of groups referred to as cults AfD

I would appreciate more people to look into a very complicated RS situation. There is a heated AfD debate about the List of groups referred to as cults, where on the one hand, PelleSmith is arguing that scholars in the sociology of religion consider popular media to cover the issue very poorly, see here for some background, and he is thus opposed to the current list as it indiscriminately collects references in popular media. On the other hand, Will Beback and Milo are arguing that if media coverage is bad, it's not our duty to right great wrongs; our job is merely to adequately reflect what reliable sources say. (Some of the debate is on the AfD talk page.)

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the word "cult" can mean many things, so we have all possible things from the Baha'i Faith to Wikipedia included there, allegedly people try to add mainstream religions in order to get the list deleted. This issue, however, is a red herring, as the more fundamental debate is the one I outlined above. Normally, when academia and popular coverage of an issue diverge, e.g. evolution, we side quite emphatically with academic sources. This is why I find this issue quite hard: is the list also siding with popular sources rather than heeding the criticism of academic sources?

Also, I don't know anything about the sociology of religion, so it may well be that my above description is wrong and I don't claim the above summary is neutral. I will write a note on the AfD to ask people to check if they want to amend this summary. In any case, it would be nice if people could give their informed opinion, so we don't get just keep/delete voting there on this very difficult issue. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think Merzul has summarized the essentials to satisfaction, but to be fair to everyone involved I should say that looking into this matter probably and unfortunately requires wandering over there and really taking the whole thing in.PelleSmith (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone has to do that, is it really an RS issue. From what is here so far it sounds like it is mainly NPOV and whether there is a logic for such an article. I'm sure that definition of "cult" is very complex. That should be discussed in the article cult. If you want the views of a number of contributors to this page you would ideally suggest sources for inspection as to reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[Injecting a response because this deserves a direct answer from myself.] The issue, as I saw it, was the following, what should one do when academic sources question the reliability of media sources? Merzul (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. There is an RS issue here but as you say its a rather big issue and it relates to much more than this list not to mention the fact that it is intricately tied into content issues as well. It so happens that my argument for significantly altering, and/or deleting this list hinges upon the fact that scholars of "cults" and new religious movements have documented a bias in the media and in popular opinion, when it comes to the knowledge of and sentiment towards groups labeled as "cults". It is my opinion that a list of "cults" that simply presents groups labeled as such by the press in an uncritical manner (but for noting the media in which the label occurs) is to pander to this bias uncritically and in supposed ignorance of much more reliable information (researched and written by experts, and published in peer reviewed journals and by academic publishers). As you can see this is very much about content, but it is also about the relative reliability of academic scholarship vs. the press. It has been argued by others that we rely on the media all the time as reliable sources so this should not be any different. I'm arguing that of course this is different because we have much more reliable sources produced by the thorough research of expert individuals who we at least think, as members of the academy, have as objective of a stance as possible. BTW, the reliability and pejorative use issue goes way beyond what exists in Merzul's link, which I don't fault him for at all since its probably the best place on Wiki to read about the subject. Also, it should be noted that academics don't form a unified front on all things "cult", and I'm not trying to claim that in the least. However, on this vital issue there is very little support, if any, in the academic community for the proposition of claiming that popular opinion and media coverage of "cult" topics is an extremely reliable source of information. I'm not sure if this convinces anyone to look into this or to leave it alone, but I hope it adds a tad of depth.PelleSmith (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The gist of PelleSmith's argument is similar to "SPOV is the same as NPOV", which didn't gain consensus. I think he is in effect talking about some standard for a different encyclopedia, an 'Academepedia'.

This is not a reliable source issue, as it is defined at WP:V#Reliable sources (emphasis mine):

...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. .... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) has two sections, one for academic sources with standards so strict that some professors don't qualify. The other is the media section which mostly references mainstream newspapers. LOGRTAC is a list article. The only article content (as opposed to informational notice texts) is links and quotes.

PelleSmith is arguing that the LOGRTAC media section should be deleted, even though it is reliably sourced. To do so requires not only that WP:V policy be rewritten, but be rewritten to exclude "biased" mainstream media sources.

If this was actually done, the New York Times would be the first source to fall under the axe, as it is continuously criticized as biased by political conservatives and their government officials. As we know from the global warming pseudo-controversy, they would be quite capable of finding professors to 'prove' the NYT is biased.

I'll invoke WP:SNOWBALL. Milo 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

SNOWBALL? Hardly. Milo, it is not considered appropriate here to misrepresent the perspectives or the recommendations of others. You may make claims about your own, but you should not abuse mine. When you claim that I simply want to "delete" all things sourced to the media in this list you are completely wrong. As Milo knows I have made a proposal for another version of this list, which would list those groups referred to as "cults" by the media (and sourced to the media) but would do so on the ground laid down by scholarship--such a list would confront the reader with the fact that scholars and the media quite often categorize the same groups differently and that scholars find the media less than reliable in this particular area. Now Milo has chosen to ignore this proposal entirely but, in fact, a majority of talk page discussion at the AfD has been about this proposal, just with editors other than Milo. The list is also not well sourced at the moment at all, it only appears to be so.PelleSmith (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Milo's argument based upon WP:V, even what he selectively quotes suggests that scholarship is more reliable than "news", but from my experience here I'm fairly certain that we enact such a convention, when appropriate, regardless. Interestingly Milo left out the sentence in WP:V that most definitively discuses a scale of reliability. Here is a fuller quote (emphasis mine):

• "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

What directly follows this suggests more of the same, but is much clearer when the above italicized sentence isn't deleted, as it was in Milo's version (again emphasis mine):

• "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

I believe that 1) the scholarship here, by the fact of how it is published, has a "greater degree of scrutiny ... " and that 2) since there is disagreement between two main types of sources, this disagreement needs to be fleshed out, and proper attribution needs to be given. I should also point out that I am not aware even of press disagreement with the position taken by scholarship. That is I've never read any defense of their own reliability in this matter. I also do not think that Milo's argument about the New York Times makes any sense. Why would granting more reliability to "scholarship" favor conservative pundits or the Bush administration? In terms of global warming, for instance, it is exactly the "consensus of scholars" that is being used to keep the conservative agenda at bay. That's the strangest red herring I've ever been served.PelleSmith (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Sourcing

I would suggest that many of the sources that are currently being used as "media" sources are not high quality in the least. It truly seems that people have grabbed whatever is available to source as many groups as they can. In line with that, while the list claims to have distinct sections for "scholarship" and "the media" many of the sources for the media section are oddly references to books (scholarly and otherwise). Many others are news reports hosted, sometimes as "summaries" on websites like RickRoss.com, the X-Family wiki, Steven Hassan's website freedomofmind.org, etc. There are also a couple of originals from skeptictank.org. Also, used over and over, are static summaries about "cult" topics from washingtonpost.com, and religioustolerance.org. To this end, I had to remove sourcing to the Encarta online encyclopedia entry for "cult" from several listings. Another multiple usage source here is a SF Chronicle obituary of Margaret T. Singer hosted on the website of a "cult books" publisher. There is at least one use of Readers Digest as a source. It is my view that above and beyond the issues outlined above the current sourcing is also atrocious.PelleSmith (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

David Horowitz Freedom Center

Can anyone tell if publications by David Horowitz Freedom Center qualify as reliable sources. There is a related discussion here. Note that one of the sides, User:Kallahan, filed a complaint to Arbcomm [12] instead of asking here.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

not reliable for any purpose whatsoever except for their own opinions about things when its relevant to quote them in context. Especially not reliable in describing the activities of their admitted enemies. DGG (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have seen your discussion here. It was confusing. Do you qualify them as an "extremist source" and why? The source was used to list projects funded by Soros. This looks innocent to me. I was also reading several articles from their FrontPage Magazine. They provided interesting opinions of well known experts, which did not seem to contradict anything I knew. Biophys (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Horowitz's site should not be used to source anything at all about his political opponents - even seemingly innocent info. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, but I like their style. See this photo at the very bottom. This is not a forgery I hope?Biophys (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Also, I believe this is real interview of Pipes. Can we use something like that, or it might be a forgery?Biophys (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a political advocacy site. One thing that should always be remembered about such sites (left, right or centre) is that they do not originate news. Virtually always, the documents they post up on their sites are available in other sources. Or if they carry an opinion piece by a notable commentator then that commentator has usually also written in a more reliable publication, and that should be chosen in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we have:

• special:linksearch/*.discoverthenetworks.com
• special:linksearch/*.discoverthenetworks.org
• special:linksearch/*.horowitzfreedomcenter.org
• special:linksearch/*.frontpagemag.com (around 1,000 links)

I don't see any evidence that Frontpagemag is any less polemical and opinionated than Horowitz's other sites. What should be done, here? Guy (Help!) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jay says (in Archive 9) that he doesn't like my jihad against FPM... bravely ignoring him, I've generally removed a lot of links to FPM and CounterPunch and the like unless

• the link is an article written by the individual
• the linked article is by someone who is closely associated with the subject of the WP article, and the article doesn't contain anything particularly negative
• the linked article is written by an otherwise notable authority and isn't used to support anything about a living person. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

unreliable FrontPageMag and this "Freedom Center" are both highly partisan, but the unreliability doesn't stem from that. If you search the archives, you'll find how FrontPageMag has a habit of making stuff up. I wouldn't be surprised if the center did the same.Ngchen (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an advocacy site, just like any site by Amnesty International or CPJ. But they do not publish forgeries I guess? Unfortunately, a lot of materials there can not be found anywhere else, just like materials published by the Amnesty (and I have seen a lot of objections to use anything by Amnesty International). Can we use such materials? I guess we can, because there is an editorial oversight, and this is an official site by an officially registered organization.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the full set of criteria. To quote WP:SOURCE: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are thus four distinct criteria: the source should be (1) reliable; (2) a third party; (3) published; and (4) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From what I understand of Horowitz, I think his centre would decisively fail the fourth criterion, and as such it couldn't be regarded as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Any proofs that they promote an intentional disinformation?Biophys (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for statement of the opinion of Mr. Horowitz or of the Freedom Center itself. To the extent that such statements of opinion are notable, the site is a reliable source for them. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

given the unsourced nature of [13] & the lack of context for the quotations, the claim that it can be used as a RS for anything are unreasonable--no matter what web site puts it up. Some or possibly all of the quotations may be correct & taken in context, but how can we tell which? If quotations are wanted for the views of the parties quoted, they can be taken from better sources. However, [14] does represent the interview of Pipes--but by an extremely sympathetic interviewer who admits at the end that Pipes is one of his heroes. It represents what Pipes chose to say during that interview. In quoting Pipes, I'd use something he wrote under his own name--that's not hard to find. DGG (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of articles in mainstream journals (say in Wall Street Journal) which also do not provide an exact source of citation. This is typical for all non-academic sources and does not prove that the source is unreliable. You are telling that some of the citations may be a forgery, and that the source "decisively fail" the "fact-checking and accuracy". Can you please cite any sources which support this your assertion? Can you cite any articles about their forgeries, which would be published in more reliable sources, such as academic books or mainstream newspapers, or perhaps some court proceeding about their fraud? I looked at the FrontPage Magazine article and did not find anything, except a bunch of mutual accusations between then and another similar "Center". To tell the truth, I do not care much about this FrontPage Magazine. This is simply an illustration how subjective the opinions about sources can be. Now imagine hundreds of Russian sources that are much less reliable than FrontPage Magazine...Biophys (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, you came here for input. The consensus of that input is that Horowitz and FPM are unreliable. The FPM question has been asked before, and it was decided it was unreliable each time. ---Relata refero (disp.) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, DHFC is about as reliable as Pravda. DH is a kook who is angry because nobody gives a damn about the cold war or the so called communist threat anymore. That he is batshit insane should be the first clue that he is not reliable. That he still calls people communists is the second one. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable, as others have stated above.Bless sins (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Would the Daily Mail be considered a reliable source for Romanian crime in Europe, given that it's purported to have an anti-immigration editorial bias? I haven't been able to find an unimpeachable source to support that bias. The one in the Daily Mail article points to [15]. New Statesman is considered to be a left-wing political magazine.

The only guidance I've found so far is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Daily Mail? (UK), which implies it should be fine for non-controversial topics, but this is definitely controversial. TransUtopian (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All the Mail article really shows is that there is a certain amount of crime perpetrated by Romanian citizens in the UK and that the police are concerned and taking action. This not-very-earth-shattering fact could be sourced to the question and answer in Parliament instead. The Hansard report is wrongly attributed to the Mail journalist. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the fine journalists who brought us the Zinoviev letter? The Daily Mail is seen as such a fount of right-wing bigotry that any attempt to use it as a source, accurate or not, will be perceived as being tainted. That in itself makes it a poor choice for a citation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as source in a BLP - Hannity

Are blogs from The Nation (thenation.com), buzzflash.com or huffingtonpost.com reliable sources for controversial materical in the Sean Hannity BLP? I've reverted some controversial material included with these sources. The blogger at The Nation is Max Blumenthal who's bio there says he's a Media Matters Fellow. Thanks. --PTR (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Nation is a reliable source by our guidelines (although it is politically slanted in its coverage)... thus material that appears on its web page should be equated to the material that appears in its print version. A blog that appears on its webpage should be equated to an OpEd column that appears in the print edition. OpEd pieces are generally not considered reliable for statements of fact, but are reliable for statements of opinion... So... The blog in question is reliable for statements of Max Blumenthal's opinion on Mr. Hannity... but not for statements of fact about Mr. Hannity.

Since this is a BLP we are talking about, we must make this distinction very clear, and we must be sure mentioning Mr. Blumenthal's opinion does not skew the article to a negative POV or give one critic Undue Weight. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. If the opinion is clearly attributed then there is nothing wrong with these sources as sources of Mr. Blumenthal's critical opinion, however there may still be BLP concerns. You should take this matter up at the BLP/N should you think such issues persist--Wikipedia:BLPN. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You've answered my reliable sources question. I'll take it to BLP/N since it's more than his opinion. Appreciate the answers. --PTR (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tunzelmann

Is Alex von Tunzelmann's Indian Summer: The Secret history of the end of an empire a reliable source on British policies in the British raj? Bless sins (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The book seems to be reliable at first glance. Can you give us a reason why it would not be considered reliable? Is von Tunzelmann widely considered a crank? Does the information he presents go so beyond "accepted wisdom" that his book has WP:FRINGE issues? I suppose I am saying: why do you ask? Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case the Alex is a she. Her bio gives no hint whatever of crankiness, in fact indicates the contrary. It is a literary sort of history rather than an academic one, but does seem to be based on archive research. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is also my conclusion: definitely a "she". No seriously, her book is well received, although not as reliable as academic sources, but I couldn't find anything critical online: [16], [17], [18]. In fact, they said there are no invented facts, but she only makes history come to life. Also, her extensive bibliography was praised. These are all good signs, so I would use this source, unless somebody disputes specific claims with more reliable sources. Merzul (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar: according to this author, Winston Churchill said: "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This is repeated in sources like: Foreign Policy in Focus, editorial in The Hindu, editorial in Tims of India...none with solid reliability. One reliable source does say it: [19] (reliable because publsihed by Routledge). But this quote (extremely racist by today's standards) more than anything shook my confidence in the source.Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But many books seem to carry that quotation, some from university presses [20]. Churchill shouldn't be judged by today's standards. Merzul (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are blaming Tunzelmann for reprinting Churchill's racist quote. The point of her quoting him was to illustrate that he was the "most pigheaded" of all British politicians when it came to India. [21] The only case in which this quote should have shaken your confidence in Tunzelmann's book would be if the quote was a fake. But as you and Merzul have pointed out, several other sources have also attributed the same quote to Churchill. So, unfortunately, it seems to be a real quote from him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great power

Sources such as [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] are being used to prove that Russia is a current superpower. They keep on getting re-inserted into the page often cited as Good references. This has gotten the page protected twice now because of edit warring and it is still not resolved. Any assistance would be great. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The references seem to be all very different. Whether Russia is a "superpower" or not is a subject for debate among international relations specialists. Opinions of political commentators might also be relevant. The Daily Telegraph op-ed listed above could be an acceptable source but it does not say that Russia is currently regarded as a superpower. In fact it says the opposite: that Putin aims to restore it to superpower status. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The CNN source is also potentially reliable, but attention should be paid towards weight. Disregard the article title, which was added by a sub-editor. The article is really about Russia's energy policy. It refers to Russia as "an energy superpower" but it does not explicitly offer the opinion that Russia is a "superpower" per se. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that on this subject it is not a matter of creating a list stating who is a superpower and who not. There are more sides of the issue, and the balance may differ depending on in what language you browse the web. Russia for example still is the largest country in the world 1, is one of five members that holds a permanent seat in the UN Security Council 2, has the largest amount of nuclear warheads 3, and is one of two nations recognized as energy superpower 4. Having nuclear weapons is noted to be a "very special attribute widely associated with superpower rank" by Encarta 1. Species8473 (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of which countries are/aren't superpowers isn't the role of this page. "Which language you browse the web in..."? You may be right. However, for a topic like this you should be looking also at non-web sources and in particular at academic books. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When browsing through Google Books on the subject most authors present Russia as a "former superpower". Though it is still recognized as "nuclear superpower" gets the new title "energy superpower" is seen as "regional superpower" and "re-emerging superpower" 1. That pretty much seems to sum it up for what I read in English books and on the English web.--Species8473 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to make a survey of current (for some value of current) opinions to find out the accepted viewpoint. Or simply encorporate into the article that there is a balance of opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

cometdaily.com

It would be useful to be able to cite http://cometdaily.com, however it seems unlikely that it could be a reliable source as it's essentially a collection of blogs....the issue is further clouded by the fact that many of the people contributing to the Comet (programming) article are newly arrived wikipedians from cometdaily.com. So I've come here for clarification on the matter...the site does appear to have some sort of editor review to keep overly adverty/incorrect posts out. Any help would be...helpful Restepc (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with cometdaily.com is that it is an collection of technical blogs (i.e., original research) about this Comet (programming) concept, but with a strong pro-Comet tone. I.e., the people posting there are notably pushing the idea that "Comet" is a great technology, that it's adoption rate is skyrocketing, and that if you don't start using "Comet" right now you'll become past.

Just for the record, "Comet" is a neologism created (some months before cometdaily.com's launch) by one of its bloggers.

To give some context, the Comet (programming) article was single-handled written by one of the cometdaily.com editors, Jacob Rus (User jacobolus (talk · contribs)), full of cometdaily.com references, quotations (including from Jacob himself) and even a mention to the website creation in the article's text. I raised the problem in the COI noticeboard, and the discussion that followed concluded that the article couldn't be possible fixed (from OR, lack of RS, and Advertisement/COI problems) just by altering some parts, and a complete rewrite was started. During the rewrite discussion, at least other 4 other cometdaily.com blogers joined Wikipedia to weight in.

To what is relevant to the reliable sources noticeboard, I see cometdaily.com as an evangelism website, and as such, its content is usually against WP:NPOV. --Damiens.rf 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit has gone on since June 15th regarding this (the article appeared on reddit.com and subsequently received much editing traffic). The source in contention, cometdaily.com houses postings from many community developers that are involved in Comet development. For example; The O'Reilly Media Open source-con [28] features speaker Michael Carter [29] a regular cometdaily contributer who "shares his expertise in bi-weekly articles for the technical publication Comet Daily. It appears, concerns specifically of conflict of interest and Jacobolus have spilled over into whether or not this source is reliable. While it's unfortunate that there are COI problems as a result of Jacobolus' contributions, it should be viewed as a separate issue. A quick google search will show that in the Comet development blogs refer to and link to cometdaily frequently and can be a source of information directly from comet developers AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification regarding Damiens' statement about being a "collection of technical blogs." The website is a single blog with invite only vetted contributors. [30]. They are not simply culling content from other blogs. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing directly against cometdaily blogers. As long as they get something reviewed and published by a reliable source, we can use that. But the problem begins when we start using what they post on their blogs as sources, what would be unacceptable.

Commetdailly fits perfectly in the definition of a unsuitable self-published source: Authors that create a website and claim to be an expert in a certain field, writing self-serving opinions. The "many community developers" you mention are just 12 people, among them the inventor of the "comet" buzzword himself. Either intentionally or not, they do have an agenda of putting "comet" something bigger than it really is.

For instance, in an "article" entitled "Why Comet is of Growing Importance" (pov from the title), the author claims he can "create the ultimate executive proof of the growing need for comet". How many people do you think reviewed his "ultimate proof" before it got "published"?

In other "article", with the povvy title "Comet is Always Better Than Polling", the author showcases his abilities in creating graphics in excel that support his beliefs that "Comet long-polling provide superior data rates [and] superior average latency". But who is supposed to review his calculations and his interpretations of the numbers? The blog commenters?

Cometdaily.com is a self-published source and suffers from all the usual problems of self-published sources. Besides, it has a non-neutral agenda. It should only be used as a reference in the few exceptional cases that our policy allows us to use such kind of material. --Damiens.rf 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're seriously misunderstanding several issues here regarding reliability of sources, mostly because you seem to be operating without context.

O'Reilly is a well-known, respected and reliable publisher in this domain, and the OSCON conference vets and selects speakers and talk subjects; thus, an endorsement of reliability from O'Reilly should carry some weight in this discussion. For example, if I were to say on my blog that I'm "sharing my expertise" on a technical topic, that wouldn't necessarily mean anything, but if a respected technical publisher or a major industry conference were to say that I have expertise or am an expert on that topic, that would mean something as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Also, the fact that a particular publication or collection of publications is run by people who are enthusiasts about a particular technology does not mean that their statements must be discarded; Wikipedia should be providing verifiably-correct information about, for example, the technical nature of Comet and the specific techniques involved, and one source of such information is Comet Daily (there are others, and I've pointed out a couple in other comments; the fact that multiple sources corroborate the information weakens your arguments quite a bit). Learning to differentiate the verifiable technical information (which Wikipedia should include) from marketing material (which Wikipedia should not include) is an important skill, and when applied to this article would, I believe, resolve your concerns quite neatly. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)- _{relevant comment from Talk: Comet (programming) by Ubernostrum added by AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)}

O'Reilly, a well-known, respected and reliable publisher, said that "Michael Carter (...) shares his expertise in bi-weekly articles for the technical publication Comet Daily.". Do you think it gives Comet Daily a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I don't see how. --Damiens.rf 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think your consistent cherry-picking of topics while ignoring surrounding context makes it difficult to assume you're acting in good faith. Information provided by Comet Daily articles with respect to technical aspects of the Comet techniques is, as I've pointed out, corroborated by multiple sources, while one specific author who has also contributed to the Wikipedia article (and with whom, personally, your problem appears to be, judging from the controversies on that talk page) has an endorsement of reliability from a source which is known to be reliable in the domain. This, to my mind, should be the end of any debate on the reliability of this source. Ubernostrum (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed before, if the same technical information is "corroborated by multiple [reliable] sources", why not just use the other sources? There's a lot of books published about web-programming and related techniques. There's no need to cite a blog.

If you really believe this is a personal problem, I'm afraid I can't help you. --Damiens.rf 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources agree on the technical information, why not quote from and cite all of them according to context? If one source has a slightly more accessible explanation of the same information, why not use that source? I say this seems to be personal because even though we have strong indicators that the technical information from this specific source is reliable, you continue to question reliability and demand that other sources be used in its place. This does not indicate a neutral concern for the reliability or verifiability of the cited information, but rather a bias against the source itself. The fact that you have repeatedly gone out of your way to cast this source as unreliable self-publishing even when information cited from it is reliable and verifiable, and even when other respectable sources in the domain attest to the source's reliability, further increases the perception that this is something you have personally against the source rather than a concern for Wikipedia's reliability, and makes it difficult to assume good faith in these discussions. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page "Whether is source is reliable on its own merit, and whether there are editors with vested interests editing this article are two separate issues." Damiens.rf's issue directly stems from the editor (Jacobolus) who initially used this website as a source. Notwithstanding all that, a quick google search can show the extent to which the cometdaily is referenced and linked within the AJAX/COMET community. Countless dev sites, all pointing to cometdaily.com as a reference. And, to be clear, if a source exists to better support a statement, please by all means use it. But that doesn't justify saying a site which has vetted, invite only contributors, industry contributors who are recognized by third parties such as O'Reilly media, is not a reliable source. At this point I think it is best to address each cited statement on a case by case basis. Not the website as a whole. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Link unavailable because of Geo-blocking

An editor is claiming here that the fact that an interview given to the BBC and available on their website but that is only available to residents of the UK for copyright reasons is Unaccessable = unverifieble = invalid. That goes for subscription links too ' ( I had mentioned subscription links as being valid links ) . I know the information may be available from other sources as in this case but with the increase in geo-blocking of sites does this mean we will not be allowed to cite such sites in future if they are the only source .Garda40 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable does not imply free, cheap, or convenient, although all of these are, of course, desirable. However, physical books may need a library subscription and an inter-library-loan fee. Many scientific journal articles are only available on a fee base. Paper newspapers need subscriptions. All of these make excellent sources. In the case of Geoblocking, I'm certain that someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can help with access to the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

True; non-online resources need some effort to enquire. But as far as online resources go; I feel these should be freely available to anyone, because inthis case, non-UK residents cannot in any way verify it's content. — Edokter • Talk • 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. The most practical way is probably to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange for some UK resident to take a snapshot of the article and provide it to you. This is well-covered under fair use. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to verify this source from outside the UK. Just pick a United Kingdom based proxy server, enter the IP and port into your browser, and browse to the page you want to see. I just did this via a server from the codeen network.1 I will provide the steps below for Firefox and Internet Explorer, you can follow them, but at your own risk. For speed and security reasons, make sure to disable the proxy server again when you're finished. If you don't, all your connections will continue to run via the United Kingdom based server.

• With Firefox: go to tools, options, advanced, network, settings, and use 128.232.103.202 as IP and 3128 as port.
• For Internet Explorer: go to tools, internet options, connections, LAN settings, and use 128.232.103.202 as IP and 3128 as port.
• Then browse to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/news/pages/production_news_40_seriesthree.shtml

Hope this helps.Species8473 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried hundreds of these proxies, and non of them work. An online resource should be accessable by anyone; I usualy disregard those that don't allow full access. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just tried one (the first .uk on the list), and it worked fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe stating that "an online resource should be accessable by anyone" is not wikipedia policy, nor can it in any way be derived from that. There even is the option of using a proxy server to check the material, ask someone that does get a proxy working to do so, or find someone that lives in the country where the source needs to be checked. A book not being available in your bookcase, library, or country, doesn't suddenly make the material unreliable or unacceptable. Species8473 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial cemetery website

Resolved

At the Harry Trott FAC discussion, an inquiry mas made about the reliability of this source, a biography written by a person who is the caretaker of this site, an unofficial site dedicated to the Brighton Cemetery in Melbourne, Australia.

The source is used to support the cause of death, place of death, and place of burial of the subject. The source cites its own sources: the Australian Dictionary of Biography article on Trott (this source is used elsewhere in the Wikipedia article) and an article in the (now defunct) Argus newspaper, both of which I would consider more than reliable. I was concerned about how much faith one can place in such an "unofficial" site, but the site seems to me to be more than a "fan site" and has made an effort to acknowledge its sources. Given the reasonably non-controversial nature of the claims supported by the source, is this source suitable for use in a Featured Article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, another source has been found that supports the same facts. Thanks anyway. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image for Portal:Discrimination

There has been an ongoing discussion about inclusion of an image (Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5) in Portal:Discrimination. I would like some opinion as to whether the sources listed in the image caption are reliable enough that we can label the image as an example of discrimination. Apologies in advance for anyone who reads the whole discussion, it's been going on for a while. Kevin (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that image is a useful example of discrimination. And, as far as I can tell, only one of the sources (some of which are questionable themselves, as they are opinion pieces) call it discrimination, and that one is not a scholary opinion, but again an opinion piece. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is not hard to publish one's opinions in mainstream newspapers. Anyone can do it by sending a letter to the editor. Editorials are also not hard to publish: Hamas has published them in LA Times([31]), New York Times([32]), and Washington Post ([33]). I don't anyone is about to claim that Hamas is a reliable source just because they publish opinion pieces in America's mainstream newspapers.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamas is not reliable, but their opinion, if presented in mainstream newspapers, is notable and therefore would have a right to be included in certian articles. That doesn't have any relevance to this issue. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. We won't use Hamas for fact, right? We may use them for opinion, but that' s a different issue. The op-eds mentioned are being to used to say that discrimination in Mecca is a fact.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which dispute all of Hamas' claims, and that is why we don't use them for fact. No reliable source disputes the Mecca law being discrimination. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're half right: indeed if a source is dispute by a more reliable one, it is not reliable. However, just because a source isn't disputed by others, doesn't mean its necessarily reliable. The source still has to meet the WP:RS criteria.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And in this case, it does. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have lost track about which source in particular you are talking now. But an editorial is almost never acceptable as a source for a statement of fact. Editorials are opinion pieces, usually credited to one single author, and represent only this author's opinion. Unless he or she is independently established as an authority in the field in questions, this is not enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

More input needed

At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV A number of changes are being discussed that involve NPOV and it needs more heads to look into the arguments and come up with good consensus. Ward20 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Epoch Times

Is this a reliable source to cover events relating to China and the group Falun Gong? According to [34] [35] [36] it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners and has links with the organization. A US congressional report lists the Epoch Times as a Falun Gong-linked source [37]. Even Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has expressed links between Epoch Times and Falun Gong practitioners[38].

My problem is, if an event received large coverage by Epoch Times, and its associates NTDTV and Sound of Hope, but little from mainstream media, can it be considered significant coverage?--PCPP (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it also depends on how would you quantify little coverage from the rest of mainstream media. See [39]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that. Quit following me.--PCPP (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.--PCPP (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Epoch Times is Falun Gong mouthpiece should not be used as RS especially when covering events related to China and Falun Gong. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at it. From the type of people that distribute it every morning, to the quanity of those who reject it, to the content itself, the newspaper smells of irreliability.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Book available only to 'cult' members

Before it was stubified, a new editor was editing Sukyo Mahikari using "Holy Words: Goseigen by Yoshikazu Okada ISBN 0971486301 / 9780971486300 / 0-9714863-0-1 Publisher Bishop of North American Region of Sukyo Mahikari Language". He says "it is available only to members" but that he can use it because he has a copy and it might be possible to buy it in a used book store -- "f you can find a used book I'm sure you can verify the statements". Or maybe a library but he admits not many might carry it. I think this means that the book is to all intents and purposes unverifiable by Wikipedia readers and can't be used, however valuable a source it might be for the article. Although 'demonstrably findable' doesn't seem explicit policy (yet), I think it is implicit in the policy and this book fails it. But I would like comment on this. Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the book passes any of the criteria listed in WP:BK. It is up to the new editor to prove that the book is a reliable source. Corpx (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does turn out to be available. There are two copies in the Library of Congress. Notability as in WP:BK is not at issue, because it is not intended to have an article about this book, only about the new religious movement (or perhaps cult) that published the book. I also think it is an appropriate source for the article, since it contains the movement's own statements about what it believes. In the same way that Vatican statements are excellent sources for articles about Roman Catholicism. What I don't the book to be used for is statements of the tone "See! They believe a load of nonsense! They said so themselves!". But that is for the article talk page. Many thanks, Doug, for your effort, even if I am now demurring on this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, notability is not an issue. I just don't know what the threshold is for verifiability. I agree it is an appropriate source if used correctly. Thanks for finding it in the LoC. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Itsmejudith's efforts to verify that this in fact is a legitimate source, despite DougWeller's persistent efforts to discredit my postings. Verbatim statements of Okada's teachings *should* be allowed from the Goseigen as they are verifiable--despite the other editors feelings about other content within my contributions. Showing Sukyo Mahikari's true statements in their teachings is factual information, and for people who are thinking of joining this cult, at least they will be able to read the cult's true beliefs instead of believing the recruiting brochures which lure unsuspecting members under false pretenses. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy that you had said you appreciated my efforts had you not then attacked Doug Weller. Please go and carefully read WP policies, especially WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We simply cannot operate as a collaborative encyclopedia without them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's another copy available at the University of California - Santa Barbara, as per here, which might be easier for someone to get ahold of. I'm not entirely sure how to find someone to look in that library, though. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's on hold for a class, it should be available via a standard interlibrary loan. Due to its rarity, the owner library may prefer to provide scans or photocopies of sections. Ask a local main branch or university librarian if they can acquire the book and/or partial copies of its contents. Vassyana (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fatimah

Hi. I restored a paragraph here to the article Fatimah that two editors, User:Itaqallah and User:MezzoMezzo, seem determined to keep off Wikipedia, most probably y tbecause of the nature of the section as one of the main Shi'a-Sunni differences.

The section is supposed the represent the point of view of both Sunnis and Shias, and the paragraph starts with "There are two distinct views on the manner of her death between the Shias and Sunnis. Shias maintain[...]" The Shi'a point of view was both poorly represented and poorly sourced. User:Itaqallah, then User:MezzoMezzo kept reverting the edit contending that al-islam.org and Sistani's al-shia.com are polemical, unreliable and represent the Shi'a point of view (I later pointed out, referring to the beginning of the paragraph, that this is precisely what they're supposed to do), despite the fact that both are the main Shia websites on the internet, with the latter being run by the foremost authority in Shi'a Islam and the former being cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress.

Again, the section is supposed the represent the Shi'a point of view so even if the websites were polemical, which they are not, they represent the Shi'a point of view which should be properly represented in the article. I personally think this just a case of POV-pushing by a couple of editors who want what's written in the article to comply with their beliefs. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I should note that of the 16 sources I provided, three are linked to al-islam.org and al-shia.com and the rest are mainly historical books, namely Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Lisan al-Mizan by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharh Nahj al Balagha, all of which are written, ironically, by Sunni scholars but User:Itaqallah and User:MezzoMezzo keep removing the whole paragraph with all the sources provided, and avoid discussing the other sources. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Few people on this encyclopedia have a better knowledge of reliable sourcing in Islam-related articles than user:Itaqallah. It is definitely worth listening to what he says, although there is obviously still room for disagreement. What it boils down to is: what is the most definitive secondary source for the beliefs of Shi'a Islam. The Encyclopedia of Islam is one idea suggested by Itaqallah, and on the face of it it does sound better than a website, no matter how popular. Could you ask for more ideas at the Islam wikiproject? Sa.vakilian is a good editor of Shi'a faith, but I note he has withdrawn from GA reviewing on this article because of potential COI. User:Aminz is another excellent editor from the Shi'a tradition and I know he has often worked successfully with Itaqallah in the past. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality's position is inconsistent as he readily accepts websites like ansar.org or d-sunnah.org as unreliable, polemical, sectarian etc. but insists that websites of the opposite skew like answering-ansar.org, al-islam.org etc. are reliable. Other websites used include "duas.org", "aljaafaria.com", "forums.mpacuk.com". All of the websites are of sectarian and polemical flavour. While the directory entries and reviews above give a summary of al-islam.org's content (it is a notable website) - they make no mention of its reliability as a scholarly reference. Indeed, one of the al-islam.org citations used in the article is a page from the Peshawar Nights - a publication reporting a religious debate between a Sunni and Shia, the historicity of which is disputed.

The article should reflect what's been written in the reliable scholarly sources about the topic - and the associated views. I am quite sure there's no shortage of descriptive accounts from the Shi'i perspective in the academic sources.

Secondly, some of the sources used are primary. These citations too are actually taken from the same websites, so there is an issue with using them if are relayed unreliable sources (WP:CITE#Say where you found it). Often such websites will use narratives of the opposing sect to try and prove themselves right (i.e. "you books prove our belief", if you will). The fundamental lack in any sort of reliable peer review or verification process leads to unprofessional mistakes. Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar, for instance, is a dictionary of hadith narrators, not a historical account. ITAQALLAH 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Having initially sat this one out and watched, I have to completely agree with what Itaqallah is saying here. And i'm not saying that because i'm some fanboy of his, this is the conclusion I reached after observing before I got involved. I'll give an example, answering-ansar.org is a Shi'a site and one of the sources Enforcing Neutrality has inserted; that website was literally created as a response to the Sunni site ansar.org; they're exactly the same in regard to lack of balance, the only difference is they represent the two separate views. The same goes for sources such as al-islam.org, a prominent Shi'a website; Enforcing Neutrality referred to SunniPath, a similar website but for the Sunni point of view, as a hate site yet has no problem with al-islam.org. Even the print sources, as was mentioned above, are all taken from these same biased and unreliable sites. He recently admitted himself on the article's talk page that he doesn't actually own copies of any of these books. He doesn't seem like a bad guy and please forgive me if this seemed directed at him personally, but I just find it confusing that he begins the discussion here by claiming that the two off us are determined to keep this material off of Wikipedia because of the sensitive nature of the topic, rather than having good faith and assuming we simply disagree over the reliability of the sources. That sort of seems like a case of Pot calling the kettle black. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality, many of your sources (the non-online ones) are medieval sources, that don't satisfy the criteria for RS (e.g. the criterion of being peer-reviewed). Such medieval sources are also routinely accused of politico-religious bias. Can you find some modern reliable sources?Bless sins (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wasted hours of my time searching for the books online and locating the passages to find that I didn't have to and every source al-islam.org referred to is correct. Now please don't undermine my efforts and stop wasting anymore of my time. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-islam.org, like most polemical websites, has a tendency to quote things out of context and misrepresent (or omit) relevant commentary by the respective authors. The lack of an independent peer review or verification process means these things often go unchecked. I don't doubt you had a look for yourself, but I'd like to see some evidence of verification. A lot of the medieval sources are also primary, so we shouldn't assert their significance to the topic at hand without a secondary source. ITAQALLAH 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC

Itaqallah, I don't really care what you would like to see. Maybe you should spend hours of your own time by finding the books and try to prove me wrong because this has gone way too far. It is very disturbing to see Wikipedia allow this kind of behavior to go unpunished. I've done my job and if you think the sources are misquoted, check them yourself. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I want to get this over with. I can see you speak Arabic, so you'll have no problem reading the sources. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's Tarikh is downloadable here. The text is located in the fourth word document. It reads:حدثنا ابن حميد ، قال : حدثنا جرير ، عن مغيرة ، عن زياد بن كليب ، قال : أتى عمر بن الخطاب منزل علي وفيه طلحة والزبير ورجال من المهاجرين ، فقال : والله .لأحرقن عليكم أو لنخرجن إلى البيعة . فخرج عليه الزبير مصلتا بالسيف ، فعثر فسقط السيف من يده ، فوثبوا عليه فأخذوه In english: Ibn Hamid told us: Jarir told us, from Mughirah, from Ziad ibn Kulaib: Umar ibn al Khattab came to the house of Ali and in it were Talha and Zubair and men of the Muhajirin. He said: By God I will burn it on you or you come out and swear allegiance. Zubair came out with his sword, he tripped and the sword fell from his hand, so they jumped on him and took him.

Ibn Abed Rabboh's al-Iqd ul-fareed is read here. It reads:فأما عليّ والعباس والزبير فقعدوا في بيت فاطمة حتى بَعث إليهم أبو بكر عمرَ ابن الخطاب ليُخرِجهم من بيت فاطمة وقال له‏:‏ إِن أبوا فقاتِلْهم ‏.‏فأقبل بقَبس من نار على أن يُضرم عليهم الدار فلقيته فاطمةُ فقالت‏:‏ يا بن الخطاب أجئت لتُحرق دارنا قال‏:‏ نعم أو تدخلوا فيمادخلتْ فيه الأمة In english As for Ali, Abbas and Zubair, they stayed in the house of Fatima until Abu Bakr sent Umar to get them out of Fatima's house and told him: if they refuse, fight them. He took a torch to burn the house and Fatima met him and told him: are you here to burn our house? He said: yes, or you enter what the Ummah has entered (i.e swear allegiance).

Al-Shahrastani's Al-Milal wa al-Nihal is read here. It reads: فقال‏:‏ إن عمر ضرب بطن فاطمة يوم البيعة حتى ألقت الجنين من بطنها وكان يصيح‏:‏ أحرقوا دارها بمن فيها وما كان في الدار غير علي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين In english: And he said: Umar kicked Fatima's stomach on the day of allegiance until she she miscarried and he yelled: Burn her house and whoever is in it except Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's Lisan al Mizan is read here. It reads on page 268: أن عمر رفس فاطمة حتى أسقطت بمحسن. In English: Umar kicked Fatima until she miscarried Muhsin.

Al-Baladhuri's Genealogies of the Nobles is read here. It reads: أن أبا بكر أرسل إلى عليّ يريد البيعة، فلم يبايع. فجاء عمر، ومعه قبس فتلقته فاطمةُ على الباب، فقالت فاطمة: يا بن الخطاب، أتراك محرّقاً علي بابي؟ قال: نعم، وذلك أقوى فيما جاء به أبوك. In english: Abu Bakr sent for Ali demanding allegiance, but he didn't give gim allegiance. Umar came with a torch and was met by Fatima at the door, she told him: Ibn al-Khattab, are you here at my door to burn the house(?)? He said: Yes, this is stronger than what your father has ever done.

Al-Safadi's al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyat is accessible here. It reads in the sixth volume, page 15: إنّ عمر ضرب بطن فاطمة (عليها السلام) يوم البيعة حتّى ألقت المحسن من بطنها In english: Umar kicked Fatima's stomach on the day of allegiance until she miscarried Muhsin.

Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr's al-Isti'ab is downloadable here and Ibn al-Athir's the Complete History is downloadable here. I didn't locate the texts because I already wasted too much time working on the others. Hopefully you wouldn't mind working on these to prove me wrong.

As for Ibn Qutaybah's Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa and al-Mas'udi's Ithbat ul-Wasiyyah, I couldn't find them on the internet so I will to a bookstore check if they're correct, but a Salafi quotes Mas'udi in his book accessible here as having said in his book Ithbat ul-Wasiyya: فهجموا عليه [ علي عليه السلام ] وأحرقوا بابه ، واستخرجوه كرها وضغطوا سيدة النساء بالباب حتى أسقطت محسنا or they attacked him (Ali), burned his door and took him out by force and pressed [Fatima] against the door until she miscarried Muhsin and calls him a Rafidi immediately after quoting him, so I doubt the source is misquoted.

Finally, I hope this can put an end to this dispute and I hope we could be on good terms after. Regards, Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Most if not all of these seem to be medieval sources, i.e. from the point of view of Wikipedia they are primary sources. Interpreting old primary sources very often is original research. Interpreting them in the proper context requires extensive expert knowledge. Thus, modern scholarly sources are much preferable, and, for such a major topic, should be easily available, e.g. in any decent university library. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. In an article like this, all we can get and all we need are medieval sources. No one has called Sahih Bukhari original research. These are modern sources: The Historians' History of the World (1909), p.146; Josef W. Meri's Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (2006), p.249; Simon Ockley's History of the Saracens (1857), p.83; Moojan Momen's An Introduction to Shi’I Islam (1985), p.19; George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood's SVA (1915), p.162; William Muir 's Annals of the Early Caliphate (1883), p.6. But it seems this is never going to end. Whatever. I'm too tired, I'm leaving. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Enforcing Neutrality‎ in many cases and don't want to support every sources he's used, but I'm really sorry that Itaqallah says Al-islam.org, like most polemical websites, has a tendency to quote things out of context and misrepresent (or omit) relevant commentary by the respective authors. I hope he tries to check it better. There are many sources in that site which are not polemical. Is there anybody who thinks that Nasr's works such as [40] and [41] are polemical. Do you really think that Allameh Tabatabaei's work[42] is polemical just because it's collected by al-Islam.org. I hope we judge about the cases without sectarian tendencies.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of the sources but I will pick up on Lisan al-Mizan again, which I mentioned earlier, because this is the clearest example. Yes, that sentence you quote is in the source. But it has been stripped of the context of Ibn Hajar's discussion. Like I said, Lisan al-Mizan is a dictionary of narrators, not a work on history. From what I can see, he is merely relating some of the narratives promulgated by a narrator by the name of "Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Siri b. Yahya ... ... al-Kufi al-Rafidhi al-Kadhdhab" (among which is this Umar/Fatimah one, another is about Pharoah and Abu Bakr/Aisha/Hafsa). Note that Ibn Hajar calls him a liar/fabricator, and clearly does not consider him trustworthy. Why source something like this when the author himself discredits the narrator? And why source it to a work which is clearly not about history??

Seyyed, why do you believe we should trust such websites which clearly have no independent peer review or authentication process? Talking about the books it hosts is a distraction (the books should be judged on their own merit), I'm talking about its own generated content - which clearly cannot be deemed reliable. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not talking about its own generated content. I don't consider it as a reliable source, but we can rely on it whenever it hosts reliable sources. Thus we shouldn't say Al-islam.org is a polemical websites. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though other websites like answering-islam host books too which may themselves be reliable (i.e. Muir), the website itself is still polemical. Hence we should see if such books can be accessed without reliance upon such websites. ITAQALLAH 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Shia and Sunnis have very different narrations of certain events and the distinction should be clearly specified. Technically speaking, Itaqallah is correct in removing material that are not sufficiently sourced, but I doubt that he is ignorant about the factuality of some of the sentences he is removing[43]. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian only sources used in New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) (no human history before 800 AD)

This is a WP:REDFLAG article, claiming that all ancient history took place in the Middle Ages and that no history goes back beyond 800 AD. So "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" should apply. However, despite some of Fomenko's publications being in English, there are a number of references to works by Fomenko with the references entirely in Russian, so I have no idea what is being referenced and have no way of knowing what the actual text says or where the claim is vague, what the specifics are. It's my opinion what when the claim would so clearlyy "significantly alter mainstream assumptions" that Fomenko's claims should all be referenced by English language translations of his works. Doug Weller (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

English-language sources only. There are enough for an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "english-language sources only" has never been policy. English language sources are preferred only if they are of the same quality and breadth. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Of course, in this particular case of a complete crank, I don't see the need to reference Fomenko extensively. We don't need to repeat every detail of his nonsense. This should be an article about his theory, not one promoting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about 'Exceptional claims require exceptional sources' though? Doesn't that apply and suggest that sources that only a small minority of English readers can verify shouldn't be used? Doug Weller (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies. Aren't Russian sources more exceptional than English ones on en.wikipedia? ;-). Seriously, as I wrote above: If you need extensive sourcing from the original work on this topic, the article has other problems. This is completely WP:FRINGE. We need to talk about it, not present it as if it had a shred of reliable evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. What I don't want is fringe claims backed only by sources few people can read to see if they are even reported accurately, or reported with such meager detail that they can't be discussed. The article is bad and needs work. I'm not sure where to start. Does WP:UNDUE apply here? Doug Weller (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

babylon jewry heritage center - babylonjewry.org.il

I wish to inquire about the potential usage of citations from babylonjewry.org.il and in particular nahardea, the organization's magazine. babylonjewry is the most prominent NGO dealing with the history and heritage of iraqi jews, containing several of the most comprehensive archives on related subjects. furthermore, its research branch is staffed by several academic figures of expertise on the subject (such as prof. shmuel moreh and dr. yehuda zvi) and publishes its own academic journal as well. the problem is that the magazine is not peer reviewed (while the academic journal is) and that most of the material is in hebrew.

now, the questions:

• can i refer to hebrew articles? referring only to english-translated ones would limit the usefulness of the source, and there aren't good replacements in english as far as i know.
• can i cite from both the magazine and the journal, or the journal only? can i cite only academic experts from the magazine, or all writers (as long as it's obviously on subject and not op-ed etc)?

MiS-Saath (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is core to the project. If material is only available in Hebrew, then it should not be presented in the EN. (Hebrew speakers, after all, will expect these details to be documented far better in the WP:HEB). And this web-site is bound to be suspect, since it appears to exclude the substantial number of Iraqi Jews who feel (or felt) that their community was sacrificed to the needs of Israel. It may be RS for individual testimonies or documents, but it should be used with extreme care for "historical facts". PR^talk 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for your first concern, i find a lack of resources with comparable depth in english, otherwise the question would never have popped up. As for your second concern, decidedly anti-zionist figures such as the late Samir Naqqash were also members of the organization and took part in organized activities. The center is fully aware of competing narratives and relates to them in an academic fashion (you will find references and rebukes to the claims made by Yehouda Shenhav, for example.) Furthermore, the personalities involved are distinguished researchers and cannot be ruled out on the basis of political affiliation. The debate to the prevalance of the Narrative used by publications and researchers is a public and open process. Although there's no hiding that it does have a zionist slant in most of its articles. Just like you the Journal of palestine studies is slanted against zionism, which doesn't rule it out as a source. MiS-Saath (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can add Sasson Somekh and Sami Michael to that list. i think that makes your second point quite moot. I was actually hoping one could provide an english alternative source... but sources are in dearth, indeed. MiS-Saath (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• While English-language sources are preferred to foreign-language sources, PR is incorrect to say that "[i]f material is only available in Hebrew, then it should not be presented in the EN. (Hebrew speakers, after all, will expect these details to be documented far better in the WP:HEB)." First of all, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which is policy, states that "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality ...." However, if no such equal-quality sources are available in English, foreign language sources can be used as indicated in that policy. Secondly, the fact that Hebrew speakers would be able to find these details better documented in the Hebrew Wikipedia is irrelevant. The original poster is trying to write English-language articles in the English Wikipedia so that English-speaking people can read about the topics they are working on. Most English-speaking people cannot read Hebrew and so it would do them no good to refer them to the Hebrew Wikipedia if they want to read about Iraqi Jews. As to the second question, I would allow use of both the journal and the magazine, although of course that does not mean we can deem either publication a source of absolute truth on contentious issues. Rather, the exact extent to which each publication should be used will need to be determined on a case by case basis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as a source is otherwise reliable, it is fine to refer to it whether it is in Hebrew or any other language (OK, not Linear A / Eteocretan). If there is something as good or better in English, of course use that instead, but that doesn't seem to be the case, or it's hard to find. Basically, use common sense and reasonable good faith on both sides. If someone challenges something, provide a reasonable amount of the original and a translation. There are plenty of people who can read Hebrew here, who can check translations. Sounds like it is reasonably reliable, so there should be no problem if the material isn't contentious. The more contentious it is, the more it would be desirable to use the peer reviewed or written-by-academics material, and the more scrutiny, translation, explanation, attribution, qualification and neutralization would be necessary. If something has a decided Zionist (or opposing) slant, make that clear, try to neutralize it or try to balance it with another source. That it encompasses and debates a wide range of viewpoints, including, it seems, that of "the substantial number of Iraqi Jews who feel (or felt) that their community was sacrificed to the needs of Israel" in PR's words - like Samir Naqqash, argues well for its reliability. Everybody has a POV, MiS-Saath's Journal of Palestine Studies comparison is a good one. What is important is whether or not they selectively publish crap designed to push it. If they avoid this as much as the JPS does - cf its article - they're fine.John Z (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart and aCharts.us

Is United World Chart remain reliable despite being deleted? How about aCharts.us? --Efe (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is still alive in here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song). Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, being notable enough to be on Wikipedia is not a requirement for a reliable source, so the deletion issue is moot. I have looked at both sites (briefly), and they are both horrible from a design point of view. United World Chart really is a hot contender for ugliest site ever. It is allegedly produced and hosted by a German company called "Media Traffic", but it does not follow the most basic rules for web sites in Germany (which requires you to at the very least have a designated agent responsible for the content). There is no evidence on what they do or how they do it, and a quick Google search on the company turned up no evidence that it is widely used or trusted. So I have my doubts. From my point of view, aCharts.us looks better. They seem to be a mere aggregator. Even so, they warn against possible errors in their charts here, so it might be better to go to the original sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Im convinced now of United World Chart; the site really has no links that supports or states how they do or make those charts and countings. Anyway, thanks for the researh. Ahm, please check the usage of the source in the article, down in the chart table. Is that "permittable"? --Efe (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Is Joshua project a reliable source to indicate population figures as it seemed to have been used in some articles. It is usful because some of the data is not available from national census figures as these ethnic groups are not recognized by some national governments for various reasons. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Project is not involved in primary ethnic peoples research. Rather Joshua Project seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole. We are deeply grateful to the sources below who have provided data to Joshua Project.Data Sources Taprobanus (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for a religious group's beliefs

What is the best source for the religious beliefs of a particular group (WHAT they believe, not the validity of those beliefs)? Is a website produced by the group an acceptable source to be used as a reference? Rev107 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the type of the group. For some religions there is a wealth of academic sources, arising from a long history of theological study. If there is only a website, then that is what should be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably also want to ensure that the website is operated by the group itself, as opposed to a specific member of the group, who might be presenting his own ideas, rather than those of the group as a whole. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's dangerous anyways, as groups like Scientology blatantly lie to the public about their belief system (possibly even for "good" theological reasons - "they can't handle the truth"). Third-party sources are usually preferable.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com

Can I use commercial sites such as amazon.com to source a page like The Simpsons DVDs‎? --Maitch (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use Amazon to show that a DVD exists and is on the market. Reviews that they commission from named reviewers are acceptable too. Reviews by the public aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Manga Murder

I just came across Manga Murder and am wondering if it really has reliable sources. At first glance, the answer appears to be a resounding "YES", however, of the 9 references this article lists, 7 refer right back to the same article, which I belive is a violation of WP:EL, 1 (ref link # 4) appears to be ok, it links to the animenewsnetwork.com, 1 final one ( link # 7) appears to link to a Flemmish magazine, with no translation given, however a still from the manga mentioned appears in this article. Without a translation it's hard to tell. I believe a translation is required according to policy. If I pare down the article to only the cited reference I know to be good (# 4) that leaves only one reference and one heck of a stubby article. I figured I should get some more eyes on this before I even attempt something that BOLD :), so..check the article and see if I'm on target or not. Thanks Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "refer right back to the same article"? They are refs to newspapers. Clicking on the number in front takes you to the place where they are cited in the article, as is proper. Only #7 has an web link, but references need not be to the web. There are no EL's in the article, so WP:EL doesn't apply. Some of the newspaper refs could be clearer, and it would be nice if they had links to the stories if they are online, but that is not required. Before asking for translation, you should make clear what you think is iffy and might need translation. You might want to look at the web cites with google or another online translator. Discussing things with the other editors of the article should clear things up. There doesn't seem to be any real reliability or other problem here, so paring down the article would probably not be a good idea.John Z (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ref #4 links to animenewsnetwork.com, but, ref #1 links to a footnote with two links back to the same article, following those two links (which the author calls "a" and "b", those two links go right back to themselves. In text (not linked) it gives the name of the article he / she's referring to, following that, there's a link that names the magazine, but links back to a wikipedia entry about that magazine, he / she dates this, and the date's also a link , but that link also goes back to Wikipedia for an entry on that date. There's no link to the actual resource for this. Only 4, 5 and 7 are actual links. My understanding (and I may be wrong)is that when you place a footnote at the bottom which links directly to the source of the information used for the article) is that when you place a link into an article, you link directly to the source of your information. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the wiki software that assigns the letters a and b and takes us back to the place in the article where the reference is cited. What is done here is perfectly standard. Again, there is no requirement that our sources are on the web, that there are external links to them at all. If we are given a reasonable identification of them, the way they might appear in a book on the subject, that is enough. We are given dates and names of newspaper articles we could look up in a library subscribing to that newspaper - that is fine. It would be nice if a link to an online resource were provided, if it existed, but that is not required. The links to the names of the magazines and the date links are just marginally helpful conveniences, not necessary. This has nothing to do with reliability, which is whether the source used is in fact good enough to cite. This has to do with (very) easy accessibility of sources, which is not required. Cheers,John Z (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Living Stream Ministries

There are several sources and external links on the above page about which I am dubious. These include:

• ReligionsNewsBlog, currently used as a reference
• Contending for the Faith, currently an external link whose ownsership seems to be "a project to defend and confirm the New Testament ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the practices of the local churches", and
• Accusations Against LSM, operated by the same group as Contending for the Faith above.
  

Do the rest of you think that these pages meet the qualifications for RS and External links or not? John Carter (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Anime Jump

Is Anime Jump a reliable source? They review stuff and interview people. -Malkinann (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are decently reliable with their reviews and interviews. They have been around for about 10 years, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Robert C. Fuller

Is Dr. Robert C. Fuller of Bradley University considered a reliable source on American religion topics? Are there any cautions in using his work for citations? Low Sea (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that all the works listed on the page linked to probably qualify as RS. Comments made by the subject in newspapers, provided they're about American religion, probably would as well. But if he were presenting an idea which hasn't met with consensus from the academic community, WP:FRINGE and WP:Undue weight could be applicable. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in his work,why not write an article on him also--he would certainly seem to qualify for notability under WP:PROF--given his 11 books from excellent publishers. DGG (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I might just do that when time permits. Thanks for the suggestion. Low Sea (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Mensans

At the List of Mensans, I've provided what I believe are three very solid reliable sources: an article from the online version of the Sydney Morning Herald [44], a reprint of an Orlando Sentinel article (from the American Mensa website, noted there are a reprint and credited) [45], and an entertainment section article from CBS News online [46]. These sources all state that Jodie Foster is a member of Mensa. However, another editor insists that another source overrides all of these. This is a (mostly) Italian-language video from RAI, in which Foster apparently states that she isn't a member of Mensa [47]. The interview is almost entirely in Italian; Foster does speak in English for much of it, however this is mixed way down and an Italian language overdub obscures it. The video is extremely long and there is no specific indication of exactly when she makes this statement. So, are the first three references considered reliable and do they satisfy WP:V? And does the RAI source also satisfy the requirement and trump the first three? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From your description, I'd say Yes, are generally considered RS; Yes, satisfy; No, probably not considered reliable (though it might be if Foster's remark can be isolated (by timestamp?) and verified; No, does not trump the others, but should be reported alongside conflicting sources if verifiable (e.g., these generally reliable sources report,^cites but she denies.^cite). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008

I listened to the RAI clip, and the Mensa question comes up about 20% into the clip, following an exchange about whether she was a child prodigy. The entire Foster interview takes up less than the first half of the clip. The interviewer brings it up and she replies, "no, people say that but it's not true", and "no, it's not true". During the translation, she says something like "I looked online for Mensa, ...", but at that point her audio is mixed down to inaudibility. The final sentence at Jodie Foster#Personal life could be cloned as a remark in the Foster entry in List of Mensans. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

a couple of clarifications regarding the reporting user's claims: 1. the 'orlando sentinel' "reprint" is unfortunately unverifiable. it claims to be a reprint, and it may be, but the site this ostensible reprint is published upon is not a RS. it is not, as claimed, 'the American Mensa website', it is a subpage for a local chapter of mensa. conflating this apparently user-maintained site with the American Mensa website is faulty. it barely rises above a blog in reliability. the video of jodie foster stating that jodie foster is not a member of mensa seems entirely incontrovertible to me. absent a genuinely reliable source - that being the American Mensa organization either confirming or denying her membership, rather than entertainment/celebrity news sites doing little more than mimicking what they likely read right here on wikipedia; and absent some evidence that would suggest that ms. foster is lying - i believe video evidence of the party in question stating that the party in question is not a member certainly trumps these other, less reliable sources. if someone can find the actual orlando sentinel article, that would help, though that article really barely rises above a commentary piece in its own right - it provides no establishing evidence other than that writer's claim. Anastrophe (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The only question which comes to mind to me is the timing of the various sources. If it somehow could be the case that the Italian interview (which I, not knowing Italian, can't really understand) is older than the other sources, then it could be the case that she joined after the interview. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

the interview took place only within the last couple of months or so. the orlando sentinel reprint claims it's from 2005. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so lets forget the Orlando Sentinel article altogether for a second. What about the Sydney Morning Herald or CBS News? These are directly from their own websites. Now, taking the Sentinel article back into consideration, we frequently (and accurately) cite hardcopy news articles. What if I had just cited the Sentinel article as hardcopy rather than as a reprint from a different website? It seems the cruz of the matter here is regarding the fact that the Sentinel article was reprinted on a Mensa webpage, but is not taking into consideration that that article had to have come from the newspaper at one time and that we have two other directly-sourced references? (The Sydney Morning Herald article is from June 4th of this year, FYI). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this qualifies, but I'm a member of Mensa, and I just logged in to their membership-only area and queried their complete member directory. There's lots of Fosters but Jodie is not among them. Would their own membership directory be considered a reliable source? It does not appear that members may ask not to be listed. They state: "As per the Constitution of Mensa, members must 'permit their names and addresses to be published in duly authorized listings.' Mensa International, Ltd. defines name and address to include name, city and state for listing purposes." Antandrus (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The directory is only for current members. Maybe she had stopped her membership by the time of the italian interview --Enric Naval (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

shortly after she says "it's not true" that she's a member of mensa, she says that she went online to the mensa site and looked at the test they provide, and couldn't answer any of the questions. that would seem to suggest that she's never been a member. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. Here we have the subject herself clearly saying she is not a member of Mensa (at 4m 23s) and we can't even use that because it is supposedly inaudible or in a foreign language? She's speaking in English and you can clearly hear what she says. A user has even provided a transcription on the Jodie Foster Talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is insane. we have "news sources" (which have become notably lazy about vetting facts in the internet age) parroting what they've read online - probably, what they read at Jodie Foster. this creates faux WP:V instances on the net. never mind that they're entertainment/gossip pages, which for the most part are not considered WP:RS. the original citation that started this is the "reprint" of an article from the orlando sentinel. unfortunately - and for reasons that seem obscure to me - that article, published only three years ago - is not available at the orlando sentinel website, but is 'helpfully' available at a user-managed site for a mensa subchapter. that has no WP:V, as a user managed site is equivalent to a blog in reliability, and blogs are disallowed as sources for the most part. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i've emailed mensa asking them to make a clear statement on the matter. unfortunately, regardless of what they email back, it won't qualify as reliable, not until they publish something formally.Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in stating that these are not reliable sources? At least one person above has said they are. In any case, to avoid the continuing dramahz, I will remove her entirely from the list. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources at Taekwondo--Heo, Cook References.

We're having a lot of issues with reliable sources at Talk:Taekwondo. I'd like to get an opinion on some I feel aren't reliable and later will ask about some I feel are reliable.

In Uk Heo: I've been arguing that this [48] isn't a reliable source as no one has been able to identify whether it refers to an article, book, essay, etc., and if the paragraph given there is an abstract, review, summary, etc. Currently only what appears in that web link is being used as the source--not the underlying document. See Talk:Taekwondo#Footnote_.237_.28In_Uk_Heo.29 for more discussion.

A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo

• Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
• Author : In Uk Heo
• Date : 2004
• Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
• Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
• Keyword : Taekwondo

David Cook: I've also argued that Cook, Doug (2006), "Chapter 3: The Formative Years of Taekwondo", Traditional Taekwondo: Core Techniques, History and Philosophy. Boston: YMAA Publication Center, p. 19. ISBN 978-1594390661 [49], is not a reliable source on TKD history as it's a photo book of TKD techniques by a TKD instructor without apparent academic training. See Talk:Taekwondo#Traditional_Taekwondo:_Core_Techniques.2C_History_and_Philosophy for more links, excerpts, and discussion.

There are also several TKD web sites being used as TKD history sources despitethe fact that they conflict with independent sources (see the most recent Talk archive there), and I hope to discuss those later. Any help would be appreciated. JJL (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An academic journal of physical education from the Korean Society for (the) History of Physical Education, Sport and Dance would seem to be RS. Ideally the source would be in English, but it may not be a problem so long as Korean-speaking editors can check that it is summarised and used correctly. Any text that is not identifiable as belonging to a magazine, journal, book or fact-checked web resource is not RS. Then the Cook book. One would expect that statements about the history of Taekwondo would be sourced to someone with some background in history, although it is also relevant that the author knows the practice and presumably also some of the theory relating to this martial art. The quality of the publisher is relevant - is this a respected academic publisher? A photo book is unlikely to be reliable. A similar issue arose in relation to a Dorling Kindersley guide to homeopathy used in the article on Arsenicum album. It was a good enough source to say that the substance was used by homeopaths, but no good for any statement as to the science or efficacy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo" this academic journal is published by 'Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page'. Text is belonging to Academic journal. Manacpowers (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vedda.org

Resolved

Is Vedda org a reliable source for articles about Vedda people ?. It is run by Living Heritage Trust. Associated people are

• Patrick Harrigan
• Dr. Wiveca Stegeborn an anthropologists. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. This University of Texas book cites it, along with a couple of travel books. This chapter in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, an "illustrated reference volume [which] is both accessible to the nonspecialist and written by leading scholars" is written by Stegeborn.John Z (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources at Taekwondo--Burdick, Capener, Dohrenwend, Henning References.

I've been arguing at Talk:Taekwondo that the following are highly reliable sources, at least in comparison to other available sources which in comparison lack independence and peer-review, and that these should be given relatively greater weight. I'd appreciate feedback on that. See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Sources_on_Japanese_origins and other parts of that page for further discussion and details.

Capener: Steven D. Capener, Ph.D. (formerly a professor at Ewha Womans University, Korea), "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes"; in the (peer-reviewed, ISI--indexed) Korea Journal (Winter 1995 [50]) [51], also available here [52]. The article was written while he was completing his doctoral studies.

Burdick: Dakin Burdick, M.A., "People & Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years," volume 6, number 1 (1997) [53], in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Asian Martial Arts. The article contains a great deal of additional information. For more on JAMA see here [54], including the Library Journal recommendation of it. Expanded version of the article here [55].

Dohrenwend: Robert Dohrenwend, Ph.D., "The Truth about Taekwondo (Parts 1,2)", Dragon Times #22-23 [56] (continued in Classical Fighting Arts #1,2 [57]); excerpt here [58]. Dragon Times and its replacement Classical Fighting Arts are well-respected, serious magazines with academically-trained editorial boards. Classical Fighting Arts is endorsed by the The Library Journal [59].

Henning: Stanley Henning, M.A., "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000): On Prof. Henning's credentials and the regard in which his work is held see [60], [61], [62].

JJL (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS says,

• "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
• "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article.

According to WP:V says,

• Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties.

by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.

Point is... "Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources." "fringe theories should only be used as sources about themselves" Manacpowers (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My Answer is Here. Here is not suitable place for discuss this topic. Manacpowers (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Last, These sources are already used as source in main Article. so, it is worthless discuss at here.

At first sight all four sources appear to be scholarly. I don't see how any of them could possibly be extremist. If someone wants to argue that one or more are not scholarly then they will have to argue on the basis of standards of scholarship, i.e. showing that one of the authors has been discredited in some way or that a journal is known not to maintain proper peer review. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand what reliable sources are. A source may have a particular point of view and still be reliable. If there is another notable viewpoint, then that other viewpoint should also be presented and cited to reliable sources. You will not find a book published by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal that says that the USA is in Africa. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I already proved various counterpart sources by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal.

i already said, "However, These fringe sources are ALREADY USED as source in main Article. so, This is worthless discussion." reliable or non-reliable... this is not important. those sources are ALREADY USED IN ARTICLE. so, there is no need discussion about this.

problem is.... JJL continually rv. various user's edit. and he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. He keep a this stance, and he keep opposed counterpart academic sources.Manacpowers (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

this discussion is no need. JJL is a only one person who make this complain. Manacpowers (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You haven't said why you think that the sources the other user wishes to use are "fringe". A source can have a very strong point of view and not be fringe at all. The sources he mentioned appeared to be academic in nature - is that not your impression? Copying this exchange to the RS noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS says,

fringe is views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field

Well... His source have a serious POV problem.

Many users already mediate this topic. After that, we make conclude that it must remain as a reader's choice.

finally, We make conclusion like this,

"Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak.[6][11] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate.[12] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate.[8][9]"

I still disagree this expression. However, this is limit of moderated edit. there is no need further change.

However, JJL try to keep a 'My source are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. others are NOT' stance. i don't understand why we need discuss this? I think this discuss is no need. Manacpowers (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my edits were brought into it, I would like to point out that both users were removing sources then deleting the supported text as unsourced, effectively whole sale reverts by parts. I was trying to get neutral editors involved so felt that removal of any source, that was not obviously promotional, was not the best idea. I do not read or speak Korean so cannot judge the quality of the source, if someone from the Korean or translation projects or could have a look it might be beneficial, I'll put a link on the project pages, to here. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers: please listen to what people are saying. It is not a fringe theory that TKD was strongly influenced by Japanese martial arts, most significantly Karate (which is if you didn't know Okwanawan in origin with strong Chinese influances). That this is often officaly denied is also know, for example both views will be common knowlage to the majority of any general martial arts forum regardless of which is true. That the theory exists is NOT in debate, so please stop implying that JJL came up with it all by himslef. While his original edits (saying that TKD was entierly Japanese and that all Korean arts died out during the occupation) overstated the case supported by the sources, they do clearly show that people hold a view that was hevely influanced by Karate, and as an encyclopia should report it. Currenly you are arguing for you view of the truth, and JJL has (while no here) been synthasing a view form multiple sources. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

well. you mistake me. I do not boycott his sources. even sources are not neutral. JJL boycott my sources. this is problem. OK? however, here is not a good debate place. here is the only discuss about sources are reliabe or not. so, this debate is end.

According to Wikipedia:Fringe theories says,

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias.

Identifying fringe theories

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

1. No TKD orginization admit it. Karate POV.

for example, Authors are karate affiliated.

2. No scientific data. it is assumption and personal opinion.

3. That is not mainstream history.

4. still dispute it accurate in many way.

5. No encyclopedia say, TKD is Karate.

6. That is the very difference from Various non karate source.

I already proved that various counterpart academic source. by various sources and public trusted encyclopedia, His edit of original research by his favorites sources are identified as a depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view,conspiracy theories, no scientific data. and you must not forget, My edits supported by the various academic sources, too.Manacpowers (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not main stream in who's view? TKD practitioners? or Korean nationals? or Martial arts partitioners? or Invisible Pink Unicorn's? JUST LISTEN AND STOP QUOTING THE SAME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT POINTS People hold an opposing view (as sourced) and it should be mentioned, this explicelty dose not mean it is the only view or even true, but never the less a significant number of people hold it.

p.s. Just read this WP:Truth

/rant --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, be Civil. On the contrary, You think this can be a main stream view? fact is NO. any evidecen that "TKD is karate. This is no debate at all"? NO. please show me source. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? what? Please read WP:CIVIL. JJL dislike any sources except the ones that JJL use to support his own position. But actually I'm not. My stance is neutral. I accepted this moderated edit version, but Only JJL try to change this situation.

If you think it can be main stream view, Please bring me ANY public trusted encyclopedia source. what public trusted encyclopedia say TKD is karate? In fact, There is no encyclopedia say TKD is karate. This is a common sense. (We don't need Karate affiliated sources & no scientific data.) I can prove that my point of view is a mainstream. Manacpowers (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. could you please actually read what I wrote or if you are not sure you have understood correctly pleas ask someone else who has a better level of English. I have NEVER said that TKD is Karate, I have repeatedly said that there in existence are people who believe that, however I am not one of them. There is evidence that people believe TKD was strongly influenced by karate etc. and as there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. I am explicelty NOT saying that we should include "TKD = Karate" as a fact. I am specificaly saying we should report that these views exist. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to another mediator Omnedon said[63], "JJL seem now to be arguing simply about what sources should be allowed to be cited in the article; but it already includes the essence of your position as one possibility. However, not everyone agrees with you on that, and not all sources support your position; so it is not stated as incontrovertible fact, and other positions are also described." Manacpowers (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This discuss still going on Talk:Taekwondo. so, here is not a suitable debate place.Manacpowers (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I would like to know if the following site: [64] is a reliable source. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You might get more responses if you put up a descriptive title. Then again, maybe not. I find that source really hard to decipher, and you should let us know what you're using it for. II | (t - c) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am using it to source information in this article. JayJ47 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Tonight

Resolved

Would you say that this site, http://www.tvtonight.com.au/, is a reliable one? I know it is a blog, but note that it is "Australia's Leading TV Blog", (lol) and it does seem to be quite reliable. I am using it to source most of the information here: Underbelly (TV series), and this issue is stopping it from becoming a GA. Please help! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)‎

From a brief look at the article, it seems that the TV series was a very important one and it had an impact on public discussion in Australia. In these circumstances it is quite problematic sourcing most of the article to a blog even if it "seems" to be reliable. There should be better sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have said "seems", lol. Do you think that it would be okay if I could leave some of the links? I will try to find alternate sources, but if I can't, can I use the TV Tonight link if there is no possible alternative? Remember, if you have nothing positive to say, it is better to not say it at all. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on one of the links to tvtonight and it said at the foot of the page "Source Herald Sun". Check out as far as you can where the info on tvtonight comes from. It must have come from somewhere! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!! Good news. That will make my job much, much easier. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

request clarification re verifying of references

It seems to me that a source that can't be verified by current editors should be removed or perhaps placed on the talk page with a request for verification.

I'm posting this to request clarification. This is a general question, not about a particular instance.

What's the recommended way to handle references that are difficult or impossible to verify?

This can come about in various ways. Examples:

• an out of print book that's not scanned in Google Books and is rare or otherwise hard to find
• scholarly studies that have URLs, but only to abstracts and require payment for the full text
• newspaper or magazine articles that are too old or too obscure to be archived online and might or might not be available in libraries

When a source like those is added by a current editor, the editor can provide a quote on the talk page or other assurance that it's been verified. If the editor is trusted, that resolves the concern.

But what about situations where the un-verifiable source was added long ago by an editor who is not currently active? Should we be using sources that we are not able to confirm? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The three examples that you give are difficult to verify, but not impossible. For the first you can search to see if the book is in the Library of Congress or the British Library. If so, then you can potentially have a copy sent to your local university library for a fee. Scholarly studies are similarly available in university libraries. Many newspapers and magazines are also archived somewhere, perhaps on microfilm or microfiche. The first thing to do in a case like this is to ask on the talk page if anyone editing has access to the source. After that it might be worth posting a message on the relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proving notability of an event through latimes.com link

I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Boing_Boing#Violet_Blue_Controversy. The issue is the already notable and wikified Violet Blue seems to have been expunged from the records at Boing Boing. While this initially kicked up a flurry of posts in the blogosphere about the matter, the issue was picked up at latimes.com (albeit in their Opinion / Blog section) and was even on their front page most of yesterday.

The other editors are putting up the rather perplexing argument that sources are only notable if they are "in print". Please see the last comment by BenBurch at the Talk:Page, where he says "Yeago, respectfully, I didn't make the "in print" rule, Norquist didn't make the "in print" rule. That rule was made here long ago and underpins this whole project." I haven't read anything asserting this in my 5 years here and I'm surprised that its made so casually from someone who's been here for 4 years, BenBurch.

At any rate, does http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/06/violet-blue-scr.html do the job of presenting this issue as notable enough and worthy of mention in the related articles?Yeago (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably as Boing Boing has put up an explanation today[65] you can use that in the Boing Boing article? Would that solve the problem? Doug Weller (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Urban Review

I've come across an editor who has continually added material from Urban Review, which appears to me to be a self-published, albeit clean, blog (although I don't know if this particular editor is the person who posts there). The editor has posted links to pages there that contain musical artists' videos, poster reviews and copied items from other webpages such as US Magazine. Is there any situation in which this blog would be an acceptable source that I don't know about? I've removed the references to these pages and posted two notes on the editor's page about the videos, and now one about the other sources. Am I correct to assume this is not an acceptable source? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs can be reliable as to statements of the bloggers opinion... but that leads to the question: is their opinion notable and reliable? If the blogger is a noted expert in their field, their opinion on things related to the subject of their expertize is notable, and probably reliable... so their blog can be considered reliable as to statements about their opinion. But most bloggers are not experts, and their opinions are neither notable nor reliable. In your case, I don't see any indication as to who this blogger is. There is no indication that the author is reguarded as an expert. Thus, we have to consider the author's views as being not notable... and not reliable. The only exception to this is if the specific blog has gained notability on its own... has it won journalism awards or has it been quoted in the mainstream press? etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The key question is "Would the blogger's opinion or statement be notable if it were made somewhere other than the blog?" We see a lot of this on Television shows, where the producer might confirm some production detail on their blog. Since they are in a position to have (expert-level) knowledge about that detail, and since that confirmation would be notable if it came from an interview or elsewhere, we can cite the blog. Almost any other blog, though, wouldn't work - unless they cite a source and we track back to that source and see that it is indeed reliable itself. Even then, we'd cite that source. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Blogger reputable, by nature of a blog, the blogger will want as many people as possible to read it. so he will make every effort to at least appear reputable, yet as you mentioned, it is still an opinion. so is an opinion actually a source at all? Agungsatu (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A blog, generally, is one person writing, with little or no fact checking. The basic question comes down to this: 1) can we verify who the author is? 2) if so, is that person a reliable source for the topic at hand? So, for an article on, say, an upcoming movie, the director's blog (if verified as such) would be a reliable source for statements of the "Director John Smith says..." variety, but nothing else. Absolutely everything sourced to a blog must clearly state that it is the author, and the author alone making the statement: "Jane Jones states she was born in 1972" not "Jane Jones was born in 1972". And, if the author in question is not a meaninful authority on the specific topic (as is usually the case) the blog should not be used for anything at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Web video as source?

An editor on an article on which I'm working has identified a web video of a news report as a possible source. However, it seems to be a pirate copy (or at least there is no indication that it's an authorised copy), it's in a language I don't speak - although the uploader has added a translation as subtitles - and there's no indication of when it was broadcast. This obviously means I can't verify for myself whether the translation is accurate; it's clearly been edited by the uploader, given the addition of subtitles; and we couldn't link to it anyway because of its likely copyvio status. Does anyone think this is likely to be a reliable source? My instinct says no but I thought I would ask for some independent views. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please would you let us know which article is that and where is the video, then relatively it could be easier to tell whether or not if it is reliable source. Thank you. Gülməmməd ^Talk 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It also might be of assistance if you could at least tell us what language it might be. This would prevent editors from wasting time if they do not speak the language and would prompt multi-lingual editors that are proficient to examine it. Agungsatu (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Soy milk

There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it makes an substantial controversy makes an impact on those who are accustom to making purchases of a particular product. and therefore I believe it should be included. while soy milk may not determine the course of nations, it is related to the health movement and important enough to a large group of people. Agungsatu (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

leadership gurus

I am posting this to determine if a site that ranks professionals who have guru status by "he criteria for judging the TOP 30 focused on: Originality of ideas, practicality of ideas, presentation style, international outlook, impact of ideas, quality of publications and writings, dispersion of publications and writings, public opinion, guru factor."

there are 2 things that are wrong with the site. one, it has google ads, and 2 part of the ranking is done by the public.

the question is: since most of the gurus ranked on the site are also on wikipedia, should there guru awards be a part of their biographies?

there are 2 categories, leadership and communication

please refer to http://www.leadershipgurus.net and http://communicationgurus.net

Hotmarcie (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some backstory to the question can be seen here. –xenocidic (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had to deal with this issue as well on several occasions. The links tend to get spammed across a series of pages, but the sites don't appear to warrant inclusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My boss was part of this survey last year, and he is pretty credible as the MD on Nestle Malaysia. Personally I find the site ok, not a great design but seems to have credible content specifically with the gurus list and my personal encounter with the original research. I also believe that would be the main draw. The rest seems like filler.

on another note, I cannot help but notice that Ckatz is not following the Wiki-guidelines of "assume good intentions", and has already labled this a "spamming" - perhaps a bit more objectivity would be in order. Agungsatu (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute Egyptology website - ok or not? (and link to UK universities' guide on web resources)

This[66] is the website of an amateur Egyptologist. I really don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source or not. In trying to decide I ran into INTUTE [67] "is a free online service providing you with access to the very best Web resources for education and research. The service is created by a network of UK universities and partners. Subject specialists select and evaluate the websites in our database and write high quality descriptions of the resources." Now that looks really useful as a guide. But, for this site, it says [68]"Absolute Egyptology is a site that is focussed on ancient Egyptian history. It contains sections with articles about the different dynasties and kings of ancient Egypt. The articles are fairly extensive and illustrated with images and drawings. There is a virtual tour of the mastaba at Beit Khallaf in Middle Egypt. Although the site is hosted by a commercial company that designs websites it is obviously a labour of love by the Swedish amateur Egyptologist Ottar Vendel. The site is easy to navigate and pleasant to look at and although the articles have no references the information is balanced and to the point. This site is a good introduction to Egyptology and especially ancient Egyptian history for students and anyone interested in the subject." It sounds like a nice site to me, but maybe not really good enough for Wikipedia. I'd like other people's opinions. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

this is obviously someone who has done their research, and done it well. The site seem to be filled with very useful and interesting information and I personally think it is a very credible source. Agungsatu (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Did a little checking of it a while ago, but didn't see much beyond Doug's research. It would be nice if it gave references, but the INTUTE description is a real plus. It doesn't seem to say anything controversial or contentious, and as they say, seems to be a good introduction. So I'd say it is good enough for many purposes. Maybe not for something contentious, unclear or hard to understand, and not for BLP (Biography of Living Pharaohs) purposes.John Z (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Is the Quackwatch website a reliable source for the numbers of advisers to the organisation? More eyes on sourcing generally on this article and helping to call a stop to edit warring would be very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to look at WP:Undue on this issue. Few articles at WP tout "numbers of advisors to the organisation" unless it's to diminish or bolster the rep of the organization to resolve a content dispute between editors. It could be important to address the question directly in such disputes, but self reported numbers for such info on a webpage arguably would have less credibility than self reports in sworn testimony, for example. Attribute these numbers and you've covered it more adequately. "The Quackwatch website reports they have such and such" for example. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Kenrockwell.com

This site seems to be used as a reference in many articles. This quote "Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day." from the about page suggests it is not reliable. I am inclined to remove all of these links when used as factual references. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolfgang Schreyer‎

A quote about aerial bombing, circling the internet and attributed to East German author Wolfgang Schreyer‎, is used as source in several articles like Bombing of Frampol, Area bombardment. Its recent addition to Strategic bombing during World War II led to editwarring. Is this author, and especially "Augen am Himmel: Eine Piratenchronik" (aka "Eyes from the sky"), a reliable source? Can the quote be sourced in any way at all? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the book in question fiction, not fact? In any case, bombing of Frampol is mentioned in other sources ([69], [70]), so there should be little problem with using a more reliable ref if this is questionable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Schreyer apparently wrote only fiction. Also, the quote contains obvious Germanisms like "from second side" which surely was "andererseits" in German, which is usually translated to "on the other hand". This means the translation is amateurish, and taken out of context. Besides, Google Books does not know any "bombing of frampol", the simpler bombing frampol yields countless hits for a short story "The Little Shoemakers" by Isaac Bashevis Singer ((Abba) believes that the day of the Messiah is near and actually does mistake Nazi planes bombing Frampol for His arrival), while bombing frampol 1939 yields only some Polish works. So a lot of storytelling, but no RS yet. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Polish sources confirm that bombing took place and obliterated a defenseless town. We seem to lack any good English sources, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This query is about whether the works of Wolfgang Schreyer are considered a Reliable source for Wikipedia or not. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that they are. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How could fictional works be a reliable source? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight Information Archive

I am trying to get an article (No Such Thing as Vampires) to FA status, but one user said that I had an unreliable ref. The site, Moonlight Information Archive, is a fan site for the show Moonlight, so it is not considered to be reliable, but what I am sourcing is an interview. The interview is with the series creator, and is one of the best interviews out there. I think that an interview is an interview, and even though the interview was with an unreliable website, the series creator still said those words. Thanks for your help - Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone there??? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

??? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic

Resolved

Is The Futon Critic considered to be reliable? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have two links, http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=7279 and http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=7318, this is for Moonlight, and it states the source websites, but I cannot find the original info. Any ideas? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You could search on the futoncritic site, but how reliable is that site anyway? Its news seems to be of the "breaking news" variety that is written up from the press releases of (in this case) TV production companies. It might quite often be right, but if a story is important it will be picked up later by the mainstream press. Take care not to use pure gossip ("friends said"... "an insider revealed"...) stories off such a website. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's just that I'm using those sites to source some information here No Such Thing as Vampires. Can you please check the information out, the first paragraph of the production section, to see if the sources are okay? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reliable for uncontroversial facts. There are people here with more expertise on good sourcing for media-related articles who may be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people consider it reliable, and others do not. I haven't seen anything that declares it totally reliable or unreliable yet. It's one of the many facets of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). You might ask there if you want definitive answers on the matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through some of the cites to FC in the Moonlight article, and they seem fine to me. As far as notability, we're not using a mention in FC to establish notability for the episode ( the article has dozens of footnotes to a wide variety of sources ), but to reference some details about the production of the show. FC seems to be a very fine source for that sort of thing ( as well as reviews ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheylanli

I wonder if you could have a look at the article Sheylanli. I believe that the sources for that article are all unreliable and there is a very persistance user who keeps insisting that the sources remain and that no tags requesting better sources be added to the article. To summarize the problem I see with the sources in the article:

http://azerbaijanfoundation.org/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0114&n=000535&prev=yes is being used to show that the village is a Kurdish village. My concern is that it is an Azerbaijani propaganda site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/07/eu http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=324193&apc_state=henh http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm#822 Are being used to show that the Armenian military controls the region when http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm#822 clearly says that it's the local ethnic Armenians in the region

http://www.worldcitydb.com/lachinskiy_in_azerbaijan_state.html is being used to show the distance from Azerbaijan's captal Baku. No where on that site does it state the distance from Azerbaijan's captal. It does not to be a seem reliable to me.

http://www.maplandia.com/azerbaijan/azerbaydzhan-territor/seylanli/ is being used to show the geographic coordinates. It does not seem to be a reliable source to me.

Sharafnameh, Moscow, 1967, page 370, in Russian http://www.pan-iranism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1218 are being used to give the history of the village. It is a web forum.

'A. Alekberov “Esseys on the study of Kurdish culture” in Russian, Baku 1936, page 40-62' is being used to give a history of the village. This does not seem a reliable source to me.

http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/anti-terror/ater21eng.htm http://www.bvahan.com/ArmenianWay/AW/Eng/provinces/kashatagh/sheylani.html Are being used to give the history and some historical monuments of the village. They don't seem like reliable sources to me. The first seems like an Azerbaijani propaganda site.

Please advise. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll address answers to above issues with the same order:

In the article's talk page I justified that why the first source is not Azerbaijani propaganda site at least from point of view of the content of the fact that is given in the article.

But two other sources, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/07/eu and http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=324193&apc_state=henh clearly state what is written in the article. The source you brought here shows general concern of the U.S. Department of State.

Why? Give reasons.

If I could, I would send you the book Sharafnameh to convince you by the fact.

Then please find original of the reference to convince yourself rather than reporting here.

Why don't you think the second is not a propaganda site while both of them supports the fact? Because it is an Armenian site?

Summary: In very early times you teamed up with unknown IP's for edit warring on the same artilce and for violation of the 3RR (I didn't know by that time) you got me blocked. To stop the article form vandalism of anons, I got the article semi-protected. After that you started to vandalize article by your own and got warned here. More recently I saw newly created account started repeating your actions and I welcomed. Now what are you going to do by this report. Please stop edit warring on mentioned article and do some other useful edits rather than putting all your efforts on this article, which is about a very small administrative devision. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, to simplify matters, let's discuss one source at a time.

• Lets start with the images in the article that claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli. Where is the sources for that. The image says that it was taken by the articles creator. I think this is a clear case of self publishing and original research. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  Where does it claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli? Please reread the caption, it says Takhta Korpu Lachin winter pastures . If you wish to see the location on the Google Earth, here are the coordinates: 40°08′05″N 47°35′20″E. Please make sure to look at refugee camps in the same area as well, coordinates of some refugee camps are 40°05′38″N 47°31′52″E, 40°08′20″N 47°31′04″E (note the wight long "building" which is in the first image). Most of refugees from Lachin have been settled in winter pastures in that area which are not officially referred as refugee camps but graves of live people. I hope this will help to clear up things. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To ask a more abstract question about original images. How could we verify that this picture isn't just taken in my back yard? Merzul (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is very easy, who wants to make sure can come to see your back yard if you don't mind:). On serious notes, this discussion hasn't been opened on those images as you can see above and actually those images don't give so much importance to the article. But as a uploader of those images I convince you that they are not fake. They are accepted images in Google Earth and can be found here 40°08′05″N 47°35′20″E. Gülməmməd ^Talk 19:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that the images should be removed from the article as "trust me they're not fake" generally doesn't constitute a reliably sourced image? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do they violate neutrality of the article or what? By reliable sources for images what do you mean? Do these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] have sources which you are after? I'd stress on the first [1] image which clearly made in photoshop and pushed into article as a historical image. There are thousands of similar images that one can mention.
If you wish, let us move on to discuss other issues related to the article. Gülməmməd ^Talk 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid response to an unsourced image. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, you guys could wait until someone looks into this. Unfortunately, this disputes seems a bit too complicated for me; hopefully someone will look into this soon enough. Until then, stay cool... meanwhile I'll check my back yard to make sure those pictures weren't taken there. ;) Merzul (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Various sources have been questioned simultaneously. I have looked at the article and cannot see that any of them are reliable. The burden is on the person who wants the material to be included to show that the source is reliable. We can comment here source by source. Which one should we deal with first? "Propaganda sites" may not be an adequate description but "advocacy sites" are unlikely to be suitable sources in this case. The Guardian clearly is a reliable source, but it does not seem to have said anything at all about the subject of this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian says: "...Armenian forces occupied the mountainous region within Azerbaijan..." which clearly supports the given fact because Lachin is in that mountainous region so is the village. Gülməmməd ^Talk 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the entire Caucasus is mountainous. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the article get temporarily stubbed and that we discuss here each source for inclusion one at a time before adding it to the article.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm questioning whether the article could even be stubbed as it's difficult to find anything reliable that this village even exists. This is all that a google search can yield. Would an AFD be appropriate in this situation? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Before going ahead please first answer all my questions those I addressed above.

1. Where does it claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli?
2. And important one about images.
   Then continue the discussion with questions those you opened RSN for the article. Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Do you even have a single reliable source that this village even exists? We're not even getting into whether or not it is notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the village exists (or existed). It is mentioned in Karapetian's book "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the region of Karabagh" as a Kurdish village which has lost its historical name and whose inhabitants, along with the inhabitants of a nearby village (Katos), spoke Kurdish when he visited the place in 1985. The "several historical, cultural and architectural monuments" are a ruined Armenian monastery near Katos and its medieval graveyard which was destroyed between 1989 and 1992 when under Azeri occupation. Meowy 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Meowy, you are right the village existed since it was destroyed during the NK war. I have also read Karapetian's book and there the author introduces new names, Armenian version of all names of villages in Lachin. The author approximates the name of village Katos to be something in Armenian language like Gutuz. However, according to kurdish historian Shamil Askerov and many other Azerbaijani scholars who did research on the names of kurdish villages in Azerbaijan (published in Azerbaijani), the name Katos doesn't have any relation with what is said to be Gutuz. The name Katos in Kurmanji means Land of potatoes. The story behind is that in the late 18th century people from Sheylanli realized that there was a land close by Sheylanli (about 15 km to the southeast of the village) which was very productive for potatoes and a couple of families decided to settle in that place which later named as Katos -- Land of potatoes. That was the starting point of the history of Katos referred as historical Gutuz by Armenians.
Regarding the Armenian monasteries in Azerbaijan, before Islam in Caucasian Albania, where is now modern Azerbaijan, the religion was Christianity. Since later the religion in Azerbaijan was changed to Islam, now Christian Armenians claim everything that has sign of Christianity, historically to be belong them which is obviously not true as one you mentioned above ...Armenian monastery near Katos....
And the last part of your comment, Lachin, and so villages in Lachin, was Azerbaijani region and occupied by Armenian. Above you are saying "under Azeri occupation" which is obviously propaganda according to the followings:

“ Karabakh Armenian forces broke through to Armenia at the Azerbaijani town of Lachin, creating the so-called Lachin corridor. At Lachin, roughly ten kilometers separates Armenia from Karabakh. -- Human Rights Watch. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. 1994. ISBN:1564321428.

The biggest wave of IDPs came in 1993 as Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh, with support from the Republic of Armenia, forced out the Azeri civilian population successively from seven provinces (Lachin, Kelbajar, Agdam, Fizuli, Jibrail, Qubatli and Zangelan) adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. -- Roberta Cohen, Francis Mading Deng. The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced. 1998. ISBN:0815715145.

”

Gülməmməd ^Talk 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the region of Karabagh" a reliable source (not a rhetorical question)? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. But since both Azerbaijani sources (sited by Gulmammad) and Armenian sources (sited by Meowy and also those included in the article such as this: [71]) agree that the village of Sheylanli exists and it used to have a Kurdish population, I don't see what the problem is here. Is it actually disputed that the village exists or what? And also, we have many sources that Armenia is occupying the region. So what is actually the problem here? What is being disputed? Grandmaster (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the sources are unreliable but we should accept them anyway? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From where you understand this? Point to it by bringing quotation. Gülməmməd ^Talk 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added dubious and fact tags to all the unreliably sourced passages in this article. I'll give it some time for the author(s) to properly source these passages, after which they will be removed if they are not properly sourced. No need to keep beating a dead horse, either there are reliable sources for the passages or there aren't. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "ruin" the articles. We can't provide one reference for each word that we use in the article. The references are more than article itself. You are judging the articles from your personal point of view as you did here. You need to consider the point of view of the whole community not only your own point of view. Besides, what do you suggest to improve them? You keep saying delete. Whether you believe or not both articles are notable and well sourced. Gülməmməd ^Talk 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should provide proper sources. If you've taken a picture of something that looks like a shed in someones backyard and you are claiming it is a home of a former Sheylanite then you should provide evidence for this. Anything that is not properly sited will be removed. Let me know how much time you require. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately wikipedia doesn't operated according your wishes. Your disruptive point of view about the articles is very clear from here: Currently 9 users says keep with rational reasons, one says weak delete and another strong delete without any reasonable reason. Gülməmməd ^Talk 05:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

According to you then, starting an AFD where you get more keeps than deletes is in your definition being disruptive. The fact that you would respond to my request for reliable sources this way indicates that you are just stonewalling. The pictures come off because you don't have sources for them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, you are trying to get ride of these both articles by any means. If it hadn't been so, it wouldn't have been this. Please give up these attempts and do some other useful edits. Those articles are not my property and I don't have to defend them from your attacks. They are notable enough and so deserve to be on Wikipedia. Gülməmməd ^Talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus on an AFD means that there is no consensus to keep or delete. It doesn't mean that the sources in the article are OK. Seriously instead of reverting back in unreliably sourced information, why don't you get images that are sourced and use some of the sources that are reliable? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Related but different article Sheylan, more reinsertion of unreliable sources

In a related article please see Sheylan (not to be confused with Sheylanli). user:Gulmammad has just reinserted a blog as a source. I'm really finding all of this incredibly frustrating. So much time and energy needs to be expended just to ensure that reliable sources need to be used. It is very frustrating that admins will tar both sides in this dispute with the same brush regardless of whether one side is tendentiously adding unreliable sources and the other is trying to build an encyclopedia with reliable sources. The way that this should be dealt with is that readdition of unreliable sources should be treated like vandalism. Sorry for the rant but I'm finding this really frustrating. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all be best served by focusing the discussion on A: What sources are available, and B: How reliable are they? Could both sides here please respond below, listing the sources they know to exist and their views on why those sources are or are not reliable? I think for now it would be best if we would forego engaging in debate, that can come later, let's first get a good synopsis of where things stand. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just quick response to Pocopocopocopoco's last comment. It appears that you are just edit warring on these articles because I have been working on them. Here I clearly pointed out that there is an article that has only one source which is a blog. If you are not edit warring and trying to build an encyclopedia with reliable sources why didn't you mention it here?

I completely agree with Seraphimblade but since you are one who is unsatisfied with sources, please first point out clearly why do you think sources are not reliable for a given fact. Then I'll respond. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Answer Seraphims question above. I did a google search for both Sheylanli and for Seylanli (possibly the Azerbaijani spelling of the village if the village even exists) and could not find a single reliable source. I found some maplandia.com type user created maps I also found blogs and the advocacy/propaganda sites that Gulmammad has been using. These are not reliable sources because they don't undergo any type of verification or editorial review and might also be considered extremist sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that the article starts with "Sheylanli (Azerbaijani: Şeylanlı)". For Şeylanlı Google gives 499 results one of which is this. Now do you believe that village is exist? Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you discuss the notability question first. Why not try and bring in some editors who are interested in improving the coverage of Geography topics? The purpose of this noticeboard is to advise on sources. Unless the questions are rephrased the only answer you are likely to have from this noticeboard is that The Guardian is reliable and the other sources mentioned do not seem to be. If someone would like to propose another source for more detailed consideration then I am sure that editors here will be pleased to discuss it. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a source that the village is occupied by Armenia? It is pretty obvious. CIA World Factbook says: Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; [72] Lachin district of Azerbaijan, where the village is located, is one of those regions occupied by Armenia. I don't see here any issue that is worth lengthy discussion, the fact is pretty obvious. --Grandmaster (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a source for most things. CIA World Factbook is a good one but from what you have said above it does not explictly say that this district is one of the ones occupied. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need sources for obvious facts. Just take a look at the map, Lachin is right between Armenia and Karabakh, and Azeri and Kurdish populated areas in between are all occupied. But if the source is needed, please see below:

Karabakh Armenian forces broke through to Armenia at the Azerbaijani town of Lachin, creating the so-called Lachin corridor. At Lachin, roughly ten kilometers separates Armenia from Karabakh

Human Rights Watch. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. 1994. ISBN:1564321428

Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one:

The biggest wave of IDPs came in 1993 as Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh, with support from the Republic of Armenia, forced out the Azeri civilian population successively from seven provinces (Lachin, Kelbajar, Agdam, Fizuli, Jibrail, Qubatli and Zangelan) adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Roberta Cohen, Francis Mading Deng. The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced. 1998. ISBN:0815715145

This one lists all the districts of Azerbaijan, occupied by Armenian forces. I hope this resolves the problem. Grandmaster (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is useless since I have responded all his previous claims and he always appeared with new ones. This user is edit warrior and does all these because he wasn't able to push unrealistic materials into the article. Above he claims that he doesn't believe that the village exist, if it is so, then I invite you to see this edit. I am questioning; A person who doesn't believe that the village is exist would does the following edit "...and serves as part of the crucial Lachin corridor that connects Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic "?
This shows he is an edit warrior and rationally proves what I said above.
It's very frustrating to deal with claims of this user and suggest to close the discussion as it appears to be useless. Gülməmməd ^Talk 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, I think the best way is for Sheylanli and Sheylan to be stubbed and for the sources to be discussed in this noticeboard before adding them. I'm sure that a discussion of notability would also be prudent but right now the article contains only unreliable sources and I presume we don't want that in wikipedia so they should be removed. I also believe the article should be edit protected after stubbing and that new material be added using the edit protected request template (I forget the official name of it). Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I still am having a difficult time following this discussion, as, I imagine, are many here. Might it be possible for both of you to restrict your comments to content matters, such as sources and article material, and refrain from commenting on one another? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim, to summarize the discussion above. Sheylanli has 3 sources that could be considered reliable (guardian.co.uk,iwpr.net,state.gov) but they do not refer directly to the subject matter and they also do not back up what is being written in the article. The rest of the sources in Sheylanli are unreliable. Sheylan has no reliable sources. Both articles make heavy use of newsgroup forums and blogs for their information. Sheylanli also has a couple photos that were taken by the author of the article and there is no way to determine if the photos are what they claim to be. The author of the article simply says "Trust me, it's not fake". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion on one format which you have started with in the very beginning and please don't try to change it once your question answered. Before moving on, I want to make clear two points about your question right above my previous comment; There, you asked you didn't believe that the village did exist and I answered. Now do you believe that it does exist? And a contraversal question: Assume I believe you wanted to build encyclopedia with reliable sources and needed reliable source to believe the village did exist. Then what was your source when you did one of your very early edits to the article saying "...and serves as part of the crucial Lachin corridor that connects Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic "?
Regarding your other questions, please address them in a clear way such as first give the facts which have been "pushed" into the article and "unreliable" sources which support them and why do you think they are unreliable sources from the point of view of the fact.
Also, you have been questioning for the sources of images. You might have been right in that but I asked you to let me know if these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] images have sources which you are after? I'd stress on the first [1] image which clearly made in photoshop and pushed into many articles as a historical image. Clearly mentioned images don't make any difference with [this] one. There are thousands of similar images that one can mention. However, as I already told you above, these are accepted images in Google Earth 40°08′05″N 47°35′20″E. Please respond to my entire comment before moving on. Thank you. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion with the author of the articles is obviously a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with regard to reliable sources. I ask the admins following this thread to act on my proposal to stub and protect the article and we can add later expand the article by discussing sources on this noticeboard. If anyone has any other suggestions please post them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point you completely confused me; please can you bring a complete quote from here WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that best fits this situation and supports your point of view? I'd also would like to ask Seraphimblade related to this as I might misunderstood it. Please continue discussion and answer my questions above as they arose while answering your questions. Otherwise tags should be lifted from the articles.Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim asked that we discuss the article and not each other but since you asked, basically I see you as stonewalling on the issue of reliable sources. Many people have said that the article doesn't have reliable source but you keep bringing up irrelevant stuff in response such as pictures of Armenians from centuries ago and images of Toronto from a century ago and some African article. How is any of that relevant to reliable sources of the articles in question? If the sources are unreliable they should and will be removed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions, instead when question was asked you changed the topic. You said you didn't believe those images to be realistic, because they didn't have reliable sources.Then I brought many counter examples to show you that this practice is widely accepted in Wikipedia and your claims are not constructive which based on violation of NPOV as could be seen from your edits to the article 1 and 2 without any sources. Once you couldn't place those unrealistic (because the village is very far from what is called Lachin corridor not as you said "crucial part of LC") information in the article and your "puppets", anons and Sevan79, have been disabled by semi-protection of the article, you brought discussion here and claimed that village didn't exist. This is why, I don't think any reliable source can make you happy on this issue. Gülməmməd ^Talk 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough, please discuss the issue of reliable sources in the article. Sheylan has two quotes, one of them is a blog, the other is "Esseys on the study of Kurdish culture" which is not a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source for this article? If not, I am going to put it up for deletion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Sheylanli tribe (né Sheylan) for deletion. If you wish to participate in the deletion debate please post here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Request verification of new sources in the above articles

Could someone confirm whether these sources are reliable and whether they say what they claim to say in the article:

• Sovetskaya Etnografiya ("Soviet Ethnography"), No. 5-6: 1932, pp. 125-135. There is a claim that they are referred to as Шейланы (Sheylany) in this article and there is a claim that there are pictures from the Sheylanli village in that journal
• Alesker Alekperov’s Studies in Archaeology and Ethnography of Azerbaijan (a monograph in Russian; Baku, 1960), there is a claim that this article lists the Sheylanli among other Kurdish clans such as Babaly, Sultanly, Kullukhchi, etc (p. 143).
• Tatiana Aristova in her Transcaucasian Kurds (also in Russian; Moscow, 1966) there is a claim that this article lists Sheylanli among the poorest Kurdish communities of Azerbaijan and places it, along with Zerty and Minkend, in the Lachin district (p. 54). There is a claim that there is also a list of the Kurdish family names found in Sheylanli there (ibid, p. 48). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See this or check the article. If you don't believe, then on the right side of the screen there is a link saying "Find this book in a library" click there and go to see the book in the closest library to you. Is this okay for you? I won't waste my time to search instead of you regarding two other sources -- please do by yourself. Here is the link. Gülməmməd ^Talk 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article. The journal is avalable in most of libraries as a microfilm. If you wan't, I can send you images of pages. Since I don't know the copyright status, I can't upload them here. Gülməmməd ^Talk 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1932 is too early a source to be reliable in my opinion. It reminds me of the way that ethnographic writing from the British Raj is sometimes used to back claims about present-day Indian social groups. The 1960s is different, as the Soviet Union was known for scholarly classification of ethnic groups. Obviously all three sources you mention would be very hard to obtain and verify, and they are in Russian, when English-language sources are preferred. Was there an overview of ethnic groups published in the 1970s or 1980s, or anything in the post-Soviet period? What about reports from international human rights organisations? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any rule that too early sources are not reliable? Here might help you to get answers for your questions. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Gulmammad, you've shown that works with these titles exist. Now who can verify that the above claims are made in these works? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)