Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

In Context News Story Quote vs. Out of Context Opinion Piece Quote

Regarding this diff in Gilad Atzmon (who complain about defamation in an OTRS: Which is a more reliable source (not to mention NPOV) for the following quote:

• The original, in context use which was in the news article for more than six months, According to Martin Gibson, Atzmon denies he is an antisemite but does blame “Jewish ideology” for Israel’s “brutality” against the Palestinians, saying “I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.” REF: Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, Gisborne Herald, January 23, 2009.

• Or this no context, negative polemical opinion use, in an article where the author fails to tell readers that Atzmon was on the same panel as he was in the debate where Atzmon allegedly made the comment: Journalist Nick Cohen compared him to members of the far right with a paranoid mentality, after Atzmon told the Oxford Literary Festival that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"..." REF:Cohen, Nick. The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer, The Observer, June 14, 2009.

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nick Cohen opinion piece should not be used. Why would anyone care what Cohen thinks? There are a lot of modern "journalists" who use exaggerated language and while it is entertaining it is not objective analysis. However, while the Gisborne Herald article is written from a neutral point of view, the newspaper is too minor and too far removed from the story to be appropriate. It has a circulation below 9,000 making it a minor newspaper even in New Zealand. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cohen's Analysis is from a notable journalist, in an extremely notable paper. In addition, every other editor working on the article agrees it should be included, the only editor who wants it removed is Carolmoore. Drsmoo (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The in context Gibson quote was there for more than six months including when a number of editors were working on the article. Just because editors have not said "do not remove it" doesn't mean they agree with you on this issue. And even if 2 or 3 editors want it in, consensus of editors can't override policy, especially in a BLP where the subject has complained about defamation in an OTRS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I added the Gibson quote, to great protest from you. The quote from the far more notable Guardian (far from a Sunday paper as you claimed) was added by Myself, Hipocrite, and SlimVirgin. Drsmoo (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you don't have a diff to prove a point. My issue is always CONTEXT. Please note to any NPOV editors out there that I work on a variety of articles and BLPs - Drsmoo over the last year has almost exclusively edited this article repeatedly adding poorly sourced and negative information that so twisted the article it triggered an OTRS by Atzmon himself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If have to dig it up to prove it I will. Not worth the effort at the moment. I just find it funny that you go on noticeboards asking for help with the article, and then completely rewrite everyone's edits. I don't think any admins are going to find problems with the article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual you are throwing up a lot of false and/or exaggerated accusations to confuse and muddle people to deflect them from the real issue, whether it be your edit warring 3RR the other day or the issue of this thread. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Did you not start this discussion on this noticeboard, AND the Administrator's noticeboard, AND the Reliable Sources talk page AND the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, AND the Israel Palestine Collaboration noticeboard. None of whom have sided with you, in fact, when editors do come to work on the article, you completely revert their changes. Because supposedly every edit is "defaming" the subject. Drsmoo (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is your specific edits against policy, like twisting these quotes. You like to throw up a smoke screen of accusations rather than deal with issues. Please note, one is told in a situation of edit warring to seek help, either on general issues or specific ones. Pardon me for doing so instead of just edit warring.CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Um no, every editor on the article supports my edits and disagrees with you. You then go to a noticeboard and ask them to ban me, they completely ignore you, so you go to another, they also ignore you, and on and on and on. As it is, the article is fine. Drsmoo (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A contextual quote from Atzmon would be something like "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I’m not an anti-Semite. I’ve got nothing against the Semite people, I don’t have anything against people - I’m anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews" (assuming it can be sourced properly). The fact that people have made enemies who seek to smear them shouldn't mean that the article treats them as an Alf Garnett character, when there is other evidence suggesting their position is complex and nuanced. The Observer quote unbalances the article. Surely Jimbo told us that Wikipedia was going to deal with this problem of smearing all critics of Israel? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

physical neural network

I removed a section from this new article on the grounds that it is based entirely on a patent application; an IP has reverted my edit without edit summary. Since I have a policy against one-vs-one revert warring, could I ask for input from others? Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The archives have a number of posts about patent apps. You might like this one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'm well aware that patent applications are not good sources, I'm hoping that somebody will act on the article so that I'm not left in a one-vs-one dispute, because one-vs-one disputes are unwinnable no matter how right you are. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Patents make fine sources when writing about a particular product. On the other hand, if theyre used for debates over who invented X, that should be left to the most reliable secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hobby injection molding

Is this a reliable source for the statement: "Polyethylene (both LDPE and HDPE), polypropylene, and polystyrene (including HIPS) have all been used successfully with lever-actuated benchtop injectors." (found here)? I do not believe so, but another editor supports it (his comments can be found at Talk:Hobby injection molding#RE: Citations). There are also a couple of other references I've marked in the article that I'm unsure of their reliability. Thanks for any help. Wizard191 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references".

Claiming those four resins is a trivial claim and barely requires any specific referencing, as self-evident and non-controversial. If OTOH, someone was claiming success with glass-filled nylon, that would be quite another thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your answer, but it's to a question I didn't ask. Is the ref provided reliable? I don't think so. I agree with your POV above so much that when I removed the ref I didn't add {{cn}} (see diff) because I don't think it needs a ref, however its the other editor that is pressing for it to be included. Wizard191 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that a manufacturer of injection molding machines would be reliable as for what kinds of resins are typically used in the machines. It may not be a secondary source, but it would be reliable as either primary or selfpub by an expert. And I certainly don't want a bizarre scenario where editors are preferring facts to be unsourced than cited to a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

There's a context discussion on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) article talk page around whether or not reliable sources describe the group as (a) "pro-Israel", and (b) founded by members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The editor disputing this content stated that "I don't know where you're getting the idea that an opinion stated in a book is any more reliable than that in a website. In any case, Internet sources are always preferred." and that "An article should not be introduced by descriptions and POV assertions by sources that are not bound by neutrality. The bottom line is a POV source cannot be used as an NPOV source." So my questions are:

1. Are "internet sources... always preferred" to books?
2. Which of the following count as "POV sources" that are "not bound by neutrality", and which can and which cannot be used as reliable sources in this regard?
   • Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World: "AIPAC also has an active relationship with various elements of the executive branch of government. In this regard, in 1985 it set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli 'think tank,' that essentially served as a proxy."
   • TIME, "Still Waiting for Obama's Iran Diplomacy" by Massimo Calabresi: "Ross wants the job as described three weeks ago in a memo from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the pro-Israel think tank where Ross was based after leaving the government in 2001."
   • Contending visions of the Middle East: the history and politics of Orientalism by Zachary Lockman: "By contrast, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), founded in 1985, quickly achieved a much higher profile and much greater influence... WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Its founding director, Martin Indyk, had previously worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)..."
   • The domestic sources of American foreign policy: insights and evidence‎ by Eugene R. Wittkopf, James M. McCormick: "The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks that play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985 , when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP."
   • Left out!: How liberals helped reelect George W. Bush by Joshua Frank and Jeffrey St. Clair: "In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel."
   • Arab lobby and U.S. foreign policy by Khalil Marrar: "...the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank closely aligned with AIPAC..."
   • Jews and the American public square: debating religion and republic by Alan Mittleman, Robert Licht; Jonathan D. Sarna: "One Israel-oriented group that has had particular success in the Washington policy world is the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy (WINEP) founded in 1985 as a pro-Israel but not specifically Jewish think tank. Its founders were largely AIPAC board members led by Lawrence Weinburg of Los Angeles."
   • The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy by John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: "Recognizing the need for a prominent but seemingly 'objective' voice in the policy arena surrounding Israel, former AIPAC president Larry Weinberg; his wife, Barbi Weinberg; AIPAC's vice president; and AIPAC deputy director of research Martin Indyk founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985."

Thanks for your time. ← George ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources include peer reviewed journal articles, books published by academic publishers, newspaper article published by commercial for profit newspapers without explicit advocacy editorial policies, books published by commercial for-profit publishers without explicit advocacy editorial politicies, various other sources. Internet sources which meet the criteria of the first four sources I listed are fine, they are not preferred or unpreferred: they are of equal reliability. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World is only a Reliable Source if articles are signed individually by experts in the field. Otherwise it should be considered a Tertiary source. TIME is reliable for that statement. Lockman is published by Cambridge University Press, an academic publisher, it is reliable for the statement given. Wittkopf is published by Rowmanlittlefield, a "highly respected publisher of academic and trade books in the social sciences and the humanities", Wittkopf is reliable for the reference given. Frank is published by "Common Courage Press" which "often publishes books that larger houses deem too controversial," Common Courage does not take unsolicited manuscripts (a sign they are commercially publishing), they publish books of ideas (treat as commercial non-academic. Their mission is to publish ideas, so treat as non polemic). Frank is RS for the statement given. Mearsheimer is published by FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX a commercial non academic imprint of Macmillan. Mearsheimer is reliable for the statement given. Multiple RS support the contention that AIPAC founded WINEP in 1985. Next time please supply full citations for works, especially including the publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the incredibly in depth response Fifelfoo; very much appreciated. And sorry for not including the publishers—I'll try to do so in the future. Cheers. ← George ^talk 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World would be considered reliable, irrespective of whether its articles are signed. Reliable and Tertiary are not mutually exclusive.John Z (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Like any think tank, left right or center, they are a reliable source for their opinion and little more. WVBluefield (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RS status of interviews in (notable) documentary (if no published transcript)

Resolved

 – All I needed to know - Many thanks

What is the WP:RS status of spoken words of (notable) interview subjects in a documentary if there is not a published transcript (e.g., in book form)? Proofreader77 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A source doesn't need to be written to be reliable. It just has to satisfy all the same criteria as any other source. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (Forgive me, I've been around, but have often been unclear on some of this—partly from the arguments I've heard which I didn't believe, but are now lodged in my brain).

Question: Is the transcript of the words spoken in an interview in a documentary considered WP:PRIMARY? Proofreader77 (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is a primary or secondary source depends on context, but in general no, an interview conducted by a reliable broadcaster who is independent of the subject of the interview would not be a primary source of material about the subject. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, my thanks. Excuse my delaying the specific example, but wanted general rules clearer.

SPECIFIC CASE: In the (as surely everyone knows) contentious matter of Roman Polanski, regarding the words of the prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton (which concur) in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired ...

May their statements be summarized (as with a secondary source)? (Or any clarification of the matter you may offer.) NOTE: Before I started this topic, I had been assuming I had to find, e.g., a news article which summarized what they said, or had directly quoted from those interviews., but came to this forum to clarify what actually is required. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The HBO documentary is entirely independent of the subject, so it's fine to use it as a source in the same way that you'd use a newspaper article. You can quote from it, or summarize what people have said in it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. Smarter now :) (Um, more knowledgeable.) Cheers. Marking resolved. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

UAF - reference to own website

In the Unite Against Fascism article there are 4 references to the UAF’s official website. These appear to be fairly anodyne, self referencing sourcing, the content of which is non-controversial. Nevertheless, the question has been asked whether this is a legitimate source, but no response on the talk page has been received. Are these references acceptable per policy? Leaky Caldron 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see no problems with these references. Generally speaking a large proportion of links to an organisation's website suggests notability problems, but that doesn't actually seem to be a problem here. Such links are always appropriate for sourcing an organisation's self-description, almost always for sourcing an organisation's chairman, and usually also for sourcing statements about who supports them. Only in the latter case a third party source would be preferable to avoid getting into a borderline situation regarding weight/noteworthiness considerations. I believe it can be quite easy to get onto such a list of "supporters", and perhaps we shouldn't take this "support" too seriously unless someone else has taken it seriously before us. Hans Adler 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In this article the entire lead is sourced to UAF. RS such as newspaper articles should be found to ensure that the organization is properly described. Non-contentious statements can be sourced to the website. Often a website is a useful source for details about directors, conferences, etc. They are also a good source for their own opinions, although the source should be clearly stated in the text. When their website conflicts with RS, RS should be used with mention given that the organization disagrees. In rare cases of non-contentious information, the website may be preferred if the RS is clearly in error or out of date (e.g., they misspell a name or do not report a change in leadership.) The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(IPS) Inter Press Service - a reliable news organization?

Is IPS (Inter Press Service) news a WP:RS news organization? From what I can see both in limited internet sources, including the website, as well as the secondary sources cited in Inter Press Service, it appears to be one. One of my sources was tagged by an editor, and I thought that I would get some consensus before going back and removing the credible source tag.

Examples of organizations that cite or use IPS would be the United Nations. For example UN African News Page and External News Page for UN Financing for Development, to name a couple that I found on their website. A look at IPS's Board of Directors page seems to indicate a serious, world-wide news organization.

Thanks for any comments or help. Moogwrench (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same issue that was raised on WP:NPOVN, relating to StandWithUs? If so, I commented there. What was at issue in that case was a piece published on the IPS website that was basically investigative journalism. It's a bit different from the question of IPS as a news agency. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Inter Press Service. -- Rico 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all about you, isn't Rico? If Rico doesn't know about something, then it must not be important, reliable, relevant, etc. Moogwrench (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit adds a third source alongside two other sources (the Washington Post and Time Magazine), so why is the third source important?
The Washington Post is pretty reliable.
We've been arguing that your edit adds trivial recentism to the article.
It looks like, from your edit summary, that you are trying to claim that since the Inter Press Service quotes Vicki Gass as saying that "this support of the de facto government comes from a minority of the minority party, it is 'extremely harmful'."
That seems to contradict the Washington Post article, which published, "other Republicans who have befriended the de facto government have little or no experience in the region, such as Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), an outspoken Obama foe. That has given rise to speculation that they are playing politics. 'It's about the Republicans using what they can to attack the administration,' said Julia E. Sweig, a Latin America expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's definitely bigger than Latin America'."
More importantly, the Washington Post article published, "the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy."
That's what the International Reaction to the Honduran Coup article is all about, what the world's reaction was. It includes the reactions of individual countries, but not whether there is any dissent in the countries. I'm sure there's dissent in all of the countries listed, but including all that trivia in the article wouldn't be encyclopedic, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
If the only reason you are trying to add this third source is to make the argument that the content is worthy of inclusion, then maybe the more appropriate place for this would have been the talk page, where we've been debating whether it's "extremely harmful."
I note that you have tried to add this edit many times and been reverted by several editors. -- Rico 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, this is a debate about a source, not content. Can't you read the top of this page? It says "This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content." Or do the rules only apply to other people and not you?

And another thing, you are the only one who has tried reverting it in its present article. One of the editors who reverted it in the old article suggested its current spot, and since then, only you have reverted. Take this discussion back to the talk page, unless you have an opinion on the source's reliability. Moogwrench (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of it, and it seems to be contradicting the Washington Post (as I made clear, above).
It seems neither necessary, nor advisable -- because there are two other sources cited for the same content -- so don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
You've already added the same content to Wikipedia more times than I can count. When I came across you, you'd tried to added it four times in less than 24 hours, and other editors (not me) had been reverting you.
If the only reason you want this less-than-reliable source cited in the article, is that you think that it makes your argument that the content you've been trying to add so many times isn't trivial, then you've brought a content dispute here -- because the only place that source need be cited is on the talk page (not that it makes your point, because few don't care what unreliable sources publish, and the Inter Press Service (whoever they are) didn't say the "small" group of Republican's politicking was "extremely harmful." They just quoted somebody else that said that). -- Rico 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about reliability of the source, not what it is saying. Stop content disputing in this page. Both the Washington Post article and IPS source indicate that the Republican actions are complicating Obama's efforts. I don't address the reason for their actions, just their effects. How many times do I have to say it?

Also, I added the source because you said that the info wasn't notable enough and asked for another source. Specifically you said "Do you have an WP:RS for, "people seem to think that the Republican actions are having a substantive impact on Obama's policy"" So I don't know why you now say: "It seems neither necessary, nor advisable -- because there are two other sources cited for the same content." Moogwrench (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't add unreliable sources to reliable ones to try to get content kept on Wikipedia.
Your unreliable source adds nothing to the article, because the Washington Post and Time Magazine were already cited for the content. We never get to a need to discuss the reliability of Mom's and Pop's Press Service, because there is no reason for the third less reliable source to be added in the first place. If the only reason you've added the source is because you think it makes your point that the content isn't trivial recentism, then the place for that would be on the talk page, so don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Rico 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My question still stands: Is IPS a WP:RS? That is an appropriate question for this page. I don't just want your opinion, Rico, but those of non-prejudiced editors. I would say that it is. It is world-wide news organization, cited and used by the UN, other NGOs, and governmental organizations, and it well organized (board of directors, executive management team, editorial staff, etc. If it is WP:RS, one ought to remove the reliability tag. Moogwrench (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it isn't.
One ought to remove the citation, because it is immediately preceeded by two other citations (the Washington Post and Time Magazine).
If your only reason for supplying the third source is because you think it makes your case for retention of the content, then the citation ought to be moved to the talk page -- and you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by bringing what is essentially a content dispute into RSN. -- Rico 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking a questions about the reliability of a source on a Wikipedia page dedicated to that type of question is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Taking a content dispute to a page that specifically warns you not to is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Moogwrench (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary makes it clear that the reason you added the unreliable source to the other two (the Washington Post and Time Magazine) was to argue for retention of the content, so you're the one that's brought this content dispute into RSN. -- Rico 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, the issue of the source being reliable is distinct from whether or not the content should be removed. You brought all that up. This is not the place for that. I just asked if the source was good. Good grief! What is the matter with you?Moogwrench (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is from Inter Press Service's website:

IPS raises the voices of the South and civil society. IPS brings a fresh perspective on development and globalisation.

Inter Press Service

They admit they're biased.
Wikipedia's entry of Inter Press Service states:

IPS’s stated aims are to give prominence to the voices of marginalized and vulnerable people and groups, report from the perspectives of developing countries, and to reflect the views of civil society.

Inter Press Service, Wikipedia

-- Rico 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS states: "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." IPS is a large organization. And to think that no bias exists in reliable sources is naive. Again, this is a major organization cited by UN and other GOs and NGOs. Moogwrench (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On its own, I would say not. With a second source then yes. WVBluefield (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to give additional context, the information is taken from an expert that is quoted in the source. So I suppose the question would better be: is IPS a reliable source for the quote in question:

While this support of the de facto government comes from a minority of the minority party, it is "extremely harmful" to the negotiations and democratic processes in Honduras, contends Vicki Gass of the Washington Office on Latin America, a nonprofit that promotes democracy and human in Latin America.

Inter Press Service News

Moogwrench (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't quote the quote in your edit. You didn't add anything from your biased source at all (to what you had already tried to add many, many times).
So why would there be a question of whether the source is reliable for a quote you didn't use (except in your argument for retention of the content)?
Oh yeah, that was the point. -- Rico 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No one else tagged it, and the few discussions of IPS seem to indicate that it is reliable. Moogwrench (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<lol> You always declare things in your favor, don't you?
I don't see any consensus here, it's irrelevant that no one else tagged it -- I tagged it immediately.
I certainly wouldn't start trying to make the argument that consensus is in numbers, or that Wikipedia is a democracy.
We work on the basis of good reasons -- and speaking of that, you've never clarified you reason for wanting to add a third citation, when your first two were to the Washington Post and to Time Magazine. -- Rico 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I clarified it a few paragraphs above. But I will quote myself because you obvious respond before reading my commments:

Also, I added the source because you said that the info wasn't notable enough and asked for another source. Specifically you said "Do you have an WP:RS for, "people seem to think that the Republican actions are having a substantive impact on Obama's policy"" So I don't know why you now say: "It seems neither necessary, nor advisable -- because there are two other sources cited for the same content." Moogwrench (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Moogwrench (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the discussions I was referring to were those in WP:NPOVN (as a news agency, not opinion source), not these discussion with you, obviously.

I don't know what this means. Reliable sources don't need a second source to be reliable. Is the Washington Post reliable if the New York Times is also cited as a source? -- Rico 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that what he was trying to argue is that reliable sources can show that other sources are reliable if the information is reliable consistently. Moogwrench (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that. What I read was that he wrote that Mom's and Pop's Inter Press Service was an unreliable source. The second part was incomprehensible in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Rico 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say Mom's and Pop's to refer to Inter Press Service? It is obvious that it is a major news organization, internationally (sixth largest), thought relatively unknown in the US. it is used and cited by various bodies of the UN (for example: UN African News Page and External News Page for UN Financing for Development and other GOs and NGOs?

Also you don't always need to use an exact quote in an article, sometimes you synthesize information and condense it. Moogwrench (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Doesn't seem to be any real argument that they aren't reliable in the disputatious TL,DR above. We have a useful and halfway decent article on them. They're a real press service, 6th largest in the world, they have their own niche, outlook and focus. Doesn't mean they're unacceptably biased or unreliable. Their website gets hundreds of gbooks and gscholar hits, organizations, people and scholars in widely varying fields use it, with no major reliability questioning I can see. There are RS's about it that don't seem to say "they are a bunch of crazy liars" but just uh, study it the way any news source is studied. Whether they should be used in some particular corner of some particular article is for that talk page, not here.John Z (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Inter Press Service is pathetic. It has no footnotes. -- Rico 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So all you can do is complain about the page instead of actually addressing whether or not its subject is an RS? Moogwrench (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Inter Press Service article doesn't have clickable inline citations. It has plenty of Harvard style (referencing), to RS books etc with page numbers, which could easily be converted, an insubstantial difference. It's not making any wild controversial claims, and is consistent with my cursory look at sources on the IPS. IMHO halfway decent rather than pathetic -class, and helpful in assessing reliability.John Z (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick search for "inter press service" through Google Books shows plenty of books citing IPS or talking about IPS. There was talk about them being "alternative" and "specializing in the Third World" but nothing to cast doubt on reliability. We could delve into how it was they were founded and funded, but that would really belong on our article about IPS. No reason to exclude them as a source. If an editor doubts something they print, they should write "according to IPS" or "a report from IPS claims" but not remove the sourced material. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mae Christian Genre Controversy

A user continues to use these two sources to claim that the band Mae is a Christian Rock genre:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2005/everglow.html

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/soundbites/Content?oid=1083570

So in the talk page I have provided 3 band interview articles where Dave Elkins, the singer himself, has said that they are not a Christian genre, just Christian people:

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/print-article-7671-print.html 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

http://www.hybridmagazine.com/music/0906/mae.shtml 9th paragraph down. "As far as our intention in writing, we don't really go for a specific genre or anything like that."

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=28085 14th paragraph down

Also, if you go to any of the big music sites like iTunes, it labels them as alternative, rock, indie, but not Christian. They label themselves as rock on their YouTube channel. Lastly, if you download songs they have available for purchase from their actual site, the genre section in any music player says rock.

So they say themselves in actual interviews that they are not Christian, music sites like iTunes don't label them Christian, they label themselves as Rock on their YouTube, and they label their actual songs as Rock, the songs that they track, record, edit, release, etc all by themselves, yet the user continues to change the genre to Christian Rock. He told me to take it up with "this" (he linked to this page) if I have a problem with his sources so that is exactly what I'm doing.

Just a small update. After posting this, I found this:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2007/singularity.html

The same website he used as a source, basically says that the band themselves have said that they are not a Christian band.

7th paragraph down:

Though some of the band members are inspired by their Christian beliefs, Mae has emphatically stated they're not a "Christian band."

--Tennisplyr3515 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a solution for that: "While some sources have declared otherwise,(cite tucsonweely)(cite everglow), Mae has emphatically stated they're not a 'Christian' band"(cite singularity). Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jackson4leader.com/

Is this RS for teh BNP (or anything else)? it lo0oks self published to me (and a bit anonymous) particualy this page [[1]] which is being used as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like a reliable source for anything. There is no indication of who is responsible for the site. Furthermore, the specific page you cited consists of the texts of letters to and from various people, but there is no way to be sure any of the letters are authentic. Nor can we be sure whether the texts are accurate versions of what was in the actual letters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No indication it is reliable for anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Academy of Social Science

On doing researches on Korean War topics, I have found some aspects of Chinese history are not covered by any western sources. In order to present the complete picture of Korean battle histories, I was forced to use the research materials from Chinese Academy of Social Science to fill the voids. Some users have rejected this source because it is affiliated with the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Now I'm stuck in a tight spot — if I use Chinese Academy of Social Science for Chinese history, people will reject it base on truthfulness; if I use other Chinese sources, most of them are not up to acadamic standards.

Background on CASS, it is the premier academic institution in China staffed by top Chinese professors in the areas of philosophy, literature, and history. Its publications and research are frequently published in both Chinese and Western media, and it has working relationships with many foreign academias. But given its past focus is on Marxist/Maoist studies for the government, it tends to make some editors here nervous. Jim101 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see that there'd be a problem, although it might help to preface material with something like "According to Chinese sources . . .", or "From a Chinese perspective . . .". Is there any particular editing dispute that this is relevant to? --Paularblaster 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Triangle Hill, an interesting case where a massive battle that is forgotten by the UN but remembered fondly by Chinese. There is no dispute right now, but RS questions do pop up from time to time during article review process.

But I have a question about the preface...given that there are no disputes in the histories where I refered the Chinese source (since UN commanders just can't know what the Chinese commanders are thinking at the moment), is the "From a Chinese perspective" preface necessary? Jim101 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Th example you give looks fine. The preface would be useful wherever dispute might arise, but I wouldn't have thought it was necessary in every instance (the reference itself says what the source is). --Paularblaster 01:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Albert Adatto

I realize that normally a master's thesis would not be citable. I'm wondering if the 1939 University of Washington master's thesis of Albert Adatto, "Sephardim and the Seattle Sephardic Community", might be an exception. The Seattle Public Library apparently thought enough of it to place a copy in their Seattle Room, something that they've rarely done with a master's thesis. Adatto himself merits a guide to his papers on the University of Washington Libraries site. As you can see here, HistoryLink cites it; they would not normally cite a typical master's thesis. There thesis has also been cited in several academic papers.

FWIW, I want to cite him for when La Vara introduced an English-language supplement, which my other sources on the publication seem not to mention. - Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article by Lee Micklin in historylink.org appears to be a RS - did you wish to add additional detail found only in the thesis? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, I want to cite him for the date when La Vara introduced an English-language supplement, which has nothing to do with what Micklin cited him for (which was part of the history of the relationship between two Seattle congregations). - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in RS about it but it seems fine to me. Masters' theses can be a good source for local history that has been overlooked by other writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case it's not "local" (the newspaper was out of NYC, Adatto was in Seattle), but it is about an ethnic minority with only 100,000 or so people in the country, of which Adatto was a member. I'll use it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

www.catholic.org relisting

I'm relisting www.catholic.org (orginally listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_45#www.catholic.org)because it got archived without an explicit solution. I first listed it after I saw it cited on Persecution of Christians and I labelled it as needing checked and someone said "go check it yourself then"[2] so I did. I don't think the matter was entirely resolved though. Is the website appropriate to be cited in this context? Munci (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable source: A very expensive example of SELF publishing and a Vanity press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 15:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Dlabtot (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There rarely is an explicit solution. May fall within SELFPUB. Not an official website of the Roman Catholic Church, and the citation box should show publisher/city as the organization in Bakersfield to avoid confusion. May have an editorial board, but there's been some questions about that website as in the Bakersfield Now article cited in the earlier debate. You may be able to cite articles written by clergy as selfpub by expert, and articles written by bishops or higher may count as an official opinion of their archdiocese. Other sources could likely be found for information cited there. However, for uncontroversial information please consider using the "refimprove" tag instead of outright deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about replacing the citation with this[3] and changing the text to suit? Munci (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in no sense what we should consider a reliable source. This story shows them not just quoting but recommending a personal blog as their own main source for a story about an official directive from bishops to parishes. This is not to say that uncontroversial material sourced to "Catholic Online" should simply be deleted, but any such reference should be improved (checking their own sources is one first step). --Paularblaster 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with quoting from a blog, as long as the source quoting the blog does fact checking. In fact, then that would make the blog posting a primary source and we would be able to cite the blog as well.

At any rate, a little searching through Google News for "Conference of Catholic Bishops" over the past 30 days shows, after looking past some religious and "citizen journalism" type sources, there were several press releases from the organization making pretty much the same statements about health care, and a report from Fox News yesterday covering the matter.[4]

So at this point that example article seems to confirm the reliability of Catholic Online. If we were writing about the bishop's campaign I would choose the Fox article to cite, but to show how the story broke I would also credit Catholic Online ( and in turn the American Papist blog ) as there don't seem to be any extraordinary claims beyond what's in the Fox article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable things on my blog, but if I found a questionable "reliable source" citing me as its main source, I'd wonder that they couldn't find a better one (e.g. an actual press release from a diocese), rather than congratulate myself on having become a "reliable source" for wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not unusual for news stories to show up in blogs before a formal press release is made or a mainstream source begins coverage. The source under question opted to go ahead and credit the blog while the story was developing. Crediting a blog doesn't make a source any less reliable.

Now, that doesn't make the blog a general-purpose RS for wikipedia, though it does mean if the citing source is an RS, the cited source can also be used by us as a primary source for the material. Whether to include either at this point now that Fox has covered it is an editorial decision based on how much coverage our editors decide to give the issue. At this point I'd be tempted to just cite Fox and leave it at that, but because the blog includes the health care reform flyers and other primary-source material, if those are genuine, a chain of citations going back to the blog would allow us to include those documents in our article, which would be nice to have in an article on religious reaction to the health care reform.

Though FWIW, I went to Mass this past weekend and didn't see any inserts about health care. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

United Press International

Is United Press International a reliable source for controversial information? The question arose at the Saddam Hussein – United States relations article were UPI is used a source for the controversial information that the CIA was involved in the early career of Saddam Hussein and directly interacted with him. UPI was almost certainly realiable before 2000, when it was purchased by the Unification Church, a controversial sect headed by Sun Myung Moon. A quote by Sun Myung Moon might be relevant to assess the general realiability and independence of UPI: "We even have to utilize the media for the sake of church development. The church is the mind and the media is the body, to reach the external world. We should begin that movement and activity in the United States, because the Washington Times and UPI are headquartered there. Once we establish our organization in the United States, it can be expanded to the world without much alteration.". Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of difference between Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch. It could be said that both have conservative agendas and both are friendly with world leaders, including those of the United States. Sun Myung Moon also owns The Washington Times, which is often cited here. Dynablaster (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post maybe, but certainly not the Washington Times, which has been characterized in Harpers Magazine as "a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries". The assistant to the Washington Times founder explained that "We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values. The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down." So hardly a source we should use as a source for almost anything. The same goes for United Press International, which neither has a good reputation, is a mainstream source, nor is independent (quite oppositve given the expressed goal that UPI and the Washington Times serve the purposes of promoting an agenda). Pantherskin (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would consider UPI and the Washington Times as generally reliable for most topics. They might have a political point of view, but lots of newspapers do. Besides we allow sourcing with attribution from political watchdog groups, though I still consider UPI and the Washington Times to be news media. The only issues are that they would be quoted with attribution when writing about some Korea-related topics, and that they would be primary sources when writing about Moon or the Unification Church. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the Times and UPI being RS’s. The Times and UPI may have a decidedly partisan or ideological POV in its editorial content, but nearly every publication suffers from this. If we start using other hyper partisan journals (Harpers) to make cases for source exclusion pretty soon there won’t be any RS’s left to use. WVBluefield (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that partisan sources such as the Wall Street Journal or mother Jones have a reputation for fact-checking, whereas UPI has lost this reputation [5]. According to Howard Kurtz "no newspaper I read carries UPI stories any more", whereas Felicity Berenger of the New York Times says that "For decades the UPI name meant professionalism, hard-hitting, solid and quick-fire journalism" and then describes the current state as "But tell me this: have you read a UPI story in the past decade?". These are hardly partisan journalists, and their assessement is strong evidence for that UPI is not an exceptional source that is required for exceptional claims. So far no one has presented any evidence for that UPI is reputable news organization - but on the other side there is external evidence from Harpers, the Guardian, the New York Times and the Washington Post that it is not. Interestingly, the exclusive story that UPI had in 2003 and which is cited in the article in question was not picked up by any reputable mainstream newspaper according to Google News Search. Pantherskin (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You really going to argue that Kurtz and the Guardian are not partisan sources? If we are going to give disproportionate space to “partisan” sources to exclude the UPI, it will be open season on nearly every other source that someone or a small group of someone’s who have a feather up their collective asses. WVBluefield (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I read a bit more background at the article, and have some more to add to this. If the claims made by the UPI piece cannot be found elsewhere, and/or are contradicted by other sources you might have good grounds to remove the material or at the very least place significant qualifiers on it. Hope that helps. WVBluefield (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article is accurate, UPI just has a few employees, and is a faint shadow of the once major news agency. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News Channel, and many believe it is operated to further his conservative aims, but Wikipedia is generally unwilling to dismiss Fox as a source. The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist, which espouses a view of disease and miraculous healing outside the medical mainstream, but is generally regarded as a reliable news source. We use theChicago Tribune as a reliable source for news, even in the era when it was operated by Colonel McCormick, who felt that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a stooge of Stalin. So other reliable sources are needed to establish whether UPI still qualifies as a reliable source, beyond inferences derived from its ownership.a 2005 book says that by the 1990's UPI was down to a handful of employees. It says that UPI was used after the Moon purchase largely to distribute Washington Times stories outside the area.Lots of sources document the ownership, but I could find little commentary on the present reliability. Edison (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If several mainstream newspapers and journalists of reputable newspaper characterize United Press International as not reliable - with respect to UPIs accuracy and reputation, not just its editorial stance - then we should not use it as a reliable source for rather exceptional claims. These journalists and newspapers are decidely not a small group - they rather represent what one could call the high quality end of the market.

This is only on top of the fact that UPI is owned by a rather controversial church, and that the owner Moon himself said that UPI serves a goal which is not independent and accurate journalism, but a furthering of his own conservative agenda and the goals of the church. That is a big difference to reputable news organizations such as the NYT, the Guardian or the Washington Post, or the Christian Science Monitor or the (old) Chicago Tribune, all of which at least aim and aimed for independent and accurate journalism despite their owners attitudes. Pantherskin (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

UPI is a reliable source. The actual UPI article used was a signed article, written by Richard Sale, and his name is correctly mentioned after "according to". It should also point out that he was the "UPI Intelligence Correspondent". We cannot assume that Sale's statement is accurate but it is an informed opinion properly sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If UPI would be a reliable source we could take Sale's statement as a fact and wouldn't need to attribute it to UPI or Richard Sale. I agree that UPI can be taken as a source for that Richard Sale holds this and this opinion, but that is not what the article does. It rather treats UPI as a reliable source and Richard Sale's claims are treated as historical facts. Pantherskin (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. UPI seems to be a small and insignificant news organization, despite its name. I don't think that it can be considered a reliable source, based upon what i've seen.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the Washington Times, UPI, WSJ, and Fox News are all reliable sources. If one disputes the facts presented by them, they can word the sentence to indicate source, and provide a counter of another source reporting something opposite.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some evidence is needed to dispute the reliability of UPI, other than "IDONTLIKEMOON." Edison (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the WSJ is a reliable source, as is Mother Jones. The issue in evaluating the reliability of a source isn't where they stand on the political spectrum: it's whether they have shown a commitment to intellectual honesty and competent fact-checking. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Edison, I showed evidence from a variety of reliable source that UPI has not a reputation for accuracy and honest reporting anymore. That is requirement for a reliable source, and so far no evidence has been forthcoming that contradicts the evidence presented by me and that shows that UPI still has this reputation. And yes, the ownership is an issue if the owner and his associates make it clear that their media outlets have a political and promotional purpose. Pantherskin (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It takes a lot for a news organization to lose reputation to the extent it would be disqualified as an RS. UPI may not be as large as it once was, but they still have reporters and an editorial process, and they're still an RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? Or what is the base of your claims that UPI is still a RS? Because according to the reliable sources I mentioned above this is what happened with UPI. Pantherskin (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to explain why UPI and the Washington Times can't be used. A couple of op-ed pieces that barely mention those newspapers is not reason enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article is not an op-ed piece and it discusses UPI in detail citing several reputable journalists. Please explain why we should disregard what these people have to say in favor of your personal opinion which you have not substantiated by any evidence. And yes, there is also a onus on you, that is to explain why you think that UPI is a reliable source - preferably not by making false and misleading claims about the nature of evidence presented by me. If UPI is indeed reliable it shouldn't be a problem to find evidence for your claims - such as journalism awards or the use of UPI as a source in high quality newspapers or other media, or an article in a reliable source that states that UPI is (still) known for accurate reporting and fact-checking. Pantherskin (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef. It's a shadow of its former self, but the only real strike against its reliability so far seems to be its ownership. This gscholar search for "united press international" shows 3,800 hits since 2000, and this gbooks search for www.upi.com shows 560 hits since 2000. So it looks like hundreds of books and many scholarly journal articles still cite it for facts, implying no precipitous decline in reputation. The stories above are more saying that it is less popular and much smaller, not that they make stuff up, which is what reliability is concerned with. If something is felt to be exceptional or particularly controversial, just attribute it.John Z (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The google hits do not show that hundreds of books and scholarly journals cite UPI articles published after 2000. It only shows that hundreds of books and scholarly journals published after 2000 cite any UPI article ever published. Besides, Google Scholar - despite its names - includes many less than scholarly papers. For example, the first pre-2001 UPI article "Analysis: SSRIs' risk to infants" is cited by whom? Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Such are the inclusion criteria in Google Scholar. Pantherskin (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And if UPI would be reliable source there wouldn't be a need to attribute anything to them, except if other reliable source would contradict UPI. But that is not the case here, as no mainstream news organization has picked up their exclusive report on alleged early Saddam Hussein-CIA ties. What already indicates that UPI is not considered reliable anymore by mainstream news organization, as pointed out and hinted at by the journalists cited in the Guardian article. Pantherskin (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The gscholar results starts with UPI articles published after 2000 and give citations of them, many are from scholarly sources, as anyone can check. The books are ones with reference to the UPI website. This restricts it to post web articles and should be mainly the more recent ones under current ownership. I heard of the Saddam Hussein CIA ties story, never knew it was from UPI, various left wing sources had things on it a few years ago. Coverage or non-coverage of one story indicates nothing about the reliability of UPI, which was not addressed in the Guardian article.John Z (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Guardian, Harpers, the judgement of reputable journalists in these articles, and the fact that the owner and his associates explicitly stated that their media outlet have to serve their political agenda, I guess there is need to repeat myself. But I guess we can throw that evidence in the garbage. So I guess all this means that UPI is still a reliable source, and that a conspiracy theory published by them should be reported as a historical fact here on Wikipedia. And I was always wondering why most Wikipedia articles on any even remotely controversial subject are an embarrasment to the idea of an encyclopedia. Pantherskin (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would consider UPI and the Washington Times as "within the mainstream," ownership by the Moonies not withstanding. Anything that is really controversial should have a supplemental cite, just to be safe.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is not merely "ownership by the Moonies" that is "withstanding" -- it is also Moon's explicit statements of partisan usage of it, RS criticism of its reliability, and an implosion of staff numbers (which would put degree of editorial oversight and fact-checking at issue). I think this is enough to classify it as a 'questionable source' on which WP:SELFPUB should be applied. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider what might have been simply a motivational speech by Moon twenty-five years ago as problematic in any way. Neither would I count a couple of editorials; look at all the editorials about Fox News which we still consider RS. It takes a lot for a source, once it's earned a reputation, to become non-RS. The only publication I can think of which that happened to would be the American Mercury.

At any rate, UPI has won awards for investigative reporting in its new incarnation, such as for a story on the state of hospitals for wounded soldiers returning from Iraq (see article). And our article on the Washington Times, besides quoting some criticism, also quotes Mother Jones as saying that it's become "essential reading for political news junkies", quotes commentator Paul Weyrich as saying it's an "antidote to its liberal competitor" and quotes Ronald Reagan's praise of it.

The point is, RS doesn't mean we take a source as gospel, is simply means it may be cited in the Wikipedia. And if you doubt something that an RS says, you might quote it as "The Washington Times claimed that x,y,z happened". Remember, even if the matter about Hussein was a theory, it's not something that was written on a blog, it's something that was published and read by millions of people, and likely it will percolate for years in various channels, as John Z described above. True or not, it provides a service to our readers to explain where the idea was first published. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When is a blog not a blog

this appears to be some kind of blog [[6]] is it RS. It also appears to be anonymous. All of this makes it a bit iffy to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An acceptable blog would have to be written by an already reputable person, whose reputation or notability goes beyond such blog. A clear rule derives from this: the author must be a named person, not a nickname. This blog is run by "Antifascist", so it's not reliable. MBelgrano (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's written by an organization that's already an RS, but happens to be published in "blog" format, that's one way. A blog written by a recognized expert on the topic of the article is another. It's probably still possible for someone writing under a pen name to be an expert if reputation was earned under the pen name. Does the blog have a reputation of being quoted for fact by RS'es? A blog cited on an article about the blog or blogger is a third way. So would be if an RS mentions a blog artlce, then the blog article becomes a primary source.

Does Lancaster UAF have an affiliation with Searchlight, or has it been cited in many RS'es?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfryerchef (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This site re-published an article that was published by Searchlight, which is a reliable source. In order to make the sourcing acceptable, it should be directly to Searchlight's website which publishes all its articles online. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So ono balance is this blog (anonymnouos) RS or not?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If the article came from Searchlight, cite and link to Searchlight. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it thats a no then?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It might or might not be RS. But if the article was originally published somewhere else the point is moot. We should cite the original article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No the question is not moot, except in this instance, i goes to the very heart of RS. which is the basic question is this (an anonymous self published blog). Tnw question is not (and was not, what sources do I need to support this or that statment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are editors wishing to include other articles from the blog? Why are we still interested in the blog? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a this time, I just thought that it would be a good idea to establish its reliablilty before any one does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question... no, this specific blog is not reliable. The blogs that we allow fall into one of three categories: 1) Blogs written by acknowledged published experts in a field of study (and then only for attributed statements of that expert's opinion and only on topics within their field), 2) "Blog format" news or oppinion pieces appearing on the websites of legitimate news organizations (as these are often exactly the same as the material that appeared in print or on air.) and 3) Blogs that have been recognized for their journalism... ie that have won journalism awards (a very rare category).

The blog that you ask about does not fall into any of these allowable categories. It seems to be nothing more than the personal blog of an anonimous person. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yutube videos

Can this [[7]] be used as a source, I am concearned it might be a copyright violation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your instincts are right. It may very well be a copyright violation; in addition to that, the provenance of video on a self-published site like YouTube fails our guideline. However, if the actual videorecording is from a reliable source, and it gives facts that seem useful to you, there's nothing keeping you from citing the original video - just don't link or cite the YouTube version in any way. Ray^Talk 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He might be able to cite a video if he's actually seen it on a non-Youtube, reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What Jayjg said. I'm sorry if I was confusing :) Ray^Talk 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not use it because it is dated - it is part of the Cook Report from 1997 - and presents Griffin's comments rather than reporting about him making it a primary source. If you want to mention holocaust denial, then it is better to rely on more recent printed sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This raises another question (see below).Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Discogs

Is Discogs a reliable source for discography/release information?

Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is a "a community-built database" and therefore there is no way of verifying that individual entries are correct. However, you can use it as an aid to finding reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an approval process for new entries? If so, it might pass RS. Otherwise, consider as an EL. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No indication/explanation of editorial oversight, therefore not a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a petition a RS about itself?

At the article on the Discovery Institute's petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, there is a discussion about inserting or not a list (or at least the names) of notable signatories of that petition. There are many concerns about that but there is one that I ask here: Can the petition be used as a RS about the petition itself? That is, if I want to say "the Discovery Institute claims that X has signed the petition" (note: not simply "X has signed the petition"), can the petition itself (and/or the institute) used as a source on that? Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 10:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) The Discovery Institute has "a poor reputation for checking the facts", expresses "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" & the petition is clearly "promotional in nature" (promoting anti-evolutionism). It thus clearly falls under WP:V#Questionable sources, so per WP:SELFPUB should not be used for either (a) "unduly self-serving" claims or (b) "claims about third parties". (ii) As a questionable source it should not be given greater WP:WEIGHT than the reliable sources commenting on the issue, as inclusion of the proposed list would do. This is especially true as most of those on the list have no experience or qualifications relevant to evolution, and a number are not scientists at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that I don't want to use it for "unduly self-serving claims" nor about "claims about third parties". I want to use it as a source about what the DI claims abouth third parties. It is a not so subtle difference. One thing is to say "X has signed Y". Another is to say "Z claims that X has signed Y, its own petition (primary ref), a claim which is contested by (other third-party ref)...".

Example: If I say "Drug X cures cancer (primary ref)" I am wrong -but if I say "Company Y, on its own XCuresCancer.com website, claims that drug X cures cancer (primary ref)", on the hypothetical article about the XCuresCancer website, I am just documenting a notable information about that website.

Finally, I completely agree with Hrafn on the fact that most people on the list are not qualified about evolution or are not even scientists at all: but this is unrelated to inform people of which notable persons has signed and who not (and is only tangentially related to the specific question herein). Anyway, I think the best way is to wait to hear what other editors have to say about the source. --Cyclopia^talk 11:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter who makes the claim about the third party (you or the self-published source). If a statement involves a third party, we need an independant source. So... to say that "According to the DI, Albert Einstein has signed the petition" we need that fact to be reported by someone other than DI. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources that cover or analyse the claims it is inappropriate to include them. "Company X says Product X cure cancer" almost certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the encyclopaedia without reliable third party analysis from say, the FDA or medical journals - or news coverage of their analysis. Repeating unreliable claims about living people when no context is available to evaluate those claims is clearly inappropriate for a high-quality encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is exactly that context is (and would be) provided. As I understand the policy, an independent source is needed if we want to include the claim as factual ("Albert Einstein has signed the petition"), not if we want to include it explicitly as a claim ("The Random_Fringe_Theory_Institute claims that...") in an article about the claim itself (because what is a petition anyway, more than a statement and a list of people signing it?). For a factual example (I know it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but bear with me a minute) in the AIDS denialism article the denialists' claims are linked to the actual primary sources -the denialists' papers. I don't get how can this be problematic. --Cyclopia^talk 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The petition itself is definitely a reliable source for the contents of the petition, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for the encyclopaedia. None of the primary source claims in Aids denialism are potentially damaging statements about living people who had - potentially - no hand in creating the source material. Guest9999 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to understand

I understand that consensus is against my position, so I won't beat the dead horse anymore. However I'd like to understand better why I happen to be apparently in the wrong. My position is simple: if I want to document that "In document D is claimed X about Y", in the article about an openly readable and linked Document D, it seems obvious to me that (once established notability etc. per third party sources etc.) I don't have to wait for someone reading D for me to repeat 1:1 what D says. If anything, it is at risk of being more biased and imprecise than the document itself. If I say "X is Y, as per document D", it is a completely different another matter. But if my intent is to document an explicit property of D (like, say, a quote from it), I don't get why should I wait for someone else to read it. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your inquiry. Basically, the issue is that let's say we have an unreliable source URS. Suppose it claims that notable person X says the moon is made of green cheese. Now, even if we write "URS wrote that X says the moon is made of green cheese," even with the qualifier, the statement probably suffers from giving the unreliable source undue weight. After all, the unreliable source is unreliable for a variety of reasons. Hope this helps. Ngchen (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that completely, but here we are in the very special situation of an article on URS itself. --Cyclopia^talk 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By attribution we can turn any false statement into a truthful one. For example: The Earth is flat (false) → Charles K. Johnson believed the Earth was flat (true). However, every attributed and truthful statement doesn't deserve to be in an article. Specifically, non-mainstream sources are to be avoided. If we quote fringe sources in a fringe topic, we risk giving said fringe sources undue weight and equal validity. See WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. Gabbe (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: I understand that absolutely well, and in general it is right, but again, the important point is that the article is about the source itself. The article on Earth obviously should not report the C.K.Johnson statements, but his own article reports that he belonged to Flat Earth Society. That is what I am talking about. If I want to document C.K.Johnson, I understand that I can use his own stuff as a primary source on what he says. The context is the fulcrum here. --Cyclopia^talk 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But in the case of Charles K. Johnson an independent, third party source writing about him would describe him as believing in a flat Earth. An independent, third party source writing about the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition would not necessarily include the list of signatories. It's OK to use the DI as a primary source for information about the DI's opinion, even if the DI is an unreliable source, but a list of signatories would typically require a reliable source. Gabbe (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV references

Would the following references be considered reliable? I have been informed that they are outdated references, but have been unable to get clarification as to what information trumps the below references.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

• Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.
• Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.
• Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.
• Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.
• Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.
• Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.
• Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.
• Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.
• Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.
• Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.
• Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.
• Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.
• Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.
• Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.
• Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.
• Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.
• Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.
• Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.
• Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.
• Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.
• Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.
• Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.
• Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.
• Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.
• Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.
• Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.
• Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.
• Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.
• Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.
• Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.
• Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.
• Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.
• Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.
• Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.
• Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.
• Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.
• Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.
• Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.
• Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.
• Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.
• Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.
• Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.
• Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.
• Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.
• Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.
• Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.
• Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.
• Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.
• Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.
• Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.
• Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.
• Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.
• Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.
• Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.
• Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.
• Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.
• Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.
• Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.
• Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.
• Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.
• Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.
• Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.
• National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.

Neuromancer (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not with the sources themselves (except for the one reference to the Perth group, which is unreliable). The problem is that you use sources that predate modern AIDS/HIV denialism (or whatever euphemism you'd prefer to use), as well as sources that never mention AIDS denialism to synthesize an article on HIV dissent. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion... Now, would you like to provide me with reliable sources of information that contradict the sources I have requested be reviewed? Or would you prefer just making a biased statement with no evidence to back it up? Neuromancer (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All of those sources are probably reliable. It does not follow, however, that you are using them acceptably. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

List copied from here. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From a quick sample, those would appear to be reliable sources, although a PubMed ID would make the task of checking each one easier. I see there is a sub-text here though. The articles are mainly related to a common theme: the problems of false positives when testing for HIV. As such, they would be suitable for an article with that (or similar) name, particularly in tracing the historical evolution of those testing methods (because of their age). I would naturally caution against drawing any conclusions beyond what is stated in the articles, owing to the concerns of WP:SYNTH. --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may be permitted a small digression into Bayesian reasoning, I think perhaps part of the problem may stem from a misunderstanding of the false positive rate. Take 10,000 people, 100 of whom (1%) are infected with HIV; for simplicity, assume that they are past the window period for this particular test. For the sake of example, let the probability that the test returns positive for an infected individual be 95%, and likewise the probability that the test returns negative for an individual who is not infected. Out of the myriad tested, then, 95 will have true positives, 5 will have false negatives, 9405 will have true negatives, and 495 will have false positives. Given the underlying low incidence, the probability that a particular negative result is a true negative is 9405/9410 = 99.95%, just shy of 4σ; the probability that a particular positive result is a true positive, on the other hand, is only 95/590 = 16%. Thus, without in any way casting doubt on the validity of the science underlying the test, a positive result on a good test is only weak evidence of infection. In reality, of course, we do not know the false positive and negative rates, and must search for sources of error and confounding factors such as other medical conditions. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this reasoning something that appears in a source... or is it your own Original research? I agree with the comments above... the sources are, on their face, reliable... but it may well be that they are being used incorrectly. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in reference to an article that is continuously being reverted to a forward on the basis that the information is duplicitous of another article. HIV dissent is the article in question if you are interested. Neuromancer (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Most editors would allow an example that is a "... relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce" (from the essay WP:NOTOR#Simple calculations). 2over0's calculations above rely only on multiplication and division (plus an understanding that 95% means 95/100), so I certainly wouldn't put a {{cn}} on it! --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The field of HIV/AIDS has understandably changed vastly since 1995, the date of the most current study listed above (most are mid 80s'/early 90's). See Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence, although it has already been suggested you review WP:MEDRS a few times now. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already read it, and reviewed a couple of times. The salient points I think you are not understanding are:

1. Alternative viewpoints on HIV are just that, alternative to the generally accepted viewpoints.
2. There is no evidence to contradict any of the references I have included above. I have been unable to find anything more recent on point, which suggests that the medical community doesn't feel a need to recreate those experiments. If you have knowledge of newer studies or papers, I am more than happy to look at them.
3. Even if, and assuming arguendo, that there were more recent, on point, contradictory materials, that is not a reason to delete the old references. You include a "information AAA was accepted until BBB was published." Not a hard concept. You cannot delete history.

Incidentally, the field HIV research has not moved forward by any great lengths. A perfect example would be the insert from the Abbott HIV EIA has 41 reference. One of them is from 2004, another from 2005. The other 39 references range from 1981 to 1994. Which seems to indicate that the science behind HIV, at least in the realm of testing methods procedures in relation to the HIV ELISA, hasn't changed "vastly" or anywhere near vastly.

Neuromancer (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're over reliant on confirmation rather than refutation (e.g. asserting claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa). Coupled with the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, you make it impossible to confirm your angles false (asserting that the mounds of current evidence do not satisfy the rigor of your demands). The result is page after page of debates where somehow the several people trying to talk this out with you all seem to be way wrong no matter what. In addition, you're trying to shout in as many places as possible to drudge up some kind of silent support which doesn't seem to be there. You are also seriously personalizing this issue, which is unnecessary. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources appear to be generally reliable. However, the quite real concern here is that they are being used for synthesis. This issue needs to be addressed at the WP:NOR/N, not here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's impossible to say whether the sources are reliable unless Neuromancer specifies what exact claim there are being used to reference. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you for your opinion... Now, would you like to provide me with reliable sources of information that contradict the sources I have requested be reviewed? Or would you prefer just making a biased statement with no evidence to back it up?" this reply along with the mass of sources (verging on TL;DR) along with the subject matter lead me to believe that RSN should not offer some blanket statement about reliability. Obviously the bulk (if not all) of these are published in peer reviewed journals (some, if the information is correct, which are quite reputable). Equally obvious is the method of presentation. We aren't being asked to evaluate a given source in context. We are being given a wall of important sounding publications and being told to refute their implied conclusions. No thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson History Past Present and Future

I'm recently in a edit war with a good editor. Michael Jacksons History has a range of reports on how much it sold worldwide. Some ranges are 18 million (36 million disc) to 20 million (40 million disc). I found on Michael Jackson's official site in the discography that the album sold 21 million (42 million disc). So the editor says its not reliable but I think it is. So can someone tell me if its reliable enough? A Star Is Here (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/blog/full-discography-michael-jackson-history-past-present-and-future-1995

It is not entirely reliable for this sort of thing (any artist has reason to inflate his sales figures), but it would seem reasonable to me to use it as one of several numbers, with inline text indicating the nature of the source, e.g. "Estimates of sales vary from a low of 18 million from [name of source] to a high of 21 million on Jackson's own web site," or just "Jackson's own web site puts the sales figure at 21 million." - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who runs the michaeljackson.com website? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sony runs the page. From the home page though I cant seem to find a link to the discography page.

This source is not reliable because at the end of the article there is a link with an illegal download ( http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/blog/full-discography-michael-jackson-history-past-present-and-future-1995 ). It's a comment in his blog. The article claims also that HIStory sold 21 million copies only if you include the reissue of the 2001. Without this, sold 38 million units (18 million copies). In conclusion, it's not reliable and not updated. SJ (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It didnt say without the reissue it sold 38 million copies. It said each Cd separately made 38 million dollars. Nevrmind though I just reread the page and it had some writing errors so it seems unreliable but thanks everybody for help. A Star Is Here (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources on Brazil, please see discussion on Talk:Brazil

There is some disagreement about the reliability of sources on the Brazil talk page. The dispute is basically between User:Lecen and User:Opinoso and has been going on for some good time. There have been various accusations of 'fabrication of sources' and POV-ing. User:Lecen is still appealing for help. If anyone could resolve the situation, it would be hugely appreciated. Thanks & Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help greatly if someone could summarize the issues (or each side could summarize its view) in a few paragraphs. I suspect I'm typical in not wanting to slog through 10,000+ words to understand what might be going on there. - Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. If it's complicated enough that even at the initial stage it requires RSN editors to see the article talk page, it's probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard. We're more used to questions on the order of "Is newspaper X reliable enough to use in article Y?" Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List the two or three most controversial sources here and 25 words or less objections to them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kids Magazines

I currently have a heap of Disney Adventures and K-Zone magazines sitting doing nothing, some going back to early 1990's ans up to early 2000's, Considering the lack of online content and the seemingly un-biased nature of the reviews, interviews, etc. etc. I was wondering if they would be counted as reliable sources for movies, albums, and video games, among other types of information? --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are said magazines known for their editorial oversight? Do they have a good reputation for checking the facts? Gabbe (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They should be reliable for discussing kid culture stuff. Probably not for anything controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, both have been in publication for 15 years or more, highly publicised around Australia, and I was planning on using them for reviews for some of the older products, or maybe developer interviews, which I'm guessing would be reliable. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those magazines, but it sounds like they would help the many thinly-sourced articles we have on kids' popular culture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

I'm wondering if the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) is considered a reliable source. It's a magazine published nine times a year by the American Educational Trust (AET). AET's website describes WRMEA as follows:

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.

"The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

"AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET's Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play."[8]

WRMEA's website can be viewed here. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think to avoid a potential conflict, it should be cited along with another source when making a contentious claim. If a surprising or little known factoid can only be found here, it probably isn’t noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. WVBluefield (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks reliable to me. If it is being used for something controvercial, try quoting the material as a statement of opinion rather than fact, attributing the comment to WRMEA in the text of the article ... as in: According to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "blah blah blah"<cite to WRMEA>. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific article I'm thinking of is this one from 1991. The topic it's discussing, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), can be contentious at times. The article generally agrees with other sources, but those (more modern) sources usually mention WINEP in passing, while discussing some other topic (such as the Israel lobby in the United States, the Iraq war, or nuclear weapons in Iran). The appealing thing about this source is that it discusses many of the same things, but all in one place, instead of spread out over several sources, and in significantly greater detail. ← George ^talk 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is an opinionated source, you can mention in text that "according to WRMEA" if fact is controversial. If facts are all together and several of them are also in other books, throw in those refs too. Yes, it's more work, but makes a better article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds RS to me; there's nothing wrong with citing think-tanks. As an aside, I'd have to take issue with the statement If a surprising or little known factoid can only be found here, it probably isn’t noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to include details that might only be available in the more specialized sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Docs

I was surprised to not find an already-completed discussion of Google Docs here. I guess this is it, then…

When can a file hosted at docs.google.com be considered a reliable source? For instance (probably a worst-case scenario), consider this article, used as a reference at The Construction Manager. Looking at it closely, I found:

• The owner of this Google doc is Jacob Apelbaum, already identified as having a COI with the article in question.
• The first page of the doc (the scanned magazine cover) does not match the remainder of the file (the scanned article). For example, note that the cover date is 20 May 1996, while the date on the article is 8 August 1994.
• Neither the magazine cover year (1996) nor the article year (1994) match the alleged year in the reference (1995).

Would this be considered a WP:SPS-related problem or ?

Thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Google docs are self-published sources, no different than blogs, and generally considered not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And since it's not possible to verify the author of a document on Google docs, it's not even as good as (self-published) blogs by major public figures. LK (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Assorted items removed from Lyndon LaRouche

An editor removed the following items, calling the sources "inappropriate." The sources don't look inappropriate to me. What do others think?

• Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system.
  • Reliable source: Lebedev Physical Institute (http://www.netda.ru/fian/fian2b.htm)
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [9]
• Russian economist and LaRouche movement member Stanislav Menshikov says that LaRouche is among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see. Also: Russian economist Menshikov wrote that, in a July 25, 2007 webcast, LaRouche was the first to observe disorder in the mortgage sector and to conclude that the financial system was crumbling. LaRouche subsequently proposed legislation to halt foreclosures, freeze mortgage rates, and write off speculative debt obligations. Menshikov asserted that the proposal could have prevented the crisis had it been enacted.
  • Reliable source: essay by Stanislav Menshikov hosted on "Strategium" site (http://subscribe.ru/archive/media.news.review.cibhelion/200902/17090602.html)
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [10]
• Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. LaRouche also urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation with the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which rebuilt Germany. Qazwini goes on to say that in recent years there has been a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, calling him the spiritual father of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a massive industrial project which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been kept isolated and backward.
  • Reliable source: Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," http://www.aawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&issueno=8822&article=148496
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [11]
• According to China Youth Daily, the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.
  • Reliable source: China Youth Daily, http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/24/content_2771606.htm
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [12]
• Executive Intelligence Review Senior Editor Jeffrey Steinberg, writing in Belarus government newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta, says that LaRouche proposed a new system of international relations, built around the joint work of four leading powers—the United States, Russia, China and India. According to Steinberg, the proposal would create a core group of powerful nations whose activities would be based on respect for national sovereignty and aims to establish a rapid economic development through investment in large infrastructure development projects in Eurasia.
  • Reliable source: Narodnaya Gazeta (Belarus) http://www.ng.by/ru/issues?art_id=30436
    • Accuracy confirmed by Google Translate: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.ng.by/ru/issues%3Fart_id%3D30436
• National Journal reports that LaRouche's solution to the crisis includes "fixed currency-exchange rates, massive spending on new nuclear reactors, and a rejection of all global-warming ideas" and that failure to follow his advice will result, according to LaRouche, in "a plunge of the planet into a mass-murderous new dark age."
  • Reliable source: National Journal Neil Munro, "Inside Washington", April 5, 2008. --Alejandro Spotless (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Commenting only on one of these: since Executive Intelligence Review is a LaRouche publication, what its editor writes, there or elsewhere, is doubtless an accurate statement of the LaRouche line, but is in no way the view of an independent observer. - Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be more socks pushing this material. While the sources may be reliable on topics in their own countries, I don't think that the American politicians are the speciualty of any of them. Further, I'm not aware of any involved editors who speak Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, or Arabic, so we're mostly stuck using faulty machine translations. Finally, the article has several sub-articles, such as Views of Lyndon LaRouche for material on his views.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that sources from other countries are unreliable for U.S. topics. That requires some additional explanation. However, your position is also inconsistent, because you have promoted the use of foreign sources when the depiction of LaRouche is negative. It seems to me that the policies should be applied in a consistent manner, rather than selectively when it suits your POV. --Alejandro Spartacus (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Another sock? Is this how Wikipedia editors gain the moral high ground?

I don't recall promoting the use of foreign-language sources anytime recently. I think they can be reliable within their fields of expertise if we have reliable translations and if we know something about the publisher and writer. Using a Belarus website as a source for Belarus politics is fine. Using it as a source for an American politician is not so great. Wikipedia policies call on us to use the best available sources. It's hard to see how these qualify.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They might technically be RS, but we have to watch out for cherry-picking. They may be more appropriate in a section on "perceptions of LaRouche in the former Soviet Union". Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources that was deemed "inappropriate" is Asharq Al-Awsat, considered to be (according to Wikipedia) "the leading Arabic international newspaper," based in London. I can assure you that there is no shortage of cherry-picking in the sources presently used at Lyndon LaRouche. In fact, these international sources are needed precisely to balance the article, which is otherwise highly biased. Looking at Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, I see that these articles rely substantially on British and American sources. Is Will saying that it's all right to use American or British sources for a bio of a Russian or Chinese figure, but Russian and Chinese sources cannot be trusted for a bio of an American figure? This would seem to be either a textbook case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, or else just another variety of cherry-picking. --Alexander Spotswood (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon questionable sources

I'm in the middle of a heated Afd debate for Heather Harmon. It seems that if consensus believes the main sources are not reliable the article may get deleted despite its popularity. I would like verification for sources 3, 4, 6, 7, and opinions on #13 and #14. Please see the the Afd discussion for more information. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking #6 reference out of the request and putting links to the main 3 that are contentious. Discussion ends Saturday Nov 6th. Stillwaterising (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Heather Harmon - Afro-Squad Interview

4. Addams, Zach (2006-08-22). "Heather Harmon Interview". ErosZine. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-07-26. contains nudity

7. "IDT Review - Pornylittledevil.com". Retrieved 2009-10-31.

I'm withdrawing this discussion and reposted a single source from it below. -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Articles

I had some articles and books and I wanted to know if these sources could be used in the article persianization . Most of these sources can be downloaded or read in the google books. I would be merciful if sb. would answer.

• 1 1- Amir Hassanpour, May 1992 , Nationalism and Language in Kurdistan, 1918-1985 [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover) , Mellen University Press , Link to Google Books

• 2 , Beck, Lois, 1991 , Nomad : a Year in the Life of a Qashqa'I Tribesman in Iran

,Berkeley, Ca, U. S. A. University Of California Press ,Link to Google Books

• 3 , Brenda Shaffer , Borders and brethren: Iran and the challenge of Azerbaijani identity , MIT press , 2002 , Link to Google Books

• 4 ,Nikki R. Keddie , Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution , Yale University Press (October 1, 2003) , Link to Google Books

• 5 Dei, George J. Sefa; Asgharzadeh, Alireza , 2003 , Language, Education and Development: Case Studies from the Southern Contexts, Language and Education, v17 n6 , pages :424 427 435 436 437

• 7 , Saeed Rahnema , Sohrab Behdad , Iran After the Revolution: Crisis of an Islamic State , I. B. Tauris (September 15, 1996) , Link to Google Books

• 8 , Massoume Price , Iran's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook (Ethnic Diversity Within Nations) , ABC-CLIO (July 26, 2005) , Link to Google Books Link to Google Books

• Communism and Communalism in Iran: The Tudah and the Firqah-I Dimukrat

Ervand Abrahamian International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Oct., 1970), In pages :298 , 300, 305 persianize has been used and refered to.

user:sicaspi 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please make this easy for us and give us a full citation in the format: Author, Work, Location: Publisher, Year. or Author, "Work" in Book, Location: Publisher, Year. or Author, "Journal Article" Journal Volume# Issue# Year: page numbers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these sources are articles published in some journals and I wanted to publish the whole idea presented there in this article, but I bring here some links to the exact issue I mean:

Please give me some time to fill above citations. sicaspi 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen citation format asked for here at RSN. However, people who come here generally ask about only one or two sources that might have been challenged in an article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If something is published in a book and you can cite a page - accurately - in general there is not a problem. "Be bold." However, if the topic is controversial it is good to leave links - especially if books.google.com has a sufficent preview to show where you go the information. (I noted there were some references.) Or you can include the exact quote from the book with the book title. But if you also find information about objections to the use of the term, you should include that too, to be WP:NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor can cite in Author (Year) Title Location: Publisher if they like. Posting a bunch of uncontextualised links and expecting me to extract bibliographic information before I can begin to judge if they're RS probably indicates the editor isn't familiar with the need for citations, or with any of the common citation formats. Which is why I recommended a Chicago style citation, which is the style I prefer and recommend. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Titles should be fine for this noticeboard. However, when adding citations to an article then the full citation format with publisher, location, etc is preferable, especially if it's an online source that might be mistaken for a blog. But if your sources are published books, and they're not from a vanity press or making exceptional claims, just put them in. One of the mottos here is "be bold". Generally people ask on this noticeboard after one of their sources is challenged, and we coach them on whether the source is reliable enough to support what is claimed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Titles are not fine. Publishers and publication mode are the most important factors, then author. RS/N work takes a considerable amount of time and being given a link, or a title and a link, is insufficient material to work from. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I updated the list, added some fine titles as you had said, and also gave a link to the exact page in the google page, if possible. sicaspi 10:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On their surface, all of these seem to be reliable sources. However, do note that even reliable sources can be misused (For example: if you take what the author says out of context, or go beyond the source to make a point that the author does not make)... not saying that you are doing this, just expressing the caviat. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

Just want to confirm that The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (accessible online here) is a reliable source. I intend to use these entries: network goods, external economies, and externalities in the article on externalities. LK (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Criteria for encyclopedias and other tertiary sources is by academics, for academics, with the articles to be used signed by specialists.

• The Dictionary checks out via its editorial committee
• network goods is signed by Klemperer, Paul, a named chair
• external economies is signed by Bohm, Peter, a dead economist
• externalities is signed by Laffont, JJ, a dead economist

All sources check out. Please use full citations! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Japan Times Herald

Is this blog which has been cited by news sources at least twice, as one of their sources of infomation, a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would normally say no, but there may be more to this blog than meets the eye. Why is Yukio Hatoyama talking to them? That interview may be reliable, if that's what the question is about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the question is are the articles/posts relating to the article International parental abduction in Japan reliable sources? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought too. And the name "Japan Times + Herald" make it sound more official. Still, strictly speaking, I don't think this site can be regarded as "reliable" source. It looks like a collaborative personal weblog by several established Western Journalist active in Japan. Yet, the content of the interview is reported by several newsmedia. So how about adding a reference of this interview within the Hatoyama interview reference. In this way, we sort of keep it within the policy, yet provide useful info to those who care to read further. Vapour (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CRNJ

Would this be a reliable source for use on the koseki, and International parental abduction in Japan articles? The reference was removed on the latter page because it's status as a RS was questioned. Here is the ref in question:

• CRNJapan (25 June 2009). "Koseki". Child Resource Network. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper Japan Children's Rights Network is located at http://www.crnjapan.net for the proper information on Koseki please visit the following link. The Japan Children's Rights Network is a quoted source of information on International Parental Abduction to and from the country of Japan. Crn Japan is the closest to expert on the subject. http://www.crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/res-koseki.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 October 2009

This is good information, thus why I asked here, whether others would consider it a RS, however, it has been questioned on the article in question by User:Vapour. Your opinion that it is a 'reliable source' at the very least provides a good third opinion. An additional opinion supporting it, IMHO, should be sufficient to bring back to the article with a fair amount of certainty that my initial belief of the source is true. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We allow watchdog groups to be quoted with attribution. Does this group have a reputation for being quoted as fact by reliable sources? Are they notable/famous? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is barely mentioned in media or academia. International parental abduction in Japan article is doing fine without them. Vapour (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused with other site. At this point, the site doesn't have much content. Plus prominence of advertisement indicate that this is a personal website. Vapour (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think we need additional opinions on this source. Many newspaper websites carry advertisements, so advertisements alone doesn't discredit a source. They are an advocacy group, I don't think anyone doubts that, but being an advocacy group, doesn't automatically discredit a source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, true but not ads from Google. :) Looking at the content, I don't think this is an advocacy site. The information appear to be accurate but then I'm not a lawyer in Japan. It looks like an attempt by some individual(s) to create a go-to resource site for Japanese divorce and custody issues and to help people find fee charging lawyer. The prominence of ad link to lawyers indicate such motive not to mention the fact that the first section of the first page say, "The bottom line is that the right child custody lawyer can be the deciding factor in determining whether or not you get to keep your child!" There is a similar site created by a New York based lawyer. I used New York lawyer's site to check info or source but I avoid sourcing it directly from the site. Vapour (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

City-Data.com

IS this reliable? [13] John Asfukzenski (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean is it a reliable source for the statistics it displays, I'd have to say no. It is a very popular site (Google page rank 7 and lots of visitors), but it admits here to this:

Please note that a lot of content on our site is user generated. For example, city photos, forum messages, city facts, and business profiles are all submitted by visitors.

There is no description of how that user-generated content is validated or moderated. Our policy for reliable sources requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and I can find no third party that attests to such a reputation. That's not to say that city-data.com doesn't have an editorial policy of vetting user submissions, or that no reliable third-party has confirmed its reputation for accuracy - I just can't find them. Please remember that the onus is on the editor adding material to show that the source they propose is reliable. Until such time as a source can be shown to be reliable, the default position is that it is not. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those statistics come from Census data or other official sources. If it's mirroring Census data then that's reliable. Forum posts are generally not. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Although there is an advantage in using a central repository of data, it allows for errors in the collection and transcription of that data, so the concern about "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" will still need to be considered. I'd always suggest looking at official sources in preference. Does anybody know, for example, whether their "city facts" are user-generated or taken from official sources? --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no indication of reliability here, in the sense that Wikipedia requires. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, as usual, is correct in that some data can be reliable in this website while other info is not. As many of us who have been here a long time know, it has been established many times that there is never any case in which a source is simply reliable or non-reliable, context of usage must be taken into consideration.Camelbinky (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that a lot of their stats is reliable. It sounds like we can't tell which parts are good though, so it's all suspect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's a bad precedent to start throwing around. If a fact is true it doesnt matter if you source it to city-data.com, because it might be easier to use than sourcing it somewhere else. Do you know how upset I am when I see these town and village articles being generically sourced to that US census factfinder site homepage? You then have to fill in the correct info yourself and go through different steps to find what your looking for, its annoying. Sourcing to a less reliable source is sometimes advantagous, though I'm not endorsing it as a general rule of thumb. City-data.com actually already is used in MANY articles. Our decision now, though of course not binding on them, is a bad precedent to their removal. Truth over verifiability may not be popular, but it is really what is best.Camelbinky (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. It's not a "precedent" and it's not "bad". The very first words of the WP:V policy are The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia editors aren't competent to decide the ultimate TRUTH™; likely no-one is. All we can do is report what reliable sources say on a subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

suite101.com

This site is currently blacklisted, but one of our editors who writes for the site has requested to use several of the articles in one of our town articles. I replied telling him that the site probably does not meet WP:RS but I would post here for a discussion. If it does meet WP:RS then I'm not opposed to allowing some exceptions to the blacklist in this case. See also, Talk:New Paltz (village), New York where this was first proposed. ThemFromSpace 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on suite101, but I hate our blacklist. Someone spams a site once, and forever afterward it can't be used as a source or in ELs, except for individual exceptions. That system needs serious work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You could ask on the blacklist noticeboard ( there's a few different blacklists and their names escape me ) about moving it to the less restrictive XLinkBot list instead. Which causes a bot to revert the link the first time its added but editors can then revert the bot. I feel that some sites on the blacklist were added without anyone making a stong case as to why they were a problem. Maybe one site would be a problem and during the discussion someone would say, oh by the way, lets blacklist these too. If you can find where it was added and they didn't make a strong case, you can proposed it be removed and not have to bother with the whitelist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as getting them through RS, it doesn't look like they have an editorial process once a writer is initially approved. So you'd have to argue those documents are self-published by an expert. As the topic of Halloween celebrations in a particular town isn't an academic topic, you shouldn't be expected to show they have academic credentials on the topic. If the author is an event organizer or is in the local Chamber of Commerce, that should be enough, and being quoted in the town's local newspapers would help.

I would suggest if they be used, to be used with a very light weight. Such as "New Paltz has several Halloween traditions, such as haunted houses(cite), a parade(cite), and the 'Night of 1000 Pumpkins'(cite)." On Wikipedia, just as extraordinary or controversial claims require exceptionally strong sourcing, minor claims can be handled with light sourcing. At this level you'd be using them almost as a footnoted external link rather than a source per se. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

suite101.com does not appear to have editorial oversight, so it should be avoided as a source. If an article on it has been published by a recognized expert in their field of expertise, then it can be used with caution. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Suite101.com employs a team of editors who review every single article -- can't link there because of the blacklist, but go to the site -> "About us" -> "Suite101's team" Psb (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That section does give a list of topical editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reposting BLP source

I wasn't aware that asking about articles on the notice board wasn't appropriate. My question was indeed about sources; however no comments were made. Anyway, I need an opinion on the following source. Is this a suitable source for a BLP? If so in what capacity?

A conversation about the reliability of ErosZine and it's publisher Darkside Media was started on Talk:Heather Harmon. It's out-of-print so I had to use web archive. A link to its masthead can be found here. Be warned - it contains nudity. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Addams, Zach (2006-08-22). "Heather Harmon Interview". ErosZine. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-07-26.

The archived editorial policy was selective

"[2 party based categories] Interviews with major models, writers, dancers, actors, actresses and other performers and creators in the world of fetish, BDSM, drag, erotica, film and adult video. Photos must accompany every article. 1,000 to 2,000 words. Payment: $100. These are the only categories in which we are currently soliciting content."

The archived article clearly links under this selective policy.

There is no indication ErosZine (eros-lasvegas.com) is a publication of note, or a publication which would indicate notability of a subject if included within the publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but is it both independant and reliable? Can it be used as a source of quotations?

It can be used for quotations. It can't be used to establish Notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are introductions to interviews regarded as a primary or secondary sources? They act like secondary sources because they are written by a third-party source about the subject and are not part of the "event taking place". How are the interviewer's comments made during the interview regarded? -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot depends on whether we are talking about the interview itself (ie a transcript or a visual or audio recording of the interview), or a news article written about the interview. The interview itself is primary material... the article written about it is secondary material. Now... neither is necessarily reliable. That depends more on the publisher of the interview. An interview (whether the primary transcript or secondary reporting based upon the interview) that is published by a major news outlet is certainly reliable (as they will check to see that what is published is accurate), while a similar interview published by joe blow on his blog is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears an editorial board selects the interview, i.e. it decides what is important and newsworthy, and writes an introduction to it. That makes it at least in part a secondary source, and that counts towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The book "WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS?"

Hello dear Wikipedia peoples.

I am helping a friend who has recently re-published (in English, in self publication) a book called "WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS?". The book was originally published in Hebrew in 1974 (Under the name: מי היו הפיניקים?).

In order the better spread the book's research, the publisher has agreed to release several major chapters of the book under CC (see here), and released them for everyone to use on the website: http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/

The book can be used in articles such as Phoenicia (and probably many other related articles) with both text and images .

But as a Wikipedia member named Dougweller wrote to me in the discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phoenicia#Can_I_link_to_the_book.27s_website.3F

• I think it fails WP:RS

And as I wrote to him in reply:

• the book got letters from distinguished professor in the field, standing for the book's value. But the letter are written in Hebrew. (and also, are available to us in our e-mail box, but of course we could have forged them, which makes them a problematic source for reliability)

I then added the letters themselves (in Hebrew) to the discussion page. With links to the homepages of the people who wrote these letters, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phoenicia#Letters_supporting_the_book_authority_and_research

But I imagine none of this will be enough. I am wondering though what else can I do. Any advice from anyone ?

Thanks, Talgalili (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clealry promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree... the book may, at some point in the future, end up crossing the line between an unreliable and reliable SPS (with the limitations there of) at some point in the future... but I don't see it as happening yet. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slatersteven. I am not sure I follow you. I agree that what I am doing is trying to promote the book. But it is because it has relevant information for the article. Please explaing to me how is it a problem? (I am not being innocent, I am honestly asking)

Hello Blueboar. Could you please tell me what SPS means? Also, what type of proof do I need to arrange (In the sense of finding, not fabricating) for the book to be accepted as a source ?

Thanks for the two of you for responding Talgalili (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I was using Wikipedia jargon... SPS stands for "Self-Published Source", you can find out more about the limitations we put on such sources at WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, now I got it. I read the link you gave but it doesn't give much of a way for me to progress. For example, if a newspaper where to write about the book, would it help? What is researchers where to write about it on their websites? I need some more guidance. Talgalili (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problom with this being promotional is A Conflict of interest, thus implying that your assertion that this is a valuable and notable book may be biased. Also the links you provide on the talk page are not to the letters. So we have no actual provenance to them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand Slatersteven. I could have wrote that the letters I gave are from unbiased people (yet, they are both in Hebrew, and copied from my e-mail box, thus not such a good proof). This leaves me in a need for help. I wish for someone from within Wikipedia who knows about the subject, to go and have a look at the book to make an opinion of their own and voice it. Is that possible? Talgalili (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait Slatersteven - are you saying that if the letters where in some other website that could help? Could you please expend? Maybe that could be arranged. Talgalili (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need to have an opinion from a notable expert in the field to review it and publish said review in a third party RS. To just hacve another Wikieditor look at it and judge its merits I don;t think would be enough in itself to render the book RS (after all anyone can claim to be an expert). As to the letters, its not where they are that counts, its who wrote then, and can this be established, for example if these were on the home pages of the writers they might be considers RS, but not on some random blog. I am also having trouble finding any referance to Dr Nissim R. Ganor.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I will search for 3'rd party reviews and present them once found. 2) Dr Ganor is not a doctor on this field (but a medical doctor). Also, he first published his book in Hebrew in 1974 (I think it was then). Not many blogs from that time ;) (not to say that blog ar a RS) Talgalili (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit of text relevant to this thread seems to have been posted within the post below. Graemedavis (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the web site (whowerethephoenicians.com) I see that the book is not self published but published by kip-kotarim that is a respected publisher in Israel, secondly it is sold on amazon. Third if you look at the introduction chapter it is written by Dr Meir Ben Dov one of Israel's most famous archeologists who's name is famous world wide. He is also quoted on the back cover of the book stating among other things :"I strongly recommend this book etc etc...

1 KIP does not appear to have this book listed on thier website, also it reads like a vanity publishing house [[14]]. 2 niether the book, not the author appear on the UK Amazon site, nor on google as being sold by Amazon [[15]] (nor on google books). 3 as we cannot see what he says in the introduction we canot jusdge what his views are (or even if it is the same person). This is why we need a third party relibale referance.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slatersteven. 1) Regarding KIP, I don't know what to answer. 2) The book IS sold on amazon, see here. 3) You can see his introduction on both the amazon link, and in more detail here. But obviously none of this is enough, I understand the need for a third party reference, and I'll see what I can do. Talgalili (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talgalili... Being sold on Amazon does not tell us much... they do sell books published by vanity presses. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it should say much. I only responded to the claim it wasn't on amazon.co.uk (but that it was still on amazon.com)

Amazon UK [[16]] No list for Dr Ganor, and this [[17]] no list for "WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS". So the question becomes why it it on Amazon.com, but not on Amazon.co.uk?. Tends to imply this is a very limited realease book, not in and of itself a problom but coupled with the other probloms tends to lend creadance to tghe idea that this is a vanity publication. The Introduction on Amazon.com appears to be edited, but seems to contain no actual endorsement. As to your link to page 33, it does not appear to work, just comes up blank, which was my ppoint about not being able to view it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please view the page with firefox or chrome. The page viwer uses google viwer, and is sometimes buggy on old IE's. If you are using one of the above browsers, please wait another moment for loading. (it loads well on my computer) Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also - I agree with all your claims. I will see what can be done to find 3'rd party sources to validate the quality of the publication. Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clearly self-published, one of the services offered is getting it into bookstores, etc [18]. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it wasn't. Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Byrdwatcher a reliable site?

I'm doing a GA review of Sweetheart of the Rodeo, and I've noticed that over 20 cites are to the Byrdwatcher website. The contents of the website are written by Tim Connors a self-confessed Byrds fan. He gives his sources which range from reliable published sources, through other fan sites and fanzines to an interview with David Crosby. WP:SPS applies here, and I haven't found any evidence that Tim Connors has been published by reliable third-party publications either in the relevant field or other field. As there is a considerable amount of work involved in resourcing the cited material, a consensus opinion here that Byrdwatcher is an acceptable source will be a relief to the editors concerned. SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's tough to say "no," here because the site is very good. Are we sure that no magazine has ever pointed at the website and said "this is a pretty good website"? Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a number of books and magazines have said that the site is good, including The Rough Guide to Rock and Record Collector magazine. Even the official Roger McGuinn/Byrds web page endorses it by listing it on their links page (here [19]). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reliable. "self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability" Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's reassuring. Would another reliable sources regular please endorse this view as what I was hoping for was a consensus and so far only Hipocrite has chipped in. Somebody saying "I concur with Hipocrite" would be enough. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree... I think we have a good case for calling Tim Connors an "acknowledged expert" on the Byrds... so the website can be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. SilkTork *^YES! 11:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Guardian blog articles

Does anyone know what the editorial policy of The Guardian blog site is? There are blog pages written by Guardian staff, but others seem to be from people not directly connected to the paper. Is an initial posting the equivalent to a letter, or is it equivalent to a guest opinion piece? Does Wikipedia have a policy/guideline on such blog pieces? -- PBS (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that opinions are presented, if the writer is notable, cite the post as their opinion. If they are not notable, avoid them. This is a source of many problems on WP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I cant remember where the guideline is, but perhaps someone coming across this can point you to the exact one; but per blogs- blogs are not acceptable unless they are written by say a reporter at a newspaper on its website and there is some expectation that there is editorial oversight of some level. When in doubt doing what Collect says is the best bet, attribute the opinion to that of the person so you dont make it seem like its a true fact that you happen to be sourcing to a blog (which wouldnt be allowed anyways).Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies but it does not really help much. We generally do not accept letters to the editor as a reliable source, (unless the author of the letter is independent of the media recognised as an expert in their field, and even then we tend not to use them other than to say "50 experts signed an open letter..") but we do accept opinion pieces published in a reliable newspaper (because it falls under editorial control of the newspaper (WP:SOURCES). This is a fairly easy rule to apply, but it seems to me that one needs to know the editorial policy, of an otherwise reliable newspaper, over its blog site before one can judge if articles published there, should be treated as letters or opinion pieces. In which case we need a default position (either for or against the use of lead blog pieces) if that policy is not clearly stated by the reliable newspaper. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Guardian blogs are all opinion pieces or critical commentary and therefore only really suitable to discribe the views of the writer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So people seem to think these Guardian blogs are good sources to describe somebody's views, but the text must be explicitly attributed as the views of the author. Is that a reasonable summary? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I know about that policy, but was surprised to find out that scienceblogs is considered a reliable source. ScienceBlogs is a "virtual network" where "Scienceblogs.com was launched last January by Seed Media Group, publishers of SEED magazine. Seed recruited 15 of the best known independent science bloggers, offered to compensate them based on traffic, and set them loose to blog about whatever they wanted." [[20]]. There is no editorial control. I thought that these blogs, like other blogs by experts would be evaluated on a case by case basis, but was surprised to find out that they are considered RS. stmrlbs|talk 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says that articles published there are considered reliable sources? Because AFAICT from the footnote that Jayjg has highlighted below it would fall at the editorial hurdle. -- PBS (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See footnote six of WP:V:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

This would be the relevant part of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg, I had not noticed that footnote, was its content discussed in depth on the talk page? Do you think it should be moved from a footnote up into the text of the policy? What is a professional in this usage? How does one tell what the Guardian's editorial policy is on its blog pages? If we do not know what the policy is what is the default position? -- PBS (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The footnote has been there for a long time, not sure if it was discussed on the talk page. I don't think it should be moved to the body of the article, since these kinds of blogs are a tiny fraction of the blogs out there. Regarding the Guardian's blog, it would apply to the "Commentisfree" section of the Guardian website, but it's not clear to me that it applies to the rest of the blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayjg, for pointing that out. This is good to know. stmrlbs|talk 03:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this page that discusses the Guardian blog process. The contributors are selected by the paper on the basis of "good ideas, relevance to current events and good writing." The paper states that they "very rarely publish unsolicited submissions from writers we have not published before." and that the blogs are edited before publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nations Online and HDI

I was wondering if http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm could be used as a reliable source for an article on the first world. This site gathers information from reliable sites but people on the talk page don't feel its acceptable. Also would http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/hdi/ be a reliable source for an article. I think so but others do not. Thanks for all your help. Mln30 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the page where the discussion is happening, so we can see context. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there is not really a discussion about the source. Its just that my teacher on this assignment did not know if the source was reliable and then someone went in and the article now says citations needed where i had originally posted the sources. The article is the First World if you want to look at it. Thanks for the help. Mln30 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your teacher was trying to hint that you can probably find a more reliable source with a bit more searching. I agree, we want our information cited to the most reliable sources possible, and not settle for "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

speedylook.com

I look into SpeedyLook and it seems to be translating French wikipedia; at least gives credits to it: [21]. Not to say it is heavily loaded with adverts but lacks references. I guess its usage in wikipedia as sources is inadmissible and must be cleaned away. - Altenmann >t 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a "mirror" site to the French version of Wikipedia, it should not be used as a cited source for information ... but it can be used as an "external link" in an article (the rules are different for those). Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to give a promotion no a non-original money-making source of unknown verifiability? wikipedia is not a web directory. The ext link must be either trustworthy or have immediate connection to the subject. - Altenmann >t 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably raise that question at WT:External links. Its not "our department". Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea which of dozens of links are ext links and which are refs. I find this dept. division rather dubious. - Altenmann >t 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:External links, it explains the difference. As for knowing which links to the web site in question are External links and which are used as a source, you have to check each article... and see how the link is being used. Blueboar (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry colleague, you read first, then give an advice. WP:EL clearly agrees with WP:CITE in this respect: "Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." (Unless the policy was modified while we were chatting :-)- Altenmann >t 05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Friends of Lulu website a reliable source?

Wapsi Square is AFD for not being verified by reliable sources. One of the sites referenced is the Friends of Lulu weblog. That in turn is referred to on the web by a number of course, such as [22] this one.

Should the blog itself be considered a reliable source? Netmouse (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the official page of a notable award, it counts both as a source and for notability. Also, if one of its articles is cited in another source, then it becomes a primary source for that cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources. Can you indicate why you think this specific blog might be an exception? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it in general should be an exception. However, if it is being used as a source for information about the awards given out by the organization whose blog it is, and those awards are one of, if not the, primary functions of the group, as I believe is true in this case, then it seems reasonable to assume that the information they themselves give out regarding their awards would qualify as reliable. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. It's still a blog, right? Self-published sources may be appropriate for information about themselves (so in this case, to gather information about the awards), but I would rather see third-party sources that cover that nominations, like we can easily find for the Oscars. That would establish the notability of the awards and the comic, I would think.--otherlleft 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony

An IP and an account have been making similar edits on the above article removing material cited to the SPLC for various reasons - it's radical, it's self-published, " because opinions are like other parts of the body, and irrelevant as they aren't necessarily rational or fact driven. " -- and, I just noticed, removing material from the Oklohoma City University Law Review on the grounds that it's an 'exceptional claim', ie a Red Flag claim. Not mentioned in the edit summaries is the removal of a quote from Rushdoony which in fact is from p 251)[R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law - I haven't restored it yet with a cite as I am trying to sort out the whole thing. There's also some POV issues here - in my opinion, but I want to stick to one forum. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC smears political opponents with the racism charge far too often for my liking. Unless this particular allegation by the SPLC has been picked up by the wider media world, I would leave it out of the article. WVBluefield (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor that Dougweller is speaking of. I removed the language sourcing the SPLC because it's completely unsourced opinion. Dougweller states that if we ignored opinions, then reviews of books would naturally be excluded. I understand his point, however, reviews of books are quite a different matter than attributing radical positions to individuals based on someone's opinion. It's also a different matter to state that it appears someone advocates for a position, and to unequivocally state they hold the position. The cited articles do the latter.

Moreover, opinions on individuals are wide and varied, and not necessarily based on fact. They're based on the perceptions of the individual espousing the opinion, whether they be rational or irrational. One may irrationally conclude their opinion regarding someone based on a spurious reading of their work. Is that opinion useful, or even valid? Certainly not.

I understand Dougweller's POV concern, but I'd like to allay that fear. People are not above being wrong, even drastically wrong. If one doesn't understand this, they fall into the trap of attributing to individuals an infalliability that prevents one from rationally considering their positions, but rather, wholesale accepting them simply because that person advanced it. I am not one of those. However, I'm not a fan of attributing positions to people that they didn't in reality hold in a thinly veiled bid to smear their name. I'm not assuming that this is Dougweller's aim but rather the aim of the cited sources. For these reasons, I have removed the material attributed to those sources. Shazbot85^Talk 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller provided some quotes that purportedly justify the conclusions made by the SPLC, but they clearly don't. Nowhere does Rushdoony advocate for racism, but rather speaks broadly about slavery as an institution. He's not specifically speaking of the Anglo-American form of very recent history. He's speaking of slavery as a whole, which is not restricted to the form that was based on racist ideaology. It's anachronism to read a relatively recent development, i.e. slavery based on ethnicity, into the entire history of slavery and then attribute it to someone writing on such a topic.

Moreover, the quote which purportedly justifies the accusation that Rushdoony said the Jews bore false witness against the Germans and denied the Holocaust is equally insufficient. 1. Nowhere does Rushdoony accuse the Jews of bearing false witness. 2. Nowhere does Rushdoony deny the Holocaust happened, he only questions the figures. To say that he said the Jews bore false witness and that he denied the Holocaust is an extreme overstatement of the case. Shazbot85^Talk 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source. They have many detractors in far right publications because they investigate the far right, but their accuracy is not challenged in mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC can be a reliable source, depending on how they draw the information. However, as others have questioned its neutrality, then the text which is referenced to it, should attribute the information. Furthermore, if you are dealing with a Biography article, and the information is making an extraordinary claim, back it up with additional sources to show verification. That my two cents.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't say 'the holocaust didn't happen', but he clearly is denying it - he first suggests the real figure may be less than a million, then says many of those may have died in epidemics. Others have called him a Holocaust denier, eg [23]. He talks specifically of recent slavery, eg " Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States...The private ownership of slave labor in the American South has been the subject of extensive distortion. The Negroes were slaves to their tribal heads in Africa, or prisoner-slaves of other tribes. The monetary unit in black Africa was man, the slave. The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form. Much is said about the horrors of the slave ships, many of which were very bad, but it is important to remember that slaves were valuable cargo and hence property normally handled with consideration."  :::His attitude towards blacks is, for instance, shown by "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" and refers to them as "inferior stock". He is clearly a segregationist and racist.

Just to make it clear, he died in 2001. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My goal, is not to defend the subject of the article. Honestly, I could careless what he had thought, regardless of how repugnant that thought maybe. That being said, the reason for this noticeboard is whether the SPLC is a reliable source. As I have said, most of the time it is. However, because it is being contested, I would suggest that its statements be backed up by additional third party sources, for increased verification purposes. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, you appear to be arguing from ad hominem. "Just to be clear, he died in 2001" really can't be viewed as anything other than a personal attack on the man, as it implies his ideas were unfit for modern society. I dare point out that the moral sentimentalities of modern society are carbon-copy repeats of past civilizations. No side, right or left, has a lock on "modern" morality. It's all been done before and its rank arrogance to think "modern" ideas are somehow innovative or progressive in the grand scheme of history.

I believe that information may have been added to indicate that WP:BLP does not apply in this case. That is a policy which specifically states that statements about living people must be extremely well sourced, and there might be some question whether this material would be well enough sourced for inclusion were the subject living. However, considering the subject has been dead for about eight years, there is no reason to believe that those extraordinary sourcing requirements need be met in this case. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same type of marginalization from you that I see from the SPLC. You see something you don't like, you act obtusely, remain in intentional ignorance, and make no attempt to understand what Rushdoony is actually saying, in context, and then twist what he said in an effort to marginalize him and label him. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I'm having difficulty doing so considering some of the comments you've made and the way you've seemingly manipulated quotes and sources. You may despise the man, but please try to understand what he's saying, in context, without the hued glasses of "political correctness".

My apologies to you if I seem a bit frustrated. Good night. Shazbot85^Talk 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I stated this on the Rushdoony talk page, and I'll state it again, disputing the amount of deaths in the Holocaust is not denying the Holocaust, it's disputing the figures. It doesn't make a rip of difference in 100,000 died or 6 million, the Holocaust still happened, and Rushdoony doesn't contest that. You're being disingenuous with his words. Shazbot85^Talk 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not the claim that no Jews were killed, but rather:

• "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." (Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004.
• "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude - that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-produce of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman. Denying History: : who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0520234693, p. 3.

In other words, saying only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed is Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg,thanks for the information, I was wondering why Dougweller was so emphatic about the claim. However, your definition espouses a three part test. A quote has only been produced which questions the number of Jews killed, purportedly fulfilling the third requirement. I have not seen a sourced quote, or any quote for that matter, from Rushdoony which would support the view that he didn't think there was an official Nazi policy to exterminate Jews, nor homicidal gas chambers. I'm not saying with knowledge that he isn't a holocaust denier; I haven't exhaustively read Rushdoony. From what I have read though, this seems to be an extreme claim about him. As a result, I'm very suspicious as to whether he actually is. Perhaps you're more knowledgeable than I am, in which case, you might be able to provide some sourced, contextual quotes that fulfill all of the prongs of the holocaust denier test you set forth. In any case, thanks for the helpful information. Shazbot85^Talk 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. It points to holocaust denial in general as being based on those three points, but it doesn't specifically state that each and every one of those points must be met for the term to be used. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. " That's what the definition says, not "It points to holocaust denial in general as being based on those three points, but it doesn't specifically state that each and every one of those points must be met for the term to be used." Holocaust deniers, based on the definition, question all three points. Proof is provided for questioning one. You can't change definitions because it suits you. Shazbot85^Talk 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources indicate that those three are the most popular Holocaust denial claims. They don't indicate that every Holocaust denier must make every single one of them in order to be defined as a Holocaust denier. More importantly, reliable sources describe him as such, and that's all we need. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) It's actually the Intelligence Report that is the source. The Report "won a second-place Green Eyeshade Excellence in Journalism Award in non-deadline reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists.[24] Intelligence "Project staff have been involved in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's hate and bias crime "train-the-trainer" program since its inception in 1992. FLETC trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies."[25] "The Project's director testified before Congress in 1996 about far right extremists in the military, and the editor of the Intelligence Report presented a paper on Internet hate as a United Nations-certified expert to the U.N.'s High Commission on Human Rights in 2000."[26] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that verify the extraordinary claims? Testimony before Congress doesn't make a lick of difference so far as the reliability of the testimony goes. Moreover, the polemic nature of the history you've outlined shows a pattern of circular logic and marginalization of political enemies through ad hominem labeling. All you've seemed to do with the history is cement the idea that the SPLC performs political character assassination on people they don't agree with, which is exactly my point. Shazbot85^Talk 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source on extremists and Holocaust deniers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, didactic assertion doesn't pass the test of verifiability. The SPLC isn't reliable because you happen to agree with them. As it stands, there don't seem to be quotes that support the hasty conclusions they make, unless you twist them and inject NPOV. Shazbot85^Talk 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "reliable" in "reliable sources" can be and sometimes is misconstrued by people. A reliable source is one that meets the criteria set forward in WP:RS, whether the specific statements from that source are themselves specifically "reliable" or not. In this case, the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so far as I can tell. This is not saying that its statements of opinikon, or conclusions, are necessarily "reliable", although they are in general considered notable enough for at least potential inclusion in some way. Regarding the matters relating to the holocaust and slavery, the best experts are probably to be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. Regarding these particular matters, holocaust denial and being at the extreme end of opinion ("extremists"), the first seems independently verifiable based on the definition and the statements of the subject himself, and the second, while more a statement of opinion, is probably also reliable enough for inclusion, if possibly with attribution to the SLPC. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source, as they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Verbal chat 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that SPLC is a reliable source for facts about particular individuals and groups in the U.S., though possibly more questionable on whether the general trend of right-wing and racist activity is upward or downward, because that gets a bit closer to their own fundraising. - Jmabel | Talk 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that SPLC comments on controvercial issues... they do have a bias. That does not mean it is unreliable. Even though it sometimes shows a bias, the SPLC has a good reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The fact that SPLC has a bias simply means that, when the issue is controvercial, we should state what it says as an opinion, and contrast what it says with other reliable sources that may have a differing opinion. It does not mean we should not discuss what it says. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this approach is far more neutral than the approach suggested by some of the more extreme editors. The article as it was didactically asserted that Rushdoony was a holocaust denier, racist, and segregationist. The quotes provided do not bore this out. I am more amenable to presenting the opinion as just that, an opinion. If you'll refer to the Rushdoony article, I have left in the portion regarding the accusation that Rushdoony denied the holocaust, with the fact that Chalcedon disputes it presented beside it. Shazbot85^Talk 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm getting a bit tired of these personal comments coming from someone who has complained about ad hominem. Who is an extreme editor? I made one edit [27] and my edit summary said "The SPLC is considered a reliable source, particularly for its own opinions..." Shazbot also accused me of arguing from ad hominem when I pointed out that he was dead (which was to make it clear that this was not a BLP - I noted that it was mentioned that it was a biography and the distinction between being alive and dead is relevant), and he then launch into a series of personal attacks on me, saying I'm twisting things, remaining in intentional ignorance, etc. It ill behoves someone so concerned about character assassination and ad hominem to speak of another editor in such terms. I also fail to see how removing any criticism of Rushdoony's racial views helps make the article NPOV. The SPLC is not the only source that considers him to have been a racist. I also found a number of quotes by him in response to the complaint that statements weren't based on things he said. His own statements clearly make him a segregationist and I'm happy to have them used. I think I've also seen some shifting of the goal posts. For instance, on the talk page when I wrote that Rushdoony said "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" , Shazbot replies ", how is stating that African-American spirituality has been historically steeped in mysticism the attitude of a segregationist???" which is clearly not what Rushdoony said. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the situation.

(1) While you pointed out he was dead, you seemed to clearly mean the statement as a contrast between the year he died, and his views. I interpreted that as an ad hominem attack. If it was not, and I was hasty, then please forgive me. I assumed too much and you meant something innocuous.

(2) I went to great pains to first point out that I thought the SPLC was twisting quote.s You then provided a litany of quotes that failed to prove any of your positions. I explained why they didn't and you occasionally responded with equally uncompelling quotes and arguments. All of them assumed facts and words not in the quotes, or sought to over-extend the topic Rushdoony was speaking of. I'm sorry, but that's twisting. It may have been unintentional, I'll assume it was, but it's still twisting his words. If this offends you, I can't help that.

(3) You wrote that when Rushdoony said, "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro", he was making a generalization, seeking to ignore Christianity's impact on the culture. The quote, however, makes it clear he was speaking of the Background of the African-American, which makes it clear he's not addressing the impact of Christianity, but rather religion while they were in Africa. That's not a generalization, and you're reading Rushdoony wrong, either because of intentional or unintentional bias. When one speaks specifically, you can't then argue they're speaking generally. That defies logic.

Again, for any perceived ad hominem, I apologize. You've acted in bad faith on several occasions though. Shazbot85^Talk 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, my comment on his death was solely to point out he was dead. Your personal attacks are continuing - I see you've called me a liar on the article's talk page.

Maybe I've misunderstood " Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" - perhaps he somewhere points out that Christianity was also part of the life of 'America's Negro'.

Just out of curiousity, are you really saying he wasn't a segregationist? Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) The sentences says (WAS) the life, which immediately succeeds a sentence where he says he's talking about (BACKGROUND). Read plainly, he was talking about the background of the "American Negro". (2) It's irrelevant if I say that or not. My point is that you haven't proven he was. Quit skirting the issue because you can't meet it. Shazbot85^Talk 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've removed the 'lying' comment -- good move but it looks, coupled with your lack of Good Faith, as though you may think I'm lying. Another question - do you think he wasn't a racist? (I guess that depends upon your definition, of course). Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually scolding me for making a mistake and removing it? "I see you made a mistake, and then removed it. Good job idiot!" That's hardly productive, or even rational. Regarding your question: That's irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant what you think, and what the SPLC thinks. The quotes you've provided don't prove the case, and that's what matters. Shazbot85^Talk 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please revert this edit [28]? It is muy idiotic. I have no intention of edit-warring with this dude, so I request that someone else step in to revert him. -- Y not? 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this how things function, no improvement, no substantiation, just shouting other people down who disagree or want to hold you to the proper standard? Shazbot85^Talk 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Where we are thus far:

(1) Definition for holocaust denier has been provided, and only a quote to fulfill one of the three requisite positions to fit the definition has been provided.

(2) No suitable quote where Rushdoony states African-Americans are an inferior race has been produced. The only quote that's been produced explains Rushdoony's views on the background of African-American spirituality and religion, i.e. in Africa. There's no compelling reason to reject the plain reading of the text and assume he's generalizing all African-Americans up to the present time, as it's clear he's speaking of times past.

(3) The claims of the SPLC, as a result, remain unsubstantiated. If they're a reliable source, and Rushdoony is clearly a racist holocaust denier, then surely Rushdoony must have said it somewhere. Due to the extreme nature of these claims, I can't really find a reason for how quickly people are jumping on the bandwagon to label him, relying on implications they draw from ambiguous quotes. Can the quotes be read two ways? Possibly, which is why I'm so surprised at how quickly people are ready to assume the most vile conclusion. Shazbot85^Talk 22:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, as I have said on your talk page you are at 3RR and I've reverted your recent removal. Rushdoony doesn't have to say 'I'm a racist holocaust denier' to be one. And these are not extraordinary claims as you've said in your edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller is right. For people who are not living, it is reasonable and even expected that comments from other reliable sources regarding their conduct is sufficient for inclusion, particularly if they fall within the mainstream of opinion, as those comments do. The statement that the claims of the SPLC remain unsubstantiated is almost laughable. The absurd logical fallacy that we can only use the exact statements of deceased people as a basis for inclusion of material in an article is absurd, has absolutely no substantiation in policy or basic logic. The mainstream opinion seems to be that he was a holocaust denier. His own statements are such that those statements constitute a form of holocaust denial, making the further identification of him as a denier very well based. I would urge the newer editor to perhaps better acquaint himself with wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making such unsubstantiated and unfounded statements again. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, John Carter, and others here are right. In addition, while removing SPLC as an unreliable source, you (Shazbot) had no qualms about citing a blog posting. Also, you can't insert whatever you like in front of a source, regardless of whether or not the source has the material in it, as you did here. In any event, I've shortened the section to four sentences, and added three reliable sources attesting to Rushdoony's Holocaust denial and racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the SLPC too often fails to cite sources, other than to say "a New York Times article said" or "someone who infiltrated one of their mailing lists or meetings said" or "we have info this person was at a conference some one racist attended and therefore they are one too", etc. So as others have said, unless their source is clear and WP:RS, it should be used only when not challenged and then it should be identified as the source of the info in the text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol, can you provide sources for any of your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We allow watchdog groups such as the SPLC. SPLC has an editorial process and isn't a selfpub. However, I am leery of citing it for derogatory information in a biography. Furthermore the SPLC article Casting Stones is about his son and has only a trivial mention of the father's views. Jayjg found a better source in the Mother Jones article A Nation Under God which explains how the controversy came from the 1973 book Institutes of Biblical Law. I would suggest replacing the SPLC cite with the Mother Jones cite, and I'd also suggest looking for any book reviews which may weigh in on the issue more directly. Also, the family-edited Chalcedon material should be a valid cite for a rebuttal as long as it is attributed as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayjg has made the edits you indicated, but has also removed the Chalcedon source that contests them. Is there anyone who can revert his edit, as it seems to be consensus that the Chalcedon article was reliable, and served to validly rebutt the SPLC claim? Shazbot85^Talk 08:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus that the Chalcedon article was reliable". The source is http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2005/11/did-rushdoony-deny-holocaust.php - did you notice the word "blog" in the url? That indicates that it is a blog. Please explain why this blog would be considered a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

May anyone post on the Chalcedon blog? Or is it a press release from the organization, edited by the family? Just as a newspaper's staff "blog" is still a valid secondary source if the newspaper is an RS, an organization's press release "blog" is a valid primary source for articles about the organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Shazbot, consensus hadn't been reached yet, just another opinion was added to the debate. I don't generally get involved in the articles I help with on the noticeboards, but it would not be edit-warring if you were making compromise edits as opposed to reverts, especially given that several days were elapsing between the changes. The replacing of the SPLC article with the more topical Mother Jones article is the way RSN is supposed to work. Editors question a source, both sides analyze the issue, and a better source is found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Jayjg writes above: can you provide sources for any of your claims? People rarely source opinions here, do they? Anyway, SPLC is an advocacy group that has been frequently criticized for its fundraising (see Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Fundraising) and by at least two academic sources (below) for its questionable assertions for political and/or fundraising purposes:

This source was removed from is in the article, though it specifically mentions SPLC’s Klanwatch Intelligence reports:

Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” wrote about SPLC and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies. For instance, events were sometimes portrayed in Klanwatch Intelligence Reports as more militant and dangerous with higher turnouts than we observed.”REF:Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3.

This is a new source of criticism I just found: Searching for a demon: the media construction of the militia movement by Steven M. Chermak (an Assoc Prof of Criminology) UPNE, 2002 which has a number of pages referring to SPLC’s methods. Of particular interest: p. 104: SPLC claimed a militia group was racist but the group eader told a reporter this was false and that they worked with a black militia group that visited his home; p. 124-126: Questions about whether statistics trumped up; p. 126-127: SPLC claimed a Utah Mormon historical preservation group is an active right wing militia group; Militia informant comments on sloppy scholarship by SPLC; p. 135: SPLC/ADL use the “racist” and "growing threat" frames to demonize groups.

Given these criticisms, at the very least any use of their info has to be attributed to them in the article. If it is sourced, look for the original source, if possible. And if they make very defamatory accusations against individuals which they do not back up with any sourcing at all, these should not be included in an article. For examples of unevenly sourced or unsourced accusations, see articles 1, 2, 3, 4. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This criticism - by one person - shows itself that the SPLC is widely considered reliable. "About 50 percent of the statistical estimates provided in stories about the militia movement were provided by experts from either the SPLC or the ADL." Your various cites are unreliable, however. On page 104, a militia member swears he's not a racist. He's unreliable. He also belies his own point - here in america, where the movement comment is, we've decided "seperate but equal" isn't equal. The racist writes "...we've got a unit of blacks..." He dosen't say he's got blacks in his unit, but rather, in a racially segregated unit. Oops! The second quote isn't anythting but hearsay - in this case, hearsay hearsay from YET ANOTHER MILITIA MEMBER (and I bet you he got it from CNN, which told that exact same anecdote - except in 1997!) The third quote? Dosen't even alledge that the SPLC is wrong, merely that unreliable Militia members state they've got Spanish - WAIT I MEAN MEXICANS! in their units. I suggest you stop googling for dollars on this one - the SPLC is obviously reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Chermak's relevant pages have to be read carefully and summarized accurately, not cherry picked for conclusions, like you do in your first quote about 50%. Just because a lot of news sources and even the author quote SPLC doesn't mean they are always correct, which is the whole point of the author's comments.

The interview with the racist group was to make the [author Mr. Chermak's] point that SPLC and even reporters quoting it does NOT fact check with actual groups, like it did not with the Mormon group, another evidence they aren't a real NEWS source but an advocacy group.

Also, the alleged racist militia leader doesn't say anything about separate or equal or segregation like you allege above. He says his group is not racist and he doesn't know why the groups are separate. In my experience in my lefty-progressive peace group, members would say the same thing about the fact there were hardly any blacks in our group and that the blacks preferred to organize in their own group and only network with us. So SPLC should write up all the primarily white peace groups as racists?

Also note that in page 95 Chermak writes that reporters tend to ignore academics - I guess having a more accurate and/or balanced viewpoint, they don't sell as many newspapers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you alledge the SPLC is unrelible because they don't give the Militia perspective on Militia racism like the author you googled for does? Thanks for your opinion! Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the author does, as one of several examples. I've made that more clear above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The author does no such thing. The author has expressed mild disagreement with the SPLC on some fairly innocuous matters, no more. Disagreements are rife among reliable sources, and, in particular, in the academic world. That doesn't make the sources unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So far third party sources have been provided to show that the Intelligence Report is a reliable source. But the editors arguing against are unable to provide reliable sources that show the Report is unreliable, just arguments why they do not see it as reliable.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Carol's source which is critical of media coverage of the Militia Movement, notes that newspapers and law enforcement rely on SPLC. The book does not mention or comment on the Intelligence Report however which is the source that has been challenged. There is no indication that the Report is less reliable than mainstream media. Unless we decide that MSM is unreliable, it is logical to consider the Report RS. I would though mention that when writing about non-current events, journalism contemporary to the events should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Automotive genuine parts - RS or not?

Following on from some lengthy (and sometimes heated) discussions on my talk page, another editor posed the comment that genuine automotive industry parts (genuine car parts) are not classed as reliable sources. Now I've looked at the relevent RS pages, and can not find any evidence to either support for or against this. My own point of view is that genuine automotive parts should be classed as a reliable source - but I can't seem to find a concenus one way or the other. The crux of this issue revolves around the 'VWAG' abbreviation for Volkswagen Group in some related articles - I thought it was a commonly known abbreviation (in the automotive world, say similar to GMC), but other editors seem to think not.

Soooooo, are/can genuine automotive parts be classed as a reliable source? Discussions please. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how a physical object such as an automotive part could answer the question of whether Volkswagen Group is abreviated as "VWAG" ... A VW catelogue of parts, or the website of a dealer, perhaps... but the part itself? Does the company stamp "VWAG" on it's carborators or something? Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, most (though not all) parts have 'VWAG' on them (they are either cast into them when they are molded from molten metal - engines, transmissions, major components; or they are stamped into them in thing like pressed steel body panels). And the VW parts catalogue is now just an electronic version - ETKA, and that has no abbreviations at all - even when you look on the 'help > about' window. But my fundamental question remains - if a genuine Volkswagen Group part had the "VWAG" initials on them (or similar parts from other original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts manufacturers), could those actual parts be classed as a reliable source? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is on packaging of their products, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not on the packaging - the "VWAG" is on the actual physical parts - be they on the parts when the car left the factory production line, or parts obtained from genuine Volkswagen (or Audi, Seat or Skoda) dealerships. Their boxes are generally labled with the German language "Volkswagen Original Teile", along with English, and various other language translations. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look into the specific dispute in any great detail, but I would suggest trying to find sources other than automotive parts. This site appears to be the "Trademark Usage Guide" for Volkswagen of America, identifying what they have trademark claims on. On that page, they refer to their parent company, Volkswagen AG, using the abbreviation VWAG. That would indicate to me that the company itself, at the very least, sometimes uses the abbreviation VWAG. A Google Books search for "VWAG" also indicates that the abbreviation is used, especially in legal proceedings. That said, I've also seen some of their legal documents that use "Volkswagen AG" throughout, so your mileage may vary. ← George ^talk 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, in matters of corporate identity, there's no need to resort to examining inscriptions cast or stamped into car components, when car manufacturers produce copious quantities of printed and electronic material which provide perfectly good reliable (primary) sources for such things. Unless, of course, you were being disingenuous! Letdorf (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Letdorf, I fully agree that we should not be resorting to examining car parts. But I honestly didn't know where else to look. And I'm sorry if you think I was not being sincere - which is why I raised the issue as a genuine concern here. And I also agree that we should be able to find such info on the net/books/publications etc, but I honestly drew a blank! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the sources George has mentioned, it's common practise in legal documents to invent ad hoc abbreviations for entities referred to in the document for the purposes of brevity; I wouldn't use these as evidence of official corporate identity policy. Letdorf (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

(ec) To be clear, I'm not saying that what I linked to is "evidence of official corporate identity policy". I'm unsure of the details of the dispute, but my feeling would be that (a) it's okay to use VWAG as an abbreviation for Volkswagen AG in the article, as it's sometimes used, and (b) it's probably not okay to claim that it's an official abbreviation, without better sourcing at least. ← George ^talk 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

George, I (naturally) agree with your point (a), and could I therefore assume (with regards to your agreement of point a) that you would agree, and think it reasonable to use the VWAG abbreviation for other related Volkswagen Group articles (providing that the salient points on abbreviations/acronyms in the MOS are followed)? With your point (b), again I agree that better sourcing should be used - but until now, I had sadly drawn a blank on the sourcing issue. However, in my defence, dispite what a certain editor is trying to state, VWAG definately is a 'common abbreviation', and is very well known within the wider Volkswagen Group 'arena' - and I thought that for 'common abbreviations', then Wikipedias policy was that these did not need sourcing (so like it is common knowledge that USA is common abbreviation, as is UK, GB, PAN-AM, etc). But moving on, and running with your comment on 'better sourcing', you have thankfully provided one source for official trademark representation in the United States, and I have now also found an additional official source here for the same VWAG trademark in the United Kingdom - so lets hope this now proves (in the two major English language territories) that VWAG is the official abbreviation for Volkswagen Group. And sincerest thanks for your help, George. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are joking? "VWAG" is registered as an official trademark by "Volkswagen AG" - so how can you NOT accept these as official? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to link to a source that identifies VWAG as "an official trademark". ← George ^talk 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The bare fact that a registered trademark exists doesn't really prove very much with respect to corporate identity. Companies often have registered trademarks than they never, or no longer, actually use. For instance, "V.A.G." is currently registered with the UK IPO to Volkswagen AG,[29] even though they haven't used that for years, AFAIK. Another random automotive example is the "Triumph" trademark, which is currently registered in the UK to BMW,[30] but I don't recall them ever using it at all. Letdorf (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

"The bare fact that a registered trademark exists doesn't really prove very much with respect to corporate identity" - what planet are you on? The fundamental purpose of registering a trademark is categorically to be able to prove some kind of "identity"! And your comment on the "V.A.G." is wrong about it not being in use - because it still is (well it definately is in the UK, for identifying 'generic' Volkswagen Group UK parts - though I can not comment on its use in other countries). And I find it very strange that you went to lengths to find a Volkswagen Group trademark which (you say) isn't in use, yet you completely failed to apply the same level of diligence to search for VWAG - which is the specific purpose of this discussion. An increadibly simple search of the UK IPO site which you listed above brings up Case details for Community Trade Mark E1064997 - VWAG. This trademark filing is still valid, it relates to "VOLKSWAGEN AG" (ie, Volkswagen Group, and not the actual marque of cars it sells). Furthermore, it categorically states; under class 07: "motor parts for land vehicles", under class 12: "Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water including their parts; including; vehicles and their parts, automobiles and their parts, engines for land vehicles.", and class 37: "Repair and maintenance of vehicles; including; vehicle repair in the course of vehicle breakdown service, cleaning, repairing, maintenance and varnishing of vehicles." I re-iterate my comment that this trademark covers the 'Group', and not individual marques - and is therefore, categorically 100% a valid and legitimate abbreviation for "Volkswagen Group". And like I mentioned on my talk page, I feel that you are being bloody minded in your attitude on this issue - you personally can not, and will not accept that VWAG is an official abbreviation of Volkswagen Group, and that you are determined in your personal quest to obliterate it from Wikipedia! Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just one further point: www.volkswagenag.com is the official corporate website of Volkswagen AG/Volkswagen Group, providing access to hundreds of publications, reports, presentations etc. relating to the Group, and hence presumably an authoritative primary source for all things Volkswagen Group. If you use that website's search facility to search for "VWAG", you get only six results [31]: three PowerPoint investor presentations, two Japanese stock exchange filings, and one environmental report in French. I stand by my assertion that the abbreviation "VWAG" is not widely used by the Group. Letdorf (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Again, you are being 'selective', and trying to prove a negative! Try again, and use a space "VW AG" as also discussed on my talk page, and you get 333 hits! I think that has trashed your 'opinion'. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the fact that it is "VWAG" and not "VW AG" that you have been using in WP articles (and in this discussion until now), I'm afraid your 333 hits appear to include documents that have "VW" and "AG" somewhere in them, but not necessarily "VW AG". Actually searching for the text "VW AG" returns only 43 hits, compared to 665 for "Volkswagen Group". Oh, and by the way, is "trashing" another editor's opinion your idea of building consensus? Letdorf (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Erm, look at the search terms - it is clearly VW plus AG, and those 333 hits have BOTH, not either/or as you state! And you also FAILED to acknowledge that on my talk page (where your comments were verging on personal attacks and harrasment), I clearly stated either "VWAG", and/or "VW AG". And again, you are muddying the water by dragging in 'off-topic' issues - we are discussing the acronym, not the full English language name - the latter of which we both agree on! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Like a lot of search engines, to search for a phrase containing spaces, you need to put the phrase in quotation marks. To quote the website help page:

If you enter several terms in your search, the search function will automatically only display content containing all these terms. You can search for a fixed combination of words by putting several words in inverted commas. The search function shows results that exactly match the words you have entered.

And since this whole discussion has arisen from a debate about whether it's a good idea to refer to Volkswagen Group as "VWAG", I'm not sure why you think the comparison is "off-topic". I also take great care to remain civil and refrain from using abusive language in any talk page discussion, and so I am very concerned about your allegations of "personal attacks". Please could you point out to me which of my comments on your talk page you consider to be in violation of Wikiquette? Letdorf (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

I am still a bit confused as to why this is being questioned in the first place... you do not need a reliable source to abreviate a name in an article... it can be done on purely editorial grounds without pointing to a reliable source. Many of our articles abreviate names purely for simplicity sake. I see no reason why you could not use the abreviation "VWAG" in this article, whether Volkswagen uses it or not. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the MoS includes a few caveats regarding the use of abbreviations in articles, viz:

• Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper.
• Avoid abbreviations when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy.
• Generally avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, while it is reasonable to provide World Union of Billiards as a translation of Union Mondiale de Billard, the former is not the organization's name, and the organization does not use the acronym or initialism WUB; when referring to it in short form, use the official abbreviation UMB.

Letdorf (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

As usual Letdorf, you have been highly selective in your quoting of the Manual of Style! The very first comment states:

"Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence

When introducing a new name in an article, it is good practice to use the full name on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses."

So, working from the quoted correct example, Volkswagen Group (VWAG) is the correct way to do it, and can be followed on by just using the acronym.

Now to answer your quotes above. Your first point is a non-starter - because in all the articles I've edited, I've always written the full name, and immediately followed it by including the abbreviation in brackets (thus complying with the MOS). And your third comment is also a non-starter - VWAG is not a made up or new abbreviation! It is an official abbreviation, and has been established since 1999!

But it is your second point which I have the greatest concern with - and again this is where you have been highly selective. Allow me to 'complete' your sentance: "Avoid abbreviations when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy. For example, approx. for approximate or approximately should generally not be used, although it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data, or in a technical passage in which the term occurs many times." So, with the whole MOS section on 'Acronyms and abbreviations' taken into account - it is perfectly reasonable, and acceptable to use the VWAG acronym, providing it has been correctly identified (from the full name) earlier in the article. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Car parts aren't reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite a stretch to me to start using a code that might be stamped on some car parts as the preferred abbreviation for Volkswagen. It's possible they might use VWAG, but if we're only looking for an abbreviation to use in our own prose we should use whatever's most common in the literature, which is probably going to be VW. Besides, the AG seems redundant. Most German businesses are either a GmbH or an AG. It would be like a U.S. corporation appending Inc, LLC, or L.P. to an abbreviation.

The idea of prefixing a part number by an alphabetic manufacturer code is common in some industries. Semiconductors (for integrated circuits) and locksmithing (for key blanks) come to mind. I haven't noticed this in auto parts but it's not impossible. Would also be worth seeing what Volkswagen uses for its manufacturer number in a car's VIN code. But if VWAG is not in popular usage it might merit only a brief mention in a page about the company, together with stock ticker symbols (VOW, VLK ) and other abbreviations one might come across. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, I think you are slightly missing the point (and please forgive me if I presume wrong). I only started the discussion on VWAG being on 'car parts' simply because I hadn't (then) found any alternative proof for the VWAG acronym. And the "VWAG" does not refer to the marque of car which goes by the name of 'Volkswagen', and nor does it apply to Audi, SEAT or Škoda cars. VWAG actually refers to the holding company / parent company of those four (and other) individual marques of cars which belong to the Volkswagen Group. And whilst I fully accept that the parts often have the Audi 'four rings' logo, or the circular 'VW' logo to identify the particular marque of car, they also have 'VWAG' to indicate they are from the larger, 'top-tier' parent company. So I do not support the VWAG being used for the Volkswagen marque - 'VW' is for that - but VWAG (a formal registered trademark in both the UK and USA) is only used for the parent company.

And whilst I understand and respect your comment on U.S. companies not using LLC for their own acronyms, in Germany, they do actually seem to incorporate AG into their acronyms (well Volkswagen Group have proven that they do).

To answer your slightly irrelivent (IMVHO) comment on the VIN codes - allow me to list the relevent World Manufacturer Identifier codes for their four mainstream marques:

• WVWZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Volkswagen' marque,
• WAUZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Audi' marque,
• WUAZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by quattro GmbH, for bearing the 'Audi' marque,
• WSEZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'SEAT' marque, and,
• WSKZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Škoda' marque.

Finally, your last comment on the 'popular usage' of VWAG - I categorically state that it is in popular useage (for the Group), but Letdorf seems to take the diametrically oposite point of view. But the simple fact remains - VWAG is a registered trademark, and it is also adorned on parts/vehicles manufactured by the Group (or its subsidies for the Group). 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"AG" (Aktiengesellschaft) is the German equivalent of "Inc." in the US or "Ltd." in Britain. Collect (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed - and I think that all 'parties' understand that particular point. But thanks for pointing it out to other readers. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using "VW" to refer to Volkswagen Group can be ambiguous as we should be able to differentiate between Volkswagen (the brand) and Volkswagen Group (which comprises several different brands). But then, IMHO, "Volkswagen Group" isn't a particularly cumbersome appellation anyway. Letdorf (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

And I totally agree with your first comment. "VW" (which is both a trademark, as well as a 'stylised icon') should only be used to refer to Volkswagen cars, and not the Group. And I also agree with you that Volkswagen Group isn't cumbersome either - however, I do feel that the VWAG acronym has a rightful place in articles too (again, providing that the relevent MOS has been complied with). Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions - is VWAG an accepted abbreviation

So can we have a consensus on this? And just to provide further evidence that VWAG is a common abbreviation, BMW owners in America use it - here. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

UN Watch

Is UN Watch a reliable source for an article on United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict‎‎? The sources used are from http://blog.unwatch.org and a press release: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=7315797. Pexise (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Holocaust Deniers visit the sites of the crime and try to do some kind of research! UN Watch has no existence other desperately trying to blur the evidence and testimony of others. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the press release is a reliable source but the blog is not. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be used so long as whatever is said is attributed to UN Watch in the article. UN Watch clearly has some agenda -- but so do all other NGOs, and there is no difficulty in citing them. However, per the comment by IP Address 80.44.225.228 if there are reliable sources which discredit or challenge UN Watch's findings/assertions then they too should be included in the article. But one person's personal opinion that "UN Watch [does nothing but] blur the evidence and testimony..." is not sufficient reason to exclude it, in my opinion. One thing which may be relevant here is that it seems that UN Watch has been cited in a variety of academic material.[32] Sstr (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sentences that cite UN Watch in the article are NEVER formulated as a statement of fact (which is a prerogative of RS), but are always attributed to UN Watch (and if, by chance, I omitted something - point out and I'll fix it immediately myself). It's blog is an iherent part of their site. No one has ever claimed and not even intended to claim that UN Watch is RS, there's no need for that. UN Watch is NGO, a notable one, and its teatment is no different than any other NGO, be it Human Rights Watch (which is not RS, but a highly notable org) or else. As I see it, this request is merely a misunderstanding of the wiki policies regarding reliable and notable sources and should never be invoked in the 1st place. If though anyone still needs a proof UN Watch is a notable source, dedicated to matters connected to UN, especially UN Human Rights Council - it is in their site and if this is still not enough - I'll post here numerous publications in RSs that refer to opinions of UN Watch on the matters above. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable position to me.Sstr (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The blog is probably RS if it's under the editorial control of the site and the site itself is RS, just like with newspapers. That press release would be a valid source for The watchdog group U.N. Watch wrote a letter of protest asking that person xyz be removed from the panel, but per BLP may not be a valid source to their reasons why they wanted the person removed. Also there should be material from other sources about the person in question, say at least a paragraph in the article. Otherwise, unless the person is independently notable, it may be best not to mention them by name. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: is UN Watch a notable group? Is it simply an fringe "attack dog" type of organization? If so, I would find their material doubtful, just as Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch were deemed unreliable. Ngchen (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Squidfryerchef: the UN Watch blog is under the control of the UN Watch site - it is simply a tool to post material. However, as I tried to explain above, UN Watch site is not a RS in itself - as true for all NGOs. By simple analogy, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a notable human-rights organization, but it is not RS in itself. Being a notable org. in the field of human-rights, it is permissable to quote them directly in the cases when their statements were not reported by secondary source. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that not all NGO's are equal. The ICRC, for example, is usually considered a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very bad. I'll show you why.
But first I want to answer Ngchen. Here are just three (and it could have been 133) publications mentioning UN Watch on a subject of Human Rights Council without a single word involving Israel: from The Hindu, from The Korea Herald and from AFP. I hope it removes the question of notability. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now a word about ICRC. Consider the following matter. In June 2009, ICRC issued a comprehensive guide on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under IHL. It says among many things that civilians attempting to voluntarily shield a military objective by their presence do not amount to being qualified as civilians who directly participate in hostilities (and thus it is illegal to attack them/such site). However, the ICRC report the report is not legally binding, but merely an opinion of ICRC; moreover, (and ICRC fails to mention it) many experts in the field of International Humanitarian Law (laws of war) objected such definition and criticized the report and the conduct of ICRC.
No doubt ICRC is one of the more notable organizations and deserves to be quoted. But it is still an organization devoted much to the matters of human-rights - and the field of human rights is highly politicized. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Wall Street Journal Publication

Hello, I have serious doubts regarding this source, reinserted here and here, after notifying the author? I looked for the content and for the title but no real source came up. How can we make sure that the source is legitimate or not? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the citation says the information was taken from a Wall St. Journal article, I would check the archives of the Wall St. Journal itself, rather than relying on a google search. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, how are you going to do that? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one way is to spend a little bit of money and subscribe to the Journal's online archive(here). If you do not wish to do that, you can go to any major public library (which should have either their own archives of all major newspapers, or public access to the archives sites run by the newspapers themselves.) A third way is to ask at the Wikipedia help desk and see if someone who does has a subscription can verify the article for you. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the wsj link, for the moment I asked them here. Thank you very much! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is set up explicitly to help with such verification tasks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Uau, great, I'll check it out. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I got a response from wsj.com: "Wall Street Journal Online subscribers can access WSJ.com articles that have appeared within the past 2 years. Through the advanced search feature, WSJ.com subscribers can browse past print and online editions via Factiva; there is no charge to view headlines, and a charge of $2.95 to view articles. WSJ print articles going back to 1979 and WSJ.com articles to November 8, 2006, are available. Please visit wsj.com. Current print subscribers receive a discounted Wall Street Journal Online rate of $49.00 for the first year. Should you have any questions, please contact The Wall Street Journal Online at onlinejournal@wsj.com or by phone at 1-800-JOURNAL (568-7625). Factiva provides access to The Wall Street Journal print edition database via a Factiva subscription. Visit Factiva at http://www.factiva.com for subscription details or call 1-800-369-0166." Now I did search via factiva, see here, does this mean that it is safe to say that this article just simply does not exists? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Old articles can be hard to find. Usually we assume good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it seems that the article did checked out OK, see: here. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)