Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Necroshine

Source: [1]

Article: Necroshine

Content:

Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585

Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013

Requesting opinion on radio programme about Alawites

I sought to include information, gathered from a Radio four programme, broadcast 4 February 2013, to the page on Alawites . the programme included the testimony of a woman, anonymous, for reasons of personal safety i assume, about the beliefs of Alawites, and in particular, a somewhat denigratory attitude toward women, [3] 05:09 - 06:30 minutes - and a belief in reincarnation . This material was immediately deleted - and with a most insulting edit summary too I might add, to the effect that only 'retards' believed such things. Looking on amazon I soon found a further source for the belief in reincarnation , Nicolas Pelham, a new Muslim order, p.236 - though i had been assured such ideas were 'fringe' etc.Talk:Alawites Is it true, as FunkMonk says , that claims made on radio programmes are of no account, and are inadmissable for consideration for inclusion on the wp article? The editor judged the programme was nothing short of an attempt to demonise Alawites. i do not believe this is a very helpful approach. so my question is, is the radio programme useless as a source of info on Alawite beliefs and attitudes? Sayerslle (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First, a claim made on a radio programme can be a reliable source. However if it's as you describe, that an anonymous woman said so, then that probably isn't very useful to us - I'm sure with a little effort we can find one or two anonymous women to say pretty much anything we like. Even if we accept that she is herself an Alawite, that doesn't make her an expert on the beliefs of others; crazy, mistaken, or deluded people exist in pretty much any religion over a certain size. Unless we know that anonymous woman is herself an acknowledged expert on Alawites in general, and not just an Alawite herself, we can't use that statement to generalize about the whole religion. --GRuban (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Radio programs, especially from the BBC as in this case, are certainly admissible as reliable sources. But an anonymous woman interviewed in a program is not necessarily herself a reliable source. Basically, it would be a RS for the statement "a woman interviewed by the BBC asserted that Alawites espouse x belief," but not "Alawites espouse x belief." If you want to make more authoritative statements about Alawite theology, there are loads of books available that discuss the role of reincarnation in Alawite beliefs, and you should use those instead.

On another note, I don't understand how publicizing a belief in reincarnation would "demonize" the Alawites, but you do want to be careful that you present things in a fair manner. In the context of the civil war in Syria, it's a group that is certainly vulnerable to demonization, with potentially grave consequences. TheBlueCanoe 05:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. the last thing you write, about the context of the civil war, and 'a minority, associated with a regime that has committed atrocities, viewed by islamist fundamentalists as apostates,' (from the radio programme) - maybe thus is not the time to approach the subject kind of thing , yes , i get that (actually, re-reading you didnt say that, you said present it fairly - but the material i was seeking to add carried negative implications - misogyny basically, so - how 'fair' could i make it?)- as for the remarks, i take the point that it would be ok to add "a woman interviewed by the BBC asserted that Alawites espouse x belief," - though equally I can imagine the hoot of derision that would accompany the edit summary that deletes it at once - 'deleted undue pov - anyone can claim to be an 'alawite woman' and say all manner of things only retards would believe possibly true - get over yourself ' etc etc - Listenng to the programme the woman appears wholly credible, speaks about the trouble she had at school as an Alawite female, dating a Sunni boy etc -the journalist and bbc would have to be careful - you know the trouble they reap if they make mistakes, - its a closed religion kind of thing, with fairly typical levels of misogyny imo - a bit gnostic-y - secretive on its 'only for initiates beliefs' - and from initial searches on Amazon, the statement that there are loads of books available that discuss the role of reincarnation in Alawite beliefs, i don't know about that, i couldn't find much on Amazon - perhaps you could return here with a few isbns!. thanks again for feedback.Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you got the emphasis of that point there. While we could, in theory, use the programme to add that, we shouldn't, specifically because it doesn't say anything about the religion as a whole. The BBC programme is "one woman's story". Our article is supposed to be "the entire religious group". --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

agree to differ. i cant add the views of the entire religious group. its secretive at initiate level anyhow apparently. the womans view was precisely saying something about the religion as a whole. namely deep in the religion women are considered lower than men and she related the bit about the 'idea' that a bad man can be reincarnated as a woman - and the interviewer asks if a good woman could be considered a candidate to be reincarnated as a man - but that isnt an idea entertained because the woman exists at a lower level of being or something - so , yes its just one Alawite womans testimony, but yes also, absolutely , she is saying something about the religion as a whole - your saying its no good "because it doesn't say anything about the religion as a whole" is not right imo - its about the religion as a wholes male tiltedness so to speak. also about its inward-looking ness. she was criticized for dating a Sunni for example. Sayerslle (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I (and, unless I'm wrong, BlueCanoe) are saying it's no good because she's not an expert on the religion as a whole; to put it in the terms of this noticeboard, she's only a reliable source about her own experiences, not a reliable source on the subject of the religion as a whole. She can say what she likes, but we can't use it as a reliable source on the whole religion. She is, at best, just one Alawite out of many. It's like writing a paper about what Canadians think and interviewing one Canadian. --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know more information about this. Unless the tenets are dogma are spelled-out somewhere, it could just be an inside joke or something that is not meant to be taken seriously. One way to figure out how serious this is would be to try and find out if there are any women or men participants who would seriously want to be reincarnated as a woman, and if they are allowed to have any choice in the matter before-hand. And if-so what would they decide and why? Or if being reincarnated as a member of any particular gender was considered a good thing or bad thing or more blessed/lucky whatever. I'm not sure about rendering the radio-guest's comments as "demonizing". That would seem to point-to it not being factual but it is hard to tell 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What I was able to find is interesting in that more than one source claimed that in the past, women were considered to be "demons" and not having souls to be reincarnated. And-that the policy had changed. That gives the "demonizing"-remark a little more depth! Also it was mentioned repeatedly that it was thought that they believe that being reincarnated as an animal is the worst thing that could happen but I did not find a reference to women, except that current info. says that women share reincarnation. And yeah that everything is secret so it will be hard to verify.

Oh-and that men in particular reincarnate apx.7 times. Not sure what that means for women?

Japanese American Veterans Association

Is the Japanese American Veterans Association a reliable source for the article Military history of Asian Americans? They are referenced three times in the article:

• Content1: "Over 30,000 Japanese Americans served during World War II, in branches including the Army Air Corps, Navy, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marines."
• Source 1: James McIlwain (2012). "Nisei served in U.S. Army Air Corps, Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Merchant Marines during World War II" (PDF). JAVA Advocate. XX (3). Japanese American Veterans Association: 7. Retrieved 21 January 2013.
• Content2: "At the end of that deployment the unit was authorized to wear the 442nd's shoulder sleeve insignia as a combat patch, the first time this had occurred since World War II"
• Source2: Terry Shima (23 January 2006). ""Go for broke" battalion returns home from second overseas combat mission. Made significant contributions to defeat terrorism and to democratize Iraq". Japanese American Veterans Association. Retrieved 14 March 2011.
• Content 3: As of Fall 2012, there have been 43 Japanese American, 26 Chinese Americans, 10 Filipino American, and four Korean American general and flag officers in the Uniformed services of the United States.
• Source 3: "Meet the Generals and Admirals" (PDF). JAVA Advocate. XX (3). Japanese American Veterans Association: 10. 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2013.

If it is not a reliable source, why is it not? If it is a reliable source, why is it? If it is not a reliable source, are there alternate sources that would verify the content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it have a reputation for careful historical scholarship, fact checking and neutrality towards its subject matter? With all respect to this organisation, I suspect that none of these apply (as is the case for all veterans groups). As such, it's probably not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been used as a source for the CIA, see this here, has been used as a source by the Washington Post (example), as well as cited by a few scholarly sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The group has an executive council and various research departments. Their publications are cited in 27 Wikipedia articles such as Japanese American internment and Puerto Ricans in World War I. The website shows the group to be careful in its work. I think they are a worthy source. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of those Google scholar results appear to be referring to the organisation rather than referencing anything published by it. Of those which do reference it, all appear to use this associations work only as a means of sourcing the personal recollections of veterans. For instance, the first reference to 'The Man Who Saved Kabuki' is a book review which notes that the author's views of General MacArthur are also available on the Japanese American Veterans Association's website, and the article in The Historian cites only the views of a veteran as published by the association (starting with the proviso "According to Joseph Y. Kurata..."). As such, this doesn't seem suitable for referencing general statements as is being proposed here. Have you checked the US Army Centre of Military History's excellent website? Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But the first source is written by James McIlwain, MD, Professor Emeritus, Brown University. The second source, has been verified from sources other than the JAVA, thus verifying the JAVA source. As for the third source, the DoD hasn't released the numbers of Asian American service members; the closest is a report from 2010 that has percentages, that I have provided a link for on the talk page of the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To receive additional opinions, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I shall be contacting relevant WikiProjects and informing them of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're confident about the first source (and if it's written by an academic who's field of specialisation covers this topic it's clearly a RS) and don't need to reference the second source, you've answered two thirds of your own question ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My chief concern is getting a consensus opinion on JAVA as a RS, or not. I do not want to bring the article up to GAR again, and have this being an issue, that is contested again. Presently, there are two editors who see the organization as a RS, but two does not make a consensus, or does it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Queen of Versailles

Is a documentary being used as a reliable source for claims bothe on its own article page and on David A. Siegel. I tried to explain that a film is a poor source when no transcript per WP:RS is provided, and even more so when it is used to make allegations about a living person committing a crime, as in the Siegel BLP. See [4], [5] where the editor uses primary court documents to allege crimes [6] etc. On the movie article [7] also argues that a court decision is not a court record per WP:RS <g> (his edit summary is a court judgement is not a 'transcript of court proceedings' and is about a valid a source as you can possibly get)

Will someone please tell that editor why court records are not used per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and why transcripts are used when a film is being cited as a source -- especially when it is being cited as a claim of criminal acts of a living person? Collect (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not quite correct and I have a worry about Collects interest in these pages. The documentary is being used as a source for the wikipedia page about the said documentary. I cannot believe a subject itself cannot be the soruce of info about that very subject. For example if the page was about a book it would be Ok to quote pertinent sections of the book especially if later litigation of importance occurs about that section. The claim that court transcripts are being used is laughable, they are not transcripts of who claimed what they are the Court judgement! You cannot get a much better source than a court judgement, for obvious reasons - the court have spent a lot of time considering the claims and have come to a binding legal decision. the WP guideliens say excercise care using court transcripts and rightly so, all sorts of claims will be made in a court case. It is the judgement that matters. To remove court judgements from Biogs would mean you couldn't mention any criminal act the person had ever done! 2.30.146.240 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a word on using the documentary as a source about the documentary itself. WP:RS says "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)....." In this case the 'piece of work itself' is the documentary. 1) It would be unreasonable to not allow references to the content of a movie in a wikipedia page on the movie by instisting on a full transcript of the movie. 2) The transcript would be a secondary source and so less relaible than the movie itself which is the primary source. 3) Often books are referenced as sources when the books are not available online. You would not insist that an online transcript of the book be provided instead. 4) it is just as easy to check the source when it it the documentary as it would be if the source were a book that was not online or was chargeable online - buy the book/documentary and go to the quotes section. In this case I have give the number of minutes into the documentary for each quote so it is quite easy to find and check. Lastly Collect can I ask you to declare any interest in these pages, commercial or otherwise? I have none and updated the pages after recording and watching the documentary on TV.2.30.146.240 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

Court transcripts are not to be used. They are primary source materials and hence not Reliable Source. The film (absent an available transcript) is not a reliable source, especially not for accusations that involve a Biography of a Living Person. Lastly, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest or imply that Collect has some sort of monetary conflict of interest. He is an active and longstanding editor who has a wide range of interests, particularly where BLP is involved. Your suggestion is a foul one. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wait - I don't understand. Is the question about the documentary or the court documents? Or both? Generally speaking, documentaries are considered reliable sources if produced by respectable, reliable sources. Transcripts are nice, but are not required by policy. Generally speaking, court documents should be avoided for WP:BLP material. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here is getting a bit confused. Nobody is wanting to cite "court transcripts" as far as I can tell. I thought the issue was whether to cite the judgment rendered by the court on a preliminary motion in a defamation action brought against the director of the documentary. In my opinion, there's a good secondary source about the court's judgment [8] so no particular need to cite the court's decision directly. However, in general I have never heard of a Wikipedia policy prohibiting court decisions from being cited. I have edited a large number of law-related Wikipedia articles, and court decisions are frequently cited directly. A separate issue is the "Admissions" section in the current version of the article, which I deleted in this edit five days ago but has since been re-added by IP 2.30.146.240. I saw the film (The Queen of Versailles) and those are relatively minor scenes in which the so-called admissions take place. To write about them in the Wikipedia article just makes the article unbalanced, or in other words gives it undue weight. Also, when I watched the documentary, I got the impression that Siegel might have been joking about having illegally tilted the 2000 presidential election, and moreover that there was nothing illegal or immoral about buying back his own loan from a bank. Those are the reasons why, in my view, it's inappropriate to include those so-called admissions in the Wikipedia article. I believe that user Collect is making a different argument (that I do not agree with); Collect is saying that the film itself cannot be cited as a source for its own content, in an article about the film, unless a transcript is available. For completeness I will note that I raised this issue a few days ago on the BLP noticeboard. Hope this clarifies things. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The bar is on "court records" not just "transcripts" and in every case at RS/N, use of "court judgements" has been held improper in the past. And contentious claims (and I assume claims of illegal acts are contentious) require strong sourcing. A quote from a film for which no transcript exists is in that category. Collect (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, court judgments are used as sources all the time in law-related Wikipedia articles. As primary sources, court judgments are not specifically prohibited as a source on Wikipedia although secondary sources, if available, are preferred. Mathew5000 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is the blurred line between verifiability (whether something is 'sufficiently true' to mention) and noteworthiness (whether something is sufficiently relevant to mention), an underappreciated concept.

Court decisions are the best sources for verifying what they say explicitly, though potential problems with interpretation make it desirable to have additional sources that help with that. But the mere existence of a court decision can never establish noteworthiness. The general principle: If it's important enough for an encyclopedia, then someone other than the original author (in this case the judge) has written about it.

Conflicts on sourcing tend to be phrased in terms of verifiability even when they are really about noteworthiness, as is the case in many BLP articles and seems to be the case here. Hans Adler 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I reject the idea that sourcing is automatically weak just because it is to a film without a transcript. I am not aware of any basis for this in policy or general practice, though as a written medium we obviously prefer to cite other written media where possible. Some editors may not be able to evaluate such a source, for example because they are deaf or hard of hearing or because they don't understand the language well enough. But that can happen even with our best sources, which may only be available in a few libraries, may require an online subscription, or may be written in a rare language. It only becomes problematic if a source requires too much interpretation or is accessible to too few editors. But that can happen with books as well and is certainly not a specific problem with the medium. Whether something said in a documentary can establish noteworthiness for negative information in a biography is a tricky question. I think that depends on the exposure that the documentary got and the amount of attention it gives to the negative information. Hans Adler 15:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we've established above that court judgements can and are used as reliable sources, and that video does not require a transcript (and often is used eg newscasts to mention just one). Frankly I am amazed this has been questioned by Collect which is why I asked for any declaration of interest. I was not suggesting anything though I can see a request put that way appears so. I apologise if I did imply anything. But I would still appreciate the declaration. I do think my edits were being removed on spurious grounds. Noteworthiness is a very good point and a very different issue...2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We have established that primary sources are not supposed to be used for articles. We have also established that court documents are primary, not secondary sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW and in response to the insinuations made: I have no interests whatsoever which could remotely be considered a "conflict of interest." I have stayed at a Westgate facility as a result of an RCI trade, which I do not think is remotely near a personal conflits at all. I have no connection with Siegel, or anyone associated with him, or with the film. Period. Now that that silly charge has been disposed of, it is clear that we would need an actual transcript of the film to assure that nothing is being misquoted or taken out of context, and that the "court records" are not allowed to be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody other than Collect has accepted the proposition that a documentary cannot be a reliable source for BLP information unless a transcript is available. WP:RS#Overview provides: “However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.” The policy does not require the existence of a transcript, but says “an archived copy of the media must exist.” A DVD in a public library, or for sale to the public, would satisfy the archived-copy requirement. That being said, the insinuation of conflict of interest against Collect was preposterous. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

UYou iterate charges of a crime - and WP:BLPCRIME requires lots better sources than you have provided. Also, others above also note that quotes taken out of context from a "documentary" are not a "reliable source" for contentious claims. Lastly - yu inserted synth in asserting that the number of votes was greater than the Bush "margin of victrory." The article can and must comport with WP:BLP whether you "know" Siegel is a modern Al Capone or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Collect is referring to this edit to the article David A. Siegel. There is no charge of a "crime". The quotation is adequately sourced. There is no synth (see the Orlando Magazine article). Mathew5000 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I assert "This may have been illegal" is precisely the sort of claim which requires strong sourcing per WP:BLPCRIME. And that you seem hell-bent on making such a claim based on a HuffPo opinion column and film reviews does not bode well for such a claim. Even if Siegel were Al Capone, WP:BLP still applies. Collect (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First, kindly cease insinuating that I compared Siegel to Al Capone, or that I in any way implied Siegel is a criminal. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned Al Capone here. Second, please step back and think about what you are doing with edits such as this. The particular quotation that you removed appears in The New Yorker, The Independent, and several other cited sources, but you removed it because Siegel originally said it for an interview in a documentary? That is not Wikipedia policy. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it certainly is not Wikipedia policy -- and the sources you are producing go well beyond what is needed for inclusion here. I think the reversion of your addition is quite inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Gene Expression" column in Discover magazine

Razib Khan writes the "Gene Expression" column in Discover (magazine), a science magazine (see here). On the topic of genetics, I assume that this source would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG - "acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the particular example is that you want to ask for comment about but I guess you know it is currently under discussion (in a very similar context) on Khazars and Genetic studies on Jews. One editor in particular is trying to insert it against consensus. I'll just give my thoughts (as a person involved in both discussions). I hope this is the one you intended to discuss but in any case it was probably needing to come here soon:

• The source is on the site of a popular science magazine but not edited (fact checking) by them, and he is not one of their journalists or editors, so effectively a good quality "personal blog" I would think, not a "news blog". Is that also how others understand those terms?
• The author is a geneticist by training and has lots of interesting and controversial opinions especially about politics and race and so on. I am myself a follower. I think from recollection of long discussions that the author has been mentioned respectfully by mainstream news organizations. So he is arguably a valid source for notable opinions on some things?
• In the particular field of human genetics however, I have asked editors over and over for any evidence that the author has been published or even cited by strong professional sources, and I understand he has not. I also have seen no proper argument for his blog about this particular peer reviewed article (Elhaik) to be notable. (For one thing his blog is about an earlier draft on Arxiv, not the final peer reviewed version.)
• Much of the debate on the two articles above is however not about whether this blog can be cited or not generally, but about whether it should be inserted selectively on these particular articles when a consensus of editors from different sides of all the old debates have agreed that the best idea is to avoid edit wars whereby people try to selectively insert news media commentary on peer reviewed materials.

In my opinion both articles are a mess, in large part because of the above type of cherry picking. I think a fairly strong consensus is against using non peer reviewed sources to spice up the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew is correct to say that Khan has qualifications in genetics, but also that he seems to have no particular qualifications in human population genetics. But this is not actually of much relevance, since the opinions people want to quote from his article are largely not genetic at all. They are mostly historical, involving such things as historical migrations of the Druze. For such stuff Khan is certainly not reliable. Zero^talk 02:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a statement would depend on the specifics of the case. I can see that for this particular source in this particular case there is an argument for that, but there is also a bigger issue about the editing context. In these specific WP articles the broader debate is about whether to use for example newspaper articles in order to colour the articles reporting of peer reviewed papers. In some cases, undoubtedly expert sources are quoted making non peer reviewed comments. The problem has been that such looser opinionating can be used to create just about any impression we want, and that is what some editors are trying to do. So I think the question for editors is not only about individual authors as much as it is about giving due balance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• In fact it should be pointed out that effectively the same subject has already been discussed at the FRINGE noticeboard, where one of the articles involved, and especially the cherry picking of lesser sources, got a lot of negative feedback. [9]
• It should also be kept in mind also that the whole reason the Razib Khan blog came up is because of the strong consensus not to allow cherry picking of the peer reviewed sources. Bringing in the blog has always quite openly been argued for as a way of trying to de-emphasize certain peer reviewed articles which the proposing editor(s) had first tried to get removed completely.

On the other hand even though there are non RS issues involved, it would be helpful to get non-involved feedback on the RS value of this particular blog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Razib Khan is way out of his depth here. It is not just that he is no great scientist, but that the topic is entirely non-trivial. So he can string together sentences that may seem clever to those who know less than himself, but will make an expert in the field shriek in pain. After all, that is why he writes in Discover Mag (just a touch above Popular Mechanics in scholarship) and not elsewhere. His views are not even worth discussion. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I think this source is not RS for this purpose, but I think you are exaggerating about the quality of the blog, especially when being compared to aspects of the quality of the peer reviewed article it criticizes, but that should not be the point anyway. The question for this noticeboard is NOT what we judge personally about a person and their opinions but rather about whether this blog is the right kind for us to use. Also the fact that the subject is non-trivial has no bearing on this subject as far as I can see. (I mean that we do not censor science when it touches on sensitivities, but we might pay extra attention to trying to source and edit carefully and well. And perhaps this is all you mean to say?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that. A person with a basic degree in mechanical engineering can write about types of car oil filters and that may be almost RS, but a person with a basic degree in physics could not be relied on about advanced topics in Quantum mechanics. Complexity matters. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but concerning the matter which Tritomex want to use this source for, it is not "advanced topics" as such, at least in genetics, but rather the more-or-less common sense subject (or perhaps more an historian's) about which modern populations should be assumed to be good proxies for postulated ancient populations. I shall explain my thoughts:

I have to say that all the sources WP can use are "iffy" on proxies. There is a long history of silliness both on WP and in academia. To cut a long story short you can try to argue that the Palestinians are descended from Bedouin immigrants, or you can try to argue that modern Jews are Europeans etc etc. I'd say things were a lot worse a few years back.

The consensus amoungst a lot of editors over time has been to try to write up brief neutral reports of what the geneticists did, making their assumptions easy to understand, and NOT to include things like newspaper commentary, which is normally filled with misunderstandings.

A valid question might arise: should WP even bother? My answers: First, I think WP can not avoid having articles on things like this, so we need to make them as good as we can. Second, you have to understand that all the genetics sources really are saying important and useful things as long as we tease it out and report it neutrally. Elhaik for example can certainly be criticized for calling Druze, "Turkic" (which is one of the things Razib complained about, and frankly I personally agree) but he did find a perfectly valid correlation between Ashkenazi DNA and northern, as opposed to southern, Middle Eastern DNA. (He calls the northern component more "Caucasian" and says that it might mean Ashkenazi ancestors might not all have come via western Europe. In my mind, and Razib's, other explanations beckon to say the least!. But as this was his main conclusion it is hard not to mention it in WP, but getting the context right is the difficult point.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Signpost for Wikipedia related articles

For instance, could Flagged revisions be improved using the Signpost? I'm curious as to whether or not it could be considered reliable for internal matters. ResMar 20:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think not, unfortunately. The problem is it's still a Wiki, and a collaboration; it's not trivial to see whether any piece of text was written by someone who actually knows something, or someone who has no idea what they were talking about. We can link to a fixed revision of an article that was written solely by one person from the Foundation, that could work. But not something that was put together by an arbitrary number of anonymous volunteers. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

City Population

What do people think about the reliability of the Citypopulation.de website. I know it's been around for a few years, but does it fall foul of WP:SPS? The particular article I would potentially like to use it on is List of cities and towns in Russia by population although it could potentially be used on various such articles. See also talk discussion at [10]. Eldumpo (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

While it's concerning that no information is provided about the authorship of the site other than its copyright to 'Thomas Brinkhof', the website appears to have been frequently used in academic articles: [11]. I'd strongly suggest checking how it was used in these works (and look for articles critical of the quality of its data as well), but if it's considered a suitable reference for population figures there, it should be OK for Wikipedia's purposes. I just checked its data for the Australian city where I live against that published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data it references, and it's spot on but slightly out of date (it gives a figure for June 2011 when the most recent estimate is for June 2012; the June 2011 figure is exactly the same as the ABS' most recent estimate for this point in time though). Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I've had a look at a few of the specific articles, although a number of them involve subscription or pay to view.

• This Michael Lewyn article directly references the site regarding Austria (see page 7 of PDF).

• This paper also directly cites Citypopulation (see Table1), although it is not clear as to the notability of the paper.

• This article in the International Institute for Environment and Development includes it as a reference at the end, but the other refs don't appear to be similar population sites so it could have been used for all that data.

Any further thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I am somewhat shocked that others would seriously consider the citypopulation.de website a "reliable source" regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. As a reminder, our guideline concerning reliable source defines a source as "reliable" when it is a "third-party, published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I just don't see how we can assume a personal website copyrighted to a single person to have such a reputation? I understand that there are some academic sources which use this website, but that in itself is not an indication of the website being reliable (consider that there exist academic sources which include Wikipedia in the list of sources, yet it is still not a reason to allow using Wikipedia articles as references for other Wikipedia articles!). What's more, none of the sources listed above use citipopulation.de as the only source; at best it's an auxiliary link included for convenience and not necessarily supporting the main point of that academic work. Eldumpo's suggestion, however, is to use this website as the only source to reference the list of cities and towns in Russia and their populations, and not only that, but to use is as a replacement of the official Census data (the only drawback of which is that they are in Russian—which, by the way, is not a problem as per our verifiability policy). That's simply unacceptable, in my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 15:26 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Russia by population uses the census results, and census is a reliable source for the population estimated. I do not see any need in re-working the list at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've seen (and raised) a similar issue with Tageo.com. At least citypopulation.de says where it got (at least some of) its figures: http://citypopulation.de/references.html. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Important Extended Bio Information

Bernie Leadon was married to Caroline Wall/Leadon on the Island of Kauai on June 10 1980 Caroline and Bernie had one son named Ian Leadon. Caroline Leadon & Bernie Leadon were married for 11 years.

1) what article is this for?

2) where is this information published by a neutral, reliable source? Because that's our standard here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like it's for Bernie Leadon, rock musician. Google News claims that this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains the snippet: "Bernie Leadon, an original member of the Eagles, is a rarity, a pop musician whose assertion that he's ... Leadon, who'd recently moved his wife Caroline, an interior decorator, and their 7-year-old son Ian from Vermont to California, was a ..." But that could be wrong, or out of context, or whatever. We need someone who can reference the whole article, not just the snippet. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Executive Intelligence Review

• Source: Various articles published in Executive Intelligence Review
• Article: Permindex
• Content: TBD.
• Comment: As far as I can tell from the paucity of reliable sources available, Permindex was a short-lived trade company/organization that existed from the late 1950s to the early 1960s. It only became notable roughly five years after it folded when, shortly after the arrest of Clay Shaw in 1967, an Italian communist newspaper claimed [emphasis on "claimed"] that it was front organization for the CIA[12]. Since then, these claims have become fodder for JFK conspiracy theorists.[13]

The following articles have been published in Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review and make various allegations about Permindex and individuals purported to be involved with Permindex:

1. de Hoyos, Linda (April 14, 1981). Quijano, Robyn (ed.). "The Permindex connection" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 8 (15). New York: New Solidarity International Press Service: 32–35. Retrieved 9, February 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. Sloan, Dana (December 22, 1981). Quijano, Robyn (ed.). "Permindex, Mitterrand, and the Schlumberger connection" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 8 (49). New York: New Solidarity International Press Service: 35–36. Retrieved 9, February 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. Zoakos, Criton (December 22, 1981). Quijano, Robyn (ed.). "Schlumberger/Permindex behind threat to Reagan" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 8 (49). New York: New Solidarity International Press Service: 50–52. Retrieved 9, February 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
4. Steinberg, Jeffrey (December 5, 1997). "Permindex: Britain's Murder, Inc" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 24 (49). Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service Inc: 51. Retrieved 9, February 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Are these articles sufficient for statements of fact about Permindex? Are these articles sufficient for statements of opinion about Permindex provided in-text attribution is supplied? Thanks! Location (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this, but a related 2008 discussion in the RSN refers to a 2004 ArbCom decision on LaRouche material. Location (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anything published by an organisation with links to Lyndon LaRouche can be assumed to be a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, and, as pointed out above, ArbComed. LaRouche publications are not WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, Stephan Schulz: Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the 2004 ArbCom decision: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." It appears as though Arbcom affirmed that decision in 2005, too. Would it be appropriate to add {{LaRouchetalk}} to the talk page of EIR? Location (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I being tag-teamed or am I just wrong? Television/The Real Housewives

I have been involved in a DRN and some other attempts at resolving a large-scale removal of information from all of The Real Housewives of...television show article pages.[[14]] Although I have made numerous attempts at trying to resolve the problem, I have not received any indication that my complaint was taken seriously. I'm pretty sure that I have been tag-teamed and I am hoping that anyone with knowledge of The real Housewives tv franchise could take a look and tell me that I am not losing my mind please. Thanks in advance. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh-and just because this request may look like it is not in the correct place, coming here was recommended as a remedy on the tag-team page-ty. And sourcing was a problem with this particular section deletion because the material was available on short youtube clips as the primary source and never noted through-out more than the 128 edits that were wiped-out [[15]]24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Since DRN has referred you here we will do our best to provide advice, but you have to help us. You told us what article. Now, what source(s) are we talking about, and what statements would they support. Spell it out please. We don't want to trawl through the DRN.. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources could be articles in paid publications such as newspapers that have wide circulation and magazines. My initial objection was the amount of info. that was deleted. There were 128 or so statements deleted from 7 different articles across The Real Housewives (television series)articles. So sourcing was a question that I asked about but was not ever answered or discussed. I did ask if re-using the same source would be acceptable,and what that would look like since I was not going to go find 123 times three or four sources for each item that was deleted to satisfy sourcing if the material was not going to be allowed anyways. For now I am asking for an opinion as-to whether or not the original editor and follow-up engaged-in tag-teaming starting with after I undid what the editor did.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't say anything about whether you have been tag-teamed. You will have to take that up in DRN. It is perfectly acceptable to use the same source several times in an article. Hope that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK TY for your opinion. I was mistakenly led here from the remedy section for the article titled "tag-team" under the heading "Remedies". [[16]]. I will make a note about this on the tag-team topic page.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of what you are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TY-just for starters, when I undo what looks like a bad-edit(s)(all made by the same editor about 128+ good info. posted for years by who knows how many people)). And then that editor comes and re-does the edit/delete of info., after I have asked to please take it to talk page/discussion. Then I undo again asking again, then a flock of editors comes-by and vogorously defends editor 1, and also puts myself at three-revert rule, while also posting threats at myself of being banned/blocked for ridiculous reasons (being IP sign-in)...and so on.
i understand that posting this here could be the wrong place so i made a note on the talk page of the page that sent me here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Ministers

This dif shows a conflict over a primary source. The question is whether or not it should be included in the article, or if any reference should even be made to it at all. Legal threats + history of ArbCom ruling = I look for outside opinions. Thanks. Andrew³²⁷ 08:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The xenu.org site is not a RS, but at the left side of their webpage are links to several notable newspaper accounts of and a health organization notice referring to the same theme. Those could well be used. hgilbert (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I second the above opinion. Removal of the content is justified on the basis of reliability issues, not because of the legal threat voiced in the edit summary. Location (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this website qualify as reliable source?

Can this website be used as a reliable source? It is an academics website which consists solely of user-submitted content (research papers, etc.) and has profiles and followers. This page from the the website was added as a source (the only source) at Pier Giuseppe Monateri last night, a few minutes after an AfD discussion was created.[17] If it cannot be used, can someone please remove it with an edit summary explaining why? Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Academia.edu is not a RS, but Monateri's biography should easily be verifiable through other (better) sources. I've tagged the sentence. hgilbert (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hgilbert. So if that website is not a reliable source, is there a reason it cannot be removed? Especially since the article is a BLP. If it cannot be removed right now, is there a certain time period that the tag has to stay on there before the cite can be removed? Thanks for your input and help. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't even bother, the page has been Afd-ed and will probably not survive. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks History. Perhaps you're right, but the problem is that since it's the article's only current source, it's being used as a tool to try and save the article. So if it indeed is not a reliable source, it seems unfair to leave it in the article, particuarly since it was added during the AfD discussion and can be used to try and boost the article's legitimacy. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You can not boost zero. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations on Wikipedia and discussion at meta:WebCite

There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that would be of interest to those that follow this noticeboard. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Virtual world sources

A group of students has taken on a few articles on Second Life and Machinima. Reliable sources are hard to find in the mainstream because sub-culture news is not very notable to the mainstream. Can inworld papers like The Alphaville Herald] be used for sources of inworld material in articles? I also found a Thesis on machinima for use in the machinima articles. Does a thesis count as a reliable source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Girl

I'm interested to know if this piece would be acceptable as a source at FAC for the above article. The Girl is a 2012 dramatisation of an alleged obsession the film director Alfred Hitchcock developed for one of his starring actresses, Tippi Hedren, and is based on the content of a book published in 2009. The piece from The Times discusses the same subject, but it predates the book and film by several years, so isn't talking about the topic in the context of the film. It was briefly used to support some information in The Girl's article, but I removed it amid concerns it could be seen as original research and would harm the article's prospects at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light. I have the information backed by a different newspaper, but have held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. Can anyone help? Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

backstageol.com

This and this edit by TodaysNews (talk) to Pope Benedict XVI changes a reference from ABC news to backstageol.com. I see TodaysNews has been warned about this in the past, however I want to ensure that there is consensus that this link is inappropriate, since this is going to result in a blocking. I've put a notice on his talk page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Use has been indef blocked as spam-only account. Given that this is the third SPA account for this site that's been blocked, I will be blacklisting link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the New York State archives' approval count?

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_pgc_jewish_essay.shtml is an essay published by a professor of history at Binghamton University, and "compiled" by the New York State archives. In general, would it count as an RS?

For a source to be considered reliable for purposes of this guideline, the publisher is expected to have some process for assessing the reliability of what it publishes. Since state archives publish materials in a variety of ways, ranging from carefully selecting educational materials, to simply making available whatever is presented to the archive, you would need to dig deeper to find out what criteria the archive applied when it decided to publish the essay. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems reliable for New York Jewish History. It's not just a dump of random donated papers, it was specifically selected, and the author is a known expert, who served as chair of the Judaic Studies Department at Binghamton. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the general caveat that if the source is being used to support anything controversial (can't imagine what!) then it would be better to get a second source as well. While the New York State archives has a review process for many of its publications (those that are funded), this particular article appears to be an unreviewed essay, albeit from a respected professor. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability of Gamer Spawn

Is Gamer Spawn a reliable sourced? Please seeTemplate:Did you know nominations/My Hands for more details.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The content in question is

She said "I'm thrilled to be collaborating with Square Enix on such a groundbreaking game. I never would have imagined 'My Hands' as such a perfect fit for Final Fantasy XIII, but the strong female protagonist struck a chord with me and I can't wait to see Lightning do her thing."

The references is as follows:

• "Final Fantasy XIII – Leona Lewis". Gamer Spawn. Youtube. 14 February 2010. Retrieved 19 January 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

As a youtube source, I am wondering if this is a reliable source. I am unaware of a regular webpage for the author. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Esther Katz vs. Mark Crutcher or, more properly, should Esther Katz's criticisms of Mark Crutcher's film be attributed to her in-line?

• Article: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work - vs. Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned anti-abortion activist. Which is a reliable source for an analysis of Sanger's motives in founding Planned Parenthood? One user, at Talk:Maafa 21, claims that they are both equally reliable. This is, of course, nonsense. Let's enforce WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:HISTRS, unless Mark Crutcher's works have been favourably reviewed in peer reviewed history or women's and gender studies journals, or unless Mark Crutcher possesses a relevant PhD and is publishing in scholarly modes, Mark Crutcher's works are not appropriate reliable sources for the historical issue of the motivations of a historical figure. Crutchers comments may be reliable elsewhere, but not in relation to history. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you agree, then, that if an expert like Katz says that Crutcher's claims are false, we can also say that they are false? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Unless a notable claim has been admitted to be false we should avoid saying it is false in our own voice, we're a bunch of volunteer editors, our voices shouldn't bear weight. We can cite Katz saying so (if Crutcher's claims are sufficiently notable to be included) as Katz's voice has the weight of expertise behind it. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "admitted to be false"? Crutcher, who is promoting these theories, is obviously not going to say that they are false, but he has no expertise or credibility in the subject, so we do not need him to admit it, only for experts like Katz to say it. [also note my comment below - this is not for the Sanger or PP articles, so whether we should mention the fringe claims at all is not the issue] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, citing that Katz has called Crutcher's statements false within the article on Sanger or Planned Parenthood represents WP:UNDUE attention to them, given their relevance. It would be best to leave them out at all until such time as his work is published as historical expertise in reliable sources. Stating them in said articles, even to note where they have been refuted, gives them too much prominence. --Jayron32 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course it would be ridiculous to mention Crutcher's conspiracy theories in the articles on Sanger or PP. This is an article on Crutcher's conspiracy theory film, however, so the theories should be mentioned, although it is also necessary to point out that they are fringe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No one, and I do mean no one, at Maafa 21 has claimed that Crutcher and Katz are equally reliable sources on Margaret Sanger. The subject of the article is Crutcher's anti-abortion film (Maafa 21) that deals largely with Sanger and the early birth control movement in the United States. Crutcher's basic "thesis" is that Sanger's motivations were racist, that her aim was to severely reduce the Black population in the United States. The issue in our discussion is whether based on a reliable source on Sanger such as Katz who defends Sanger's motivations, Wikipedia should say in Wikipedia's voice that "Maafa 21's characterization of Sanger's work with the Black community is false," or whether Wikipedia should say in Wikipedia's voice something like "Sanger biographer Esther Katz has condemned Maafa 21's depiction of Sanger's work with the black community as false." Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Katz appears to be a reliable source for her opinion. If in-text attribution is provided, I don't see a problem with this. Location (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The facts as determined by scholars such as Katz should indeed be stated in Wikipedia's voice. If there were any doubt or contradictory theories presented by scholars, then naturally we should abstain from using Wikipedia's voice to make a contested assertion. However, the Maafa 21 situation is one in which no scholars have spoken up in contradiction. The Sanger Papers Project folks should be allowed to define the topic of Sanger's notional racism. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show that the two "outside editors" who offered an opinion on the specific issue, GRuban and Location, agreed that Katz 's criticism of the film should be attributed to her IN-TEXT. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not support the text that was provided as proper implementation of in-text attribution:

"In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.[2][3][5]"

Prefacing the comments with "In reality" appears to make this a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion from Katz. I see this has already been reverted. Location (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion caused by poorly worded question

Let me add a followup issue. One of the sources states that Katz said quotes of Sanger used by anti-abortion advocates were never actually made by Sanger. Considering the film Maafa21 never used these quotes, we should not be using this source to say that the film was essentially spinning quotes out of thin air.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) If you want feedback here, you'll have to be more specific about the source, what it says, and what the article says. Otherwise, take it back to the talk page. Location (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The last sentance in the text you just quoted above. The source is [18] which states 'Other quotes are simply misattributed. Morris gave a speech to Clark’s congregation earlier this year, quoting Sanger as having said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Katz says Sanger never said this.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  01:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) In that particular source, it appears that Katz said Crutcher misunderstood one of Sanger's quotes. Given that three sources are used to cite a sentence that contains an assertion of fact and assertion of opinion, it is difficult to tell what text is attributed to what source. I think this is further evidence that the semicolon needs to be removed and work done to cite two separate sentences. Location (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) But is not Cruthcer that is being accused of inventing quotes, but rather Morris, whom wasn't involved with producing Maafa21.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If Crutcher uses someone quoting someone else out of context, then he shares some responsibility for passing that a long in his documentary. However, I don't see any accusations of anyone "inventing quotes" in the source or in Wikipedia text. Location (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let's try this again. The following text, which in some form has been removed by several editors but keeps getting re-added by the original contributor Roscelese states:

In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.[2][3][5] (emphasis added)

The text is clearly stating that the film is attribituing quotes to Sanger that she never made. A prior version (also by Roscelese) stated that the quotes were "simply fabricated". The source that this text is attributed to states:

Morris gave a speech to Clark’s congregation earlier this year, quoting Sanger as having said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Katz says Sanger never said this.

Herein lies the rub. The statement from the RS is specifically talking about Morris. Morris did not have any role in the production of Maafa 21. No where has anyone presented a source that Maafa 21 relied on factitious quotes made by others, or apparated the quotes themselves. While I personally feel it is fair game to present Maafa 21 as having taken Sanger's views out of context, because no one is seriously denying the sources say this, it is not ok to attribute to them (Maafa21), the actions and statements taken by others (Morris).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviews at teethofthedivine.com reliable

Here's a specific review: http://www.teethofthedivine.com/reviews/for-today-portraits/ It's written by "Benjamin DeBlasi". This is a list of the reviewers other posts, however, he doesn't appear at http://www.teethofthedivine.com/staff/ so I don't believe that this reviewer is professional (on-staff) despite having made several other reviews. http://www.teethofthedivine.com/about/ indicates that "Our staff includes veteran journalists, artists, and commentators" but it's not clear who is who. Granted, the last review was July 12, 2011 so he may no longer be on staff, but Google doesn't show any reviews from this person on other sites. The review is being used at Portraits (For Today album)‎ to support a genre and the site is being used liberally by User:Ihy34 who claims it "is considered professional and reliable", but I can't see any support for that idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for America's Next Top Model: All-Stars

I would like generic opinion on these sources. The conversation on the talk page was not sattisfactory to me. So placing my comments here
Sources -

• [19][20][21] - I am uncomfortable with these sources. These are all obvious blog or blog like articles
• [22][23][24] - These are blog entries by someone on Boston Globe and many editors are using this as a reliable source. The same applies to this [25] LA times article which is actually a blog entry and is being promoted as a reliable source as it is on LA times.

What I would like to understand is, can such sources regarded as reliable? Or is there some generic exemption for TV series as stated by editors in the talk pages. I have also linked MOS for TV series in the talk page every body is getting quite agitated about this. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are poor. America's Next Top Model as a whole is undoubtedly notable. For whether each separate series is notable, refer to criteria of WikiProject Television. Appropriate sources for an article like this include: the shows themselves for factual information about content; listings magazines for when the shows were shown in different countries and on which channels; entertainment magazines for how they were received. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The CW source is fine for factual information that the shows are being premiered; we can assume the network is a reliable source for its own schedule. The next two sources are blogs and do not meet WP:RS. The next 3, though, all seem to be legitimate. If you look at WP:NEWSBLOG, you'll see that "blogs" on newspapers can be reliable sources, so long as there seems to be editorial oversight. The truth is that many online newspapers have simply taken to using the word "blog" for what they would have, in print, called a "column" because it sounds more contemporary. So I think those are fine...however, with those particular blogs, we have to be careful only to use the factual info, as they also contain a bunch of opinions, and I'm not opinions would be of due weight to deserve inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton

So there is some discussion at Talk:Huey P. Newton#John Frey admission about a claim that was recently removed by an IP editor. It intersects with a discussion at WP:BLPN that appears to now be mostly resolved, at least with regard to Newton.

The concern regards an account of a statement by Newton which appears in a book by Hugh Pearson, Shadow of the Panther. The section in Google Books contains the relevant pages, 5-7, leading up to the purported admission, but does not contain the reference, p. 349:

3. Newton admitting to killing Frey: Interview with Robert Trivors, Santa Cruz, October 2, 1992; interview with Willie Payne, Oakland, July 28, 1992.

Additionally, Joe Street in "Historiography of the Black Panther Party (article, pdf) which is the only source I am aware of that attempts to assess the reliability of the various sources on Newton and the Panthers, does characterize Pearson's work as being "...built on a collection of accounts written by observers and right-wing writers..." though also acknowledges it as a seminal work. Notably, it does not appear that the claims about Newton's admission appear anywhere else that cannot be traced directly to Pearson's Shadow. If it's not clear from the Google Books listing, the Pearson account describes a scene of intoxication, by both Newton and others, surrounding the statement Newton is alleged to have made.

So, the question is, is it acceptable to include this allegation, given:

• Newton's conviction for this incident (voluntary manslaughter) was overturned
• the overall bias noted by other writers
• what may be seen as tenuous sourcing of this specific allegation, and lack of other confirmatory sources
• frequent use of this book as a reference for other, less contentious statements (i.e. readers will be directed to this source anyway)

And, if the allegation is to be included, is the existing wording accurate enough, or should more or less be included about the sourcing of the allegation itself?

From my perspective, I can see this going either way. I have been conservative insofar as I have reverted an attempt to put the allegation back into the article, because I do feel like it could go either way, and I am uncomfortable returning it to the article without more substantial discussion than seems to be available at the article itself.

If this is the wrong venue for this, and perhaps an RfC (or some other mechanism) would be more appropriate, just point me in that direction.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources, such as a Newton biography, which comment on this alleged admission specifically? Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG, there needs to be additional citations for this. The best you will get out of this is in-text attribution of what Pearson said Newton said. Location (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on what's presented here, reporting the allegations as fact is right out. I was wondering if there was enough secondary coverage to justify including the allegations as allegations. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Although I cannot access the full article, it does appear that there was coverage of Newton's "admission" to Pearson in The Sun.[26] That report refers to Pearson's "claim". I haven't looked into the credibility/reliability of the source, but this book says the same thing.[27] Location (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Book appears to be by this Charles E. Jones.[28] I would say that there is reliable secondary coverage of the allegation. Location (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pearson's Shadow is actually one of, perhaps the most widely known non-auto-biography of Newton, and I think it should be included (at minimum referenced, if not cited) as such. Street's paper alludes to its centrality in Panther scholarship by stating that it defines one of the three eras of Panther historiography. Another source (Judson Jeffries' Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist, which I have admittedly not read in its entirety) seems to make no mention of these claims. I have raised the issue of Pearson's scholarship elsewhere on the talk page as well.

As noted on the talk page discussion, I did add some language that attributed the statement to Pearson's book. I am rather on the fence, based on this discussion, between adding more attribution language (which can be a bit unwieldy -- "Pearson writes that Trivors and Payne claim that Newton said...") and simply keeping it out of the article entirely.-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Question from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

There is currently a debate on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I am not a party to the debate (in fact, I have an opinion on the matter, but am withholding it so I can continue to act as an administrator on the page) but in order to try to stop the sniping between the involved editors, I'm bringing the matter here. There is a book entitled The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qæda.See below Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) It's published by the University of California, so I'm fairly certain it meets our general RS concerns. The question is what we can actually say from the source. Okay, we have the book's title; the issue in question comes from a chapter entitled "Religious Justification for Terrorism". In that chapter, there is a section that says the following (two quotes):

Collapsed quotation for ease of reading

"Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into..." “Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).

Given the title of the book and chapter, but also given the fact that nowhere in the relevant text does it explicitly use the word "terrorist", can this book/section/quotation be used to support a claim in the article to the effect of "The RSS is a Hindu terrorist group."? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I got confused which of two books the above quote came from. It's actually from Global Terrorism; the publisher is Routledge, which is also generally considered to be a high quality academic publisher, so I don't think that changes the case materially. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• On the face of it, I'd say the source is reliable. James Lutz is a professor of political science at Purdue and appears to have written more than one book on terrorism. But, I'm not sure if the usage is correct. Lutz associates the RSS with "training paramilitaries" and with the assassination of Gandhi. But there is a leap of faith from there to calling the RSS a terrorist group that is not supported by the text quoted above. A milder claim that the RSS has been associated with violence in the name of Hindu nationalism would be more reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seemingly sensationalist article from The San Antonio Express News

This article[29] from The San Antonio Express News is currently in use in the La Luz del Mundo, specifically in the Controversy section. It seems to have a highly sensationalist tone, and seems to pay lots of attention to rumors. The article also relies heavily on a dubious source discussed here. How reliable is this source? Should it be used to make contentious claims?

The source was first introduced here in an extremely biased addition. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

can you find it in the original edition? This is a reprint by the reporter, who seems to specialize in this sort of coverage. I can see no rule by which we would disqualify the material, though, except a general distrust for this sort of journalism DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

From this starting point it seems like this article ("Divine Retreat") ran on May 25, 2008. I can't see the entire article, but the first paragraph seems identical to the source url (which I presume is the reporter's site).

As for sensationalism, I will note that the reporter in question is also a blogger at Pajamas Media ([30]) and a cursory search suggests that while he's received a National Press Club award, he generally seems to receive US attention mainly from right-wing sources, e.g. Hugh Hewitt. This may or may not be significant. Full disclosure, I am involved as a WP:DRN volunteer in a dispute about La Luz del Mundo. I noticed this posting earlier today while looking at the discussion of my own WP:RSN inquiry about Talk:Huey P. Newton, above. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have found the actual article. There are minor differences in wording, but it is mostly identical. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's Oldest Civilzation", by B. G. Sidharth

Can this [31] be considered a reliable source for the history of astronomy? My impression is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance, Athenean (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on how it is being used. If it is being used to support a statement about astronomy in hindu texts, then yes. Otherwise perhaps not. It would be helpful to see the claim (I looked through the article history and talk pages but ...!). --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I mean, just the title ("the world's oldest civilization") and the blurb "A leading astronomer proves that India had a thriving civilization capable of sophisticated astronomy long before Greece, Egypt, or any other world culture. ", should set alarm bells ringing. This is clearly a Hindu-nationalist polemic piece of the "Out of India" type. He claims among other things that the Rig Veda is over 5000 years old, that it is the "oldest textbook of modern astronomy", that the sphericity of the earth and heliocentrism can be found therein, and a whole host of kooky claims, one after another. He denies foreign influences on Indian atronomy, while in fact going the other way, that Indian astronomy influenced all other civilzations' astronomy. This completely contradicts all the mainstream scholarship of the history of astronomy, and it is precisely for these claims that some people want to use this source in Indian Astronomy. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Sidharth was brought up specifically to verify whether the hindu scriptures said the earth was sphere. These claims are not new either and have been brought up by other scholars/translators of the rig veda. Here is Sidharth's background. He is the director general of a major planetarium in India and a respected astronomer and physicist in his own right, having presented multiple papers internationally that were published in international journals--including western publications. Any additional use of him would specifically be prefaced as a distinct minority view. Sidharth's work is not a polemic. Also, athenean gave misrepresented quotes, here is the full quote of Sidharth's claim: "In fact, the Rg Veda, shorn of its allegory and metaphorical camouflage is the oldest textbook...". In the previous sentence Sidharth states 1500BC as the conservative dating of the Rg Veda--which is in fact correct (don't see how this is even remotely controversial). All this is on page 17. Two mainstream scholars Ohashi and Billard also challenged the colonial paradigm of pervasive greek influence on indian astronomy as advocated by one scholar Pingree. So greek influence on indian astronomy is still theoretical--certainly not scientific fact like evolution (athenean claims it is). Sidharth's claim of reverse influence is not new as even a british author did the same previously.

To clarify, as can be seen on the talk page, sidharth and even mainstream non-indians like ohashi/billard would all be prefaced with "minority view" remarks that would be weighted less in article length compared to majority paradigm. Devanampriya (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If he dates the Rigveda to 1500 BC, that is within the consensus, I'd say, but to claim that it's a camouflaged textbook (if he means that literally) is fringe, very very fringe.

As an astronomer he's not per se an authority on what the Rigveda really says and means, or on the direction of astronomical influences in ancient history, but he's notable enough to be worth quoting (with inline attribution) on these topics. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The title certainly raises a red flag. My experience with Indian literature is that much of it is obsessed with often pathetic attempts to prove that Indians had all sorts of insights and technological advances first. I would not consider such a book as a reliable source for anything but the author's opinions.

No doubt there are exceptions and the occasional Indian scholar does really great work. It should be no problem to recognise these by the fact that they are cited by serious western scholars. In the absence of such evidence, and with such a title, this is clearly not a reliable source. Hans Adler 10:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it isn't reliable. The publisher, "Inner Traditions" (website here), doesn't look like an academic publisher. It hawks books about New Age nonsense. Titles like Healing Love through the Tao immediately rings alarm bells. There are plenty of scholarly books on Indian astronomy published by reliable academic presses like Cambridge University Press. This isn't one of them.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kition

Kition, a relatively new editor (The long road homw (talk · contribs), 10 day old account) has added numerous citations and new material to the article, all cited to "According to the text on the only plaque at the Kathari site (as of 2013)", "Excerpt of wall mounted text in exhibit room number two at Larnaca District Museum" and similar statements. Unfortunately, there are no links to images of said plaques. Reliable source of information? Heiro 10:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not in the picture taking business. Information signs at an excavation site where people have to pay to get in—don't those signs have protection for the intellectual properties? (We don't photograph text from a book, just because we want to quote it.) Printing a sign is not that all that different from writing and printing books—sometimes authors get things wrong in books. – If there is consensus for doubting the contents of a sign or a book, we have at least one tool—the additional citation needed-tag. Is there any particular "sign reference" that you are doubting—more than others? If there is, you might want to do some legwork by contacting the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus. I think they would like to know about suspicions that people on the internet are potentially misrepresenting information—or falsely quoting information—from their signposts. - I think that they would also apprectiate to know that their signs aren't being overlooked. - For your information the Kition-Kathari site has two groups of signs at the entrance, with 6 signs on each post. --The long road homw (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is about WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Unless one travels to a remote archaeological site or sees an image of the plaques, how can the wording of the information be checked? Also, books and other sources are often peer reviewed or are published by reliable publishing houses, but we have no way to know who put up these plaques or what they even say. I am not completely against using them to cite that "a plaque at the site states X", but am extremely leery of having the majority of an article sourced on anonymous and unverifiable plaques. There should be reliably published information somewhere. The additional citation needed tag is not a holding spot to ask someone else to find a reference for you, it is used when editors would like you to provide a reference for the material you have added. If you don't have adequate citations, please hold off on adding the information until you do have the citations. Please. Heiro 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The signs i have mentioned from Cyprus have a "peer review". People's reputations and potentially people's jobs are on the line. If someone screws up a sign, it will reflect both on the perp—and on people higher up the food chain—all the way up to the department head of the Department of Antiquities. – Can you point to any wikipedia guideline that states that I can not latch an "additional citation needed" tag, onto a text (of mine) that already has one citation? I have a feeling that you are misinterpreting some guideline—in line with how you would like things to be. --The long road homw (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not the only one who thinks this. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Tagging information as "cite needed" instead of providing a citation and User talk:Diannaa#Tagging information as cite needed instead of citing?. As for the question of the museum plaques, they also answered with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Sign in a museum. Which provides a citation template here Template:Cite sign. I would be a lot more comfortable with all of those citations to plaques and museum signs if you refactored your citations using this template. Cheers, Heiro 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that a "citation needed" tag is not intended to be put there by the person adding the content. I don't know of any policy or guideline that says so in so many words, but hat is no doubt becasue it never occurred to anyone that anyone would think that was a suitable use of the tag. Adding a "citation needed" tag to content means that you are announcing that you believe the content lacks a suitable source and needs one: if that is your opinion then you should not be adding the content. The nearest I can think of offhand to a mention of this in a policy or guideline is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, which says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." That is clearly written from the point of view that the purpose of a "citation needed" tag is for use by an editor who is challenging the content. Also, the same section goes on to say "sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." That, I think, makes it clear that if your content is challenged then you have to provide a source, and I see no reasonable way of reading that as meaning that you have the option of either providing a source or putting a tag there saying that you haven't provided one. it is also clear from the two discussions linked to in the post above that there is consensus that this is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On "citation needed" tags. If you consider your information obviously true and not likely to be challenged by any reader or editor, you can of course add it without a source. Then, if others do want to challenge it, it's up to them to add the "citation needed" tag. That's what it's for.

To add information which you yourself doubt, and at the same time to add "citation needed" to it, is making the encyclopedia worse. If you can't verify your own statement, it wastes other editors' time to add it anyway and expect somehow that they will do it for you. So what do you do? If you think your new information is important and you really can't find a reliable source, you put it on the talk page and ask for help.

On museum/site labels. They are very inconvenient for Wikipedia because other editors cannot check them (unless we have a photograph). They may or may not be reliable: it depends on the academic status of the author and institution that put them there. They are usually not peer reviewed: your superior officer is (by definition) not your peer. Peer review means review by others of similar status and expertise: museum labels don't usually get that kind of review. Because of the inaccessibility and the variable reliability, they are at the very bottom of anyone's mental list of handy sources for a Wikipedia article: you should not support any controversial statement merely from a museum label, especially not if other Wikipedians can't read the text of it. If you want to put any such controversial material in, you should find a reliable peer-reviewed publication that includes it. Ask the museum staff for help -- they, if anyone, will know where the material or the claim was published. If you can't find any such reliable, peer-reviewed source, then see above: you should put the doubtful information on the talk page, not in the article. Andrew Dalby 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How to make Colloidal silver

In the alternative medicine section of the 'Medical Uses of Silver' article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver) I added the following sentence...

Colloidal silver is often made at home using a simple electrolysis system comprising little more than a battery or low voltage DC wall adaptor directly connected to two silver wires suspended in a glass of pure water.

I thought this was a pretty uncontroversial statement but it was challenged and a citation was requested, even though its not actually a medical claim. Its very hard to find a single 'reliable source' for this statement (certainly theres nothing in Pubmed) but a Google search of 'How to make Colloidal silver' will turn up 1,590,000 results, mostly describing the electrolysis method using home-made or commercially purchased 'generators' as they are called.

So how do I resolve this? Is a google search a satisfactory way to prove 'the bleedin' obvious'? I feel I'm being asked to cite that the sky is blue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLUE Blakebeau (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The overriding concern here, I think, is WP:NOTHOWTO. As for what's obvious or not, as per WP:V, "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." But I think that's beside the point: with or without a source, we're not here to provide instructions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, judging from this older reference I would question whether the supposed electrolytic method actually creates a colloidal mixture at all. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to send electricity through two silver electrodes immersed in water. It may even be a common practice. The question of whether the resultant "colloid" or solution has any medical benefit is critical to whether it should be in the article. Note that if "pure" water refers to distilled water then it will not conduct electricity, and the silver electrodes will not do anything. If it is normal water with impurities it will conduct electricity, but will likely create a (very weak) silver ionic solution rather than a (very weak) silver colloid. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll state it plainly. You can't make any metallic nanoparticles or even colloidal suspensions of larger particles this way. If you could, it would save some people a whole lot of work [32]. At any rate this is a moot point; while this might seems like a blue-sky statement to some, it's been contested by other editors, and can't stand unless a RS is found. a13ean (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And as for the google search, there's lots of hits for "collodial silver nanoparticles synthesis water" but everything on the first two pages refers to a normal synthesis by reducing AgNO₃ or similar. a13ean (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not a 'HOW TO'. It just describes the basic apparatus. A real 'how to' would require much more info.

As for whether its really 'colloidal', I understand, but I think that's a separate issue. The product that is generically called 'colloidal silver' and is made at home or is available in health food stores, is made by electrolysis as I described above. This generic product is what the article/section is referring to whether its technically correct or not. Tens of thousands of Google results will tell you how this generic product is made but so far I'm unable to mention it in the article. (The article possibly does need a fuller description of what 'colloidal' really means to try and cover this problem of mislabelling but thats another concern for the article.)Blakebeau (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's not a WP:RS in any of those search results, it doesn't belong in the article. a13ean (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

11v11.com and footballdatabase.eu

A lot of football (soccer) player articles use sites such as soccerbase or transfermarkt, which looking at the RSN archive aren't regarded as being reliable sources. I was wondering what your thoughts are on 11v11.com (operated by the Association of Football Statisticians) and footballdatabase? The references given by both sites are impressive enough - 11v11.com claims to supply the FA, Premier League and Football League, and footballdatabase claim a long list of international clients. Both sites have a log-in system for their forums, comments etc, but the databases don't appear to be user-generated. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

British Medical Journal imprint, "Tobacco Control," on one way how big tobacco has affected society.

The article ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party is from a peer-reviewed BMJ Group journal with editorial oversight. It finds that the Tea Party movement was formed by non-profit organizations that were in turn founded and funded by the tobacco industry and other corporate concerns.

There have been concerns raised at Talk:Tea Party movement that the article violates WP:OR for it's own research, that it fails WP:BLP for making contentious claims about a group, that it's phrasing violates WP:WEASEL. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed for content. There are a number of journals published by professional academic organizations I belong to which are almost entirely political. This seems an excellent example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't violate BLP; it has been asserted that the article doesn't say that, even though the abstract does; and it looks WEASELly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty strange. While a lot of scientific journals have some political back-and-forth in letters or the like, this appears to be a normal article in this journal. The operative statement from the conclusion appears to be "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests." which is pretty weakly phrased. I don't think this falls under WP:OR, and the phrasing of the article does not seem that unusual for a public health journal. Depending on how it's being using in the article, a brief mention might not be undue. (Also, looking at their methods section makes me wish I could get published just for googling things in my field). a13ean (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Arthur, why do you say that it's not peer-reviewed? No comment on the quality of the journal, but their guidelines indicate that research papers are externally reviewed. a13ean (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire journal appears to be a political journal published by a medical organization; even if peer-reviewed, it's the wrong type of "peer".

And, if we may not use the Google-test in Wikipedia, why can we use a source which admits to only using the Google-test, even if it were a nominally reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that the paper does not make that claim at all, we would allow it by the same principle that forbids us to do original research, but allows us to use original research done by others, as long as its reliably published. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a political journal, it's a journal about policy. And since the statements to be supported relate to policy, and since the publisher is a highly reputable body, I'm not seeing great problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

{ec}I don't see any evidence that this is a political journal, and a sampling of other articles in the same issue doesn't offer any evidence to the contrary. I think you misunderstood my statement above, there's plenty of real science where they basically just "google" in specialized databases or the like -- medical reviews such as this one are pretty common. I'm just mad because the measurement equipment I use is not nearly as robust as my internet connection. a13ean (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed journal from a reliable publisher. The authors are affiliated with a major university, and at least the senior author is reasonably widely published and cited. Looks like a WP:RS to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's a political (or policy) journal. (If it's a policy journal, rather than a political journal, the article isn't even within the stated topic of the journal.) The article is about political history, and there is no evidence that the publisher (a medical organization(, the editors, or the authors are experts in that field. The lead author is an expert on effects of smoking (and possibly second hand smoke; I haven't read through all the abstracts); there's little evidence he's an expert on political history.

We've dealt with this before, although I can't find specific references to discussions. "Experts" writing outside their field of expertice are not considered "experts" for the purpose of WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The tobacco industry is Stanton Glantz's area of expertise. Publications include, but are not limited to: The Cigarette Papers, Tobacco War, "Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults", "Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places", "The politics of local tobacco control", Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology", "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study". So what were you saying?

By the way, other news organizations are picking up this story. [33] [34] — goethean 15:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Stanton Glantz might be an expert in the Tobacco industry, but where is he an expert with regards to the Tea Party? Arzel (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What a suprise that a bunch of left news sources would trumpet an incredibly stupid study that would attack Big Tobacco, the Koch's and the Tea Party all at once! This is clearly a WP:FRINGE study. Such a stupid correlation without causation study I have not seen before. Such idiocy would never make it into the true scientific journals which I have published. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; [...]; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies." [35] (emphasis mine). How is this article possibly outside the the stated topic area of the journal? Expert status for the author is only needed for WP:SPS exceptions - the presumption is that publication through a reliable publisher is sufficient to establish reliability. The BMJ Group is a major academic publisher with a good reputation. Peer-reviewed academic articles are the gold standard for sources. And, as Goethean pointed out, Glantz is indeed an expert on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The objections to this journal are very much off target. There are significant numbers of academics/scholars in medical fields that do research on the social/political aspects of health-related issues; tobacco is a prime example. The medical school in my own university has a large unit that specializes in issues of this sort. There is no question here of people writing outside their expertise -- it's really quite the contrary in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Glantz is an expert on the tobacco industry; his <redacted> comments about the Tea Party would require independent evidence of expertise. BMJ is an expert in medical matters; their expertise about the Tea Party (or recognizing expertise about the Tea Party) is in question. "Tobacco Control" is a (self-proclaimed) expert on "the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide" and "the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies".; their expertise about the Tea Party is problematic, as it's Glantz' assertion that the Tea Party is an ally of (an ally of an ally of ...) the tobacco industry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is chiropractic a health care profession?

There is a discussion at the chiropractic talk page regarding the question Is chiropractic is a health care profession?. It is proposed that the first sentence of the lead be amended to include the description: "health care profession".

• Current text: "'Chiropractic is a form of complementary and alternative medicine[1] concerned with the..."'
• Proposed text: "'Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine[1] health care profession concerned with the..."'
• The question: Are any of the following sources sufficiently reliable to support the change?

1. From the WHO source: "Chiropractic - A health care profession concerned with....."
2. From a peer-reviewed source in Archives of Internal Medicine: "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in..."
3. From a peer-reviewed source in The Milbank Quarterly: "Chiropractic is the best established of the alternative health care professions."
4. From a peer-reviewed source in Arthritis Research & Therapy: "many patients seek care directly from health-care professionals other than their family doctor; for example, at least one third of back pain patients in Denmark now choose to see a chiropractor as their..."
5. From NIH/NCCAM: "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on..."
6. From a Provincial government source: "Chiropractic has been a designated health profession under the Health Professions Act...."
7. From private insurance company WSIB: "The WSIB has completed a review of the fees paid to 12 health professions." *Note that chiropractic is #3 on the list of 12 health professions.
8. This source examined the attitudes/behaviours of health care professionals, of which, chiropractic is included. DVMt (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Y I'm not totally sure about the others, but the NCCAM definition by itself I'd find sufficient to support the proposed text. I don't know whether chiropractic is effective, but it does indeed at least intend to train and license people to treat disease and improve health, and earn a living doing so. Given these sources, the qualifier "complementary and alternative medicine" is indeed required to be part of the definition, as proposed. Zad68 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of reliable sources that support the assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession and chiropractors are health care practitioners or providers. Virtually every US state and Canadian province places the practice of chiropractic under some department related to health care. Add the AMA to the list, and include UK's NHS and Australia's Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Location (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"...every state"? That sounds like a very US perspective. (Unless you mean Russian or Australian states?) This is a global encyclopaedia. We need a global perspective. And what's an NCCAM? HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Location (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone likely to challenge that chiropractors get paid? That really is the hallmark of any profession is that you earn income from your endeavors.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Politicians get paid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Noone is challenging that they're professionals, in the sense that it's a job where they get paid. It's labeling it as "heathcare" that is the sticking point. It's a pseudoscientific alternative medicine thing, according to the medical sources. — raekyt 06:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• The opposition is that we should represent what the mainstream medical/academic community considers them to be, do they refer them as healthcare practitioners or alternative medicine? Labeling something as a health care profession lends it, at least perceived, more credibility... The article clearly is labeling, based on available mainstream medical sources, a pseudoscience. — raekyt 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  A totally incompetent surgeon in Bananistan's army clinic who has so far botched every single operation but is allowed to continue because his brother is the president is still a health care professional. Even Mengele was a health care professional. Alternative medicine is a form of healthcare, whether effective or not.

  Looking up the word health care in Merriam-Webster, I found that the general dictionary and the medical dictionary don't agree:

  • general dictionary: "efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals"
  • medical dictionary: "maintaining and restoration of health by the treatment and prevention of disease especially by trained and licensed professionals"

  The latter is more restrictive as it requires efficacy, but that aspect is clearly wrong. Every good-faith effort to maintain and restore health by a qualified professional is health care, even when it's counterproductive. Hans Adler 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • So by that reasoning Crystal healing and every other alternative medicine if they're "licensed? I can get licensed to do crystal healing here, so then would I be a "health care professional"?... I don't buy it. — raekyt 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

    I can find nothing about licensing under that link and I really doubt that they are officially licensed anywhere. In Germany for example, anyone wanting to practise crystal healing would have to be licensed as a Heilpraktiker (alternative / non-medical practitioner), or as a physician. Thus a crystal healer, homeopath or whatever who is fully trained and examined according to their particular paramedical faith is only allowed to practise if they also have passed the Heilpraktiker examination. The latter is what makes them health care professionals, and the former does not play a role. Therefore crystal healers, homeopaths and I believe chiropractics are not health care professionals in Germany. If, on the other hand, many states regulate chiropractic and let chiropractics work on patients under this regulation, then it's a health care profession. I don't know to what extent that applies. I know that it does apply in Switzerland, and I think it also does in the US, where chiropractic seems to have lost a lot of its radicality and to be quite close to mainstream medicine nowadays. Hans Adler 10:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Windows 1.0 logo

This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.

However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo?

Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

247wallst.com

Today on reddit an exposee on 247wallst.org was posted. It looked only at one article and determined that the impact of the publication stands in no proportion to their quality. Two mistakes originating from said article on wikipedia were identified. They possibly also outsource the creation of the content to uncredited writers.

This looks very mich like a suspicious source and I suggest that the best idea would be to remove all references to them. This is actually a very fascinating article since it shows how unbelievably huge theirt impact is.

http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/18kele/one_blatant_factual_mistake_made_by_a_tiny_but/