Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 125

←

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

→

Archive 135

Does anyone know whether Dr. David C.F. Wright and the bios on his site www.wrightmusic.net are reliable ? I've not heard of him. A number of his biographies are being used as sources. I stumbled across him while looking at the Reginald Smith Brindle article. The ext link used to link to one of his bios but that has apparently been removed from the site. The original Smith Brindle bio is available at www.wrightmusic.net here. It cites no sources, none of his articles cite sources, and the article seems rather personal. I'll also note that according to his own bio on his site here, Wright has exposed "the lies of Richard Dawkins.....the nonsense of evolution", which doesn't fill me with confidence. So, any thoughts on whether he qualifies as an RS at least for music bios (not the modern evolutionary synthesis) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the only content i found published by a David C F Wright in google scholar is regarding finances and while I did not find any books published by him in a quick search of googlebooks, he seems to appear as a contributor about Elizabeth Lutyens in a couple of journals [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

since anything in the external link section needs to be an active and reliably active link WP:ELNO i have removed the dead link from Reginald Smith Brindle. If the other links to the pageWrights site are also to dead pages (perhaps removed in anticipation of a book publication after spamming them to Wikipedia?) the links can/should be removed as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to be confused with another Dr David Wright, of Washington University in St. Louis, who is also a musician, composer and arranger, but (unlike David C.F. Wright) he writes and teaches mathematics, e.g. ISBN 9780821848739. Also unlike D.C.F.W. he is a barbershop harmony hall of fame arranger, rather than a classical musician. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to get a review of this report by the Swedish think-tank Expo (which also runs the Expo_(magazine)). In my opinion it seems to be a well-founded analysis of the counterjihad movement, but I'm worried that it's affiliation with a foundation that has a stated mission would make it a likely target for attack. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to user this same opportunity to raise the question on using Expo as a source at Sweden Democrats (a parliamentary political party in Sweden). That was discussed at the article's talk page here, but I don't agree with the persons who replied it that anyone questioning the neutrality of the source is "only a far-right extremeist". Expo runs an anti-Sweden Democrats campaign, quite provocatively with domain http://www.sverigedemokraterna.de/ To me it seems like Expo does some good human rights activism but it also has sections that are politically highly active, and atleast using it as source on a political party that they declare to oppose is a conflict of interests. So in my opinion, Expo can be used as a source certainly if the magazine is quoting an expert and thus the expert is the author, some of their projects too but specific political entitities like SD are out of the question because they're itself involved in it. --Pudeo' 16:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Wieferich prime I am preparing some content that I later want to include in the article Wieferich prime. At the section User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Wieferich prime#Connection with Sophie Germain primes I wrote a short passage about the connection of Wieferich primes with Sophie Germain primes. My question is, is the source I used, namely this paper on arXiv an acceptable source for the statements it cites? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you reply, please place

==Talkback Reliable sources/Noticeboard==
{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|arXiv paper|ts=~~~~~}}
~~~~

on my talkpage. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Toshio. The WP article on Reliable Source Examples has a good discussion on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to cite Arxiv.

As a suggestion, if, in light of the guidelines suggested in that article, it's not entirely clear that this Arxiv paper qualifies as a reliable source, you may wish to contextualize the statements made by that source. For example (assuming that this paper hasn't been published elsewhere in a peer-reviewed journal), you could write something along the lines of "Luis H. Gallardo writes in a paper published on Arxiv that...." That way it's clear to readers that the claim isn't necessarily based on material that has gone through the sort of rigorous peer-review required for it to appear in a published mathematical journal. Best wishes! --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for your reply. I already searched on the web and was unable to find an indication that this paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Your suggestion sounds good. That way it would be clear who made that statement and that the source was perhaps not independently checked by others. I searched here and found no indication that this paper has been cited by other papers, unfortunately.... -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad penny that just keeps on turning up heads, so I thought I would try to put it to the community for an opinion. There are those who edit 'Yugoslavia in WW2' articles who question whether the subject book is a WP:RS on that general subject. The general theme of these objections is that Cohen was apparently a dentist (if he was, he may still be one, I don't know), and therefore it is not a. reliable, or b. he's an amateur and it could only be a tertiary source at best. Here is the Google Books link to the book in question [2]. The book is published by Texas A&M University Press, is part of a series on East European Studies edited by Stjepan Meštrović, and has a foreword by the late David Riesman, who was at that time the Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University. Cohen uses footnotes from other secondary WP:RS on the subject such as Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts etc, but the work is extensively footnoted, and Riesman concludes inter alia 'this volume will be useful to scholars specialising in the history and current politics and policies in the Balkans and Serbia in particular.' On this occasion it just happens to be the Ante Pavelic article where it has been challenged, but it has been challenged on other 'Yugoslavia in WW2' articles before. I ask for a community view on this book as a WP:RS on the subject of 'Yugoslavia in WW2' generally, because I think that would suffice for the moment. If there is a more specific challenge to a specific part of the book for a specific article, I will of course bring it back here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Always informative, Fifelfoo. Is there some way we can record this for posterity other than in these archives? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day again Fifelfoo et al. This one also relates to Cohen (in a different article), so I thought I'd bring it here for a view given the above. There is an issue in the Pavle Đurišić article revolving around the awarding of an Iron Cross to the man, but also some details of his involvement with the Serbian Volunteer Corps and a promotion. The principal source for this is in Cohen, p. 45, where he states

"After the capitulation of Italy in 1943, Đurišić established closer ties with Dimitrije Ljotić, whose Serbian Volunteer Corps provided weapons, food, typewriters, and other supplies. Nedic promoted Đurišić to the rank of lieutenant colonel and appointed him assistant commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, and, on 11 October 1944, Adolf Hitler awarded Đurišić the Iron Cross".

This paragraph is footnoted by Cohen to a US Archives microfilm of the entitlement document (which I have not seen, but which is purportedly the image on the article page), and three books, one (1949) by Bosko Kostic, Ljotić's personal secretary, one (1971) by Ratko Parezanin another of Ljotić's people (head of his party education department), and one (1984) by Mladen Stefanovic which is a history of Ljotić's party, the Zbor.

The other related issue is that Cohen produces the same information about the Iron Cross in his 1997 book "The World War II and contemporary Chetniks: their historico-political continuity and implications for stability in the Balkans" p. 34, and I was wondering if you had access to a review of that book to help with an assessment of its reliability? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Would this site which provides a detailed study on the the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project [3] be acceptable to use as a reference? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excellent source for the relevant article. If you find contradictory views, sourced perhaps to national government or company statements, include them too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is easy enough to find contradictory information put out by BP, the major operator, but I am having trouble finding local reactions to the pipeline. I'm sure that there is plenty of local news in other languages, Russian for instance. Would foreign language news sources be appropriate to use in this situation? Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey peoples. Does any know if this can be considered a reliable source for the article Nightswimming (Awake). Cheers, TBrandley 01:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

there does not appear to be any editorial oversight, so no not a reliable source. if you are just looking to verify that a certain song was used, the shows credits are about as reliable as you can get for that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are some "List of _______ episodes" articles that I would like to create at some point for various TV shows (most of them 1950s-60s era) but I anticipate that the only secondary sources I'll be able to find that actually list them will most likely be sites like TV.com. I know IMDb isn't a reliable source, but has the issue of TV.com every come up? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Look through these results. Insomesia (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

TV.com is user generated content, so no it is not a reliable secondary source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was expecting. So my next annoying question is, what will happen if I just compile a list and create it without much or any sourcing? I've seen several lists of episodes here and there that seem to do that without anyone having challenged it (presumably the primary source -- in this case the show itself -- is presumed to be reliable enough to implicitly act as a source for material about itself). It's not as though I would be making stuff up, but would that be likely to be challenged? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a source, how are you going to compile a list? Or are you proposing to use an unreliable source, and not cite it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is all hypothetical, as I haven't even looked into this much. But my basic idea was that I would use something like the back of a DVD case to compile the list with episode titles, basic rundowns of the plot, etc. I would think that would be unquestionably reliable, but it's also primary, so RS policy would rather I go to a secondary source to verify it. In my mind, though, it's not potentially controversial. It is not, as WP:V would put it, "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged", so by the strictest interpretation of policy, I don't actually have to cite a source at all. Of course, I would prefer to cite a source, so in this as-of-yet hypothetical scenario, I suppose I would cite the primary source rather than no source at all; particularly since people seem to be particularly insistent about sourcing for even non-controversial things these days. If I wanted to list, for example, original broadcast dates, though, which are an integral part of most episode lists, I would probably have to turn to a site like TV.com. Even still, I don't think that's controversial, so per WP:V, would there actually be a problem with me not citing a source? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing official production credits and materials does not seem to be a bad idea, at least for non-exceptional claims. You might try official listing at Netflix if they list episode credits or wherever else you can verify the content. And providing the citations shows you are making good faith content edits. A primary source is better than no source and I doubt the content would be contested, but if it is TV Guide or some other media might have the information. TV.com could perhaps guide you to other more reliable sources that could be used. Insomesia (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-Profit Data http://www.npdata.be , is used in several articles e.g. Belgium, Brussels, Demographics of Belgium, Islam in Belgium and Greek diaspora to support facts concerning the number or percentage of immigrants. It's in Dutch, which I don't understand too well, nor do I know if whatever sources the site uses are reliable. The site appears to contain almost only articles about crime and immigrants, which might indicate a right-wing bias, and at least some of the references were added by a now banned user with a strong anti-immigration POV.Sjö (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia administrator who knows about psuedoscience or any project about psuodoscience I can talk to, because I am trying to keep collaboration and factual information with the Western astrology and Chinese zodiac signs. What I am trying to think is making two new articles to redirect where all the signs and information are in one article. An article for the list and facts of Western astrology and one for the Chinese zodiac, and other horoscopes. There are repeats of sabatage deletions from among IP and confirmed users who believe it is useless, when from earlier users it was stated as reliable as facts. In truth I am just stating the facts, the article doesn't mean it is true, it's only stating mythological details, such as a person born in the year of Rat, it is only stating folkore. I would really like to make two articles where I can redirect each sign and paste in to the articles for Western astrology and Chinese zodiac. Edit also on WP:Help desk.--GoShow (...............) 18:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK (and WP:NPA). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two directly relevant WikiProjects, WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing to do, but there is already a separate page for lists of astrological signs at astrological sign if that's what you mean. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Golden Joystick Award, a user with a declared COI wants to include the statement that "It is organised by Future plc, publishers of magazines such as Computer and Video Games and Official Nintendo Magazine" replacing a previous statement about the organizer. After being asked for independent sources, this user has provided a link to the Professional Publishers Association (http://www.ppa.co.uk/news/industry/future-publishing-announces-29th-annual-golden-joystick-awards/). This looks like a press release to me. Does the PPA have sufficient editorial independence and fact checking to accept it as a reliable source for the factual statement that this award is "organised by Future plc"? This ought not to be a highly controversial statement, I would think. The COI user has also provided links to Future's own sites. Advice would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 12:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

PPA is a reliable UK organisation. The item however is a PR -based notices. Even generally reliable professional magazines run them as sources of industry news, giving enough attribution to indicate where the material came from. This item words it clearly enough: "Future Publishing has announced..." "Future said..." and then it quotes directly the head of that publishing group. Many generally reliable newspapers do similarly, but the sloppier ones sometimes omit the attribution. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of a dispute over whether weather2travel is a reliable source for sunshine data (and sea temperature data) in the Istanbul article. Here is the edit in context. (Note that the source gives sunshine data rounded to the nearest whole number and the article converts that to monthly data.) Any additional opinions on the reliability of this source would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider the weather2travel website a reliable one since it is tourist website that promotes travelling to that destination (kinda spammy). These links are not necessary for including in an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssbbplayer (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The weather2travel is one of the projects by Global Support Limited (Worldwide Weather, Climate & Geography Experts). Global Support Limited, based at Pinewood Studios in the UK, have combined their extensive knowledge of the world's climate and geography to create a number of unique online resources - including for the film, television, commercials industry, consumer websites for the travel and tourism industry the overseas property investment market and other. This is not "hobby" page or blog. The weather2travel.com are reliable source. Subtropical-man (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

From terms of use, point 10 (bold is mine)

"Disclaimer: No warranties, promises and /or representations of any kind express or implied, are given as to the nature, standard, suitability, availability or otherwise of the services offered on the Weather2Travel.com website or as to the accuracy and completeness of the information contained on the website which are provided "as is". The information given on the website or in any communication which we might send you in accordance with our Privacy Policy (including geographical and climatological information) is indicative only and is not intended to be representations on which users should rely."

I think that this ends the story. Alex2006 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

its a commercial site with a primary purpose to make money for clients. there are governmental and academic organizations that track weather information whose purpose is purely to provide accurate weather info. we should be using those. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know:

• If the official website of a country's federal government (in this case, that of Somalia) is considered a reliable source on who is serving as that country's President/overall leader during a brief period of political transition.
• If somaligov.net is the official website of the Somali federal government (formerly referred to as the Transitional Federal Government or TFG).

During the civil war in Somalia, various bogus websites have gone up (some quite amusing) and gone down, so there's a bit of confusion here. Robert Young Pelton's Somalia Report recently discussed this issue and linked to somaligov.net as the official Somali government website: "The TFG site is officially here."

Various other bodies also cite somaligov.net as their official Somali federal government contact, including the Africa Mining Projects/Afrimine and the defence and security specialist IHS Jane's in its Jane's International Defence Directory. Middayexpress (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the real question in this case is how to identify the "real" government website? It does not seem useful, therefore, to frame this question in a general way about all government websites.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I meant to frame it. That Somalia Report piece that actually discusses the issue surrounding the various Somali government websites indicates that the official one is somaligov.net. There doesn't appear to be any other reliable source which discusses the issue at all. As far as I'm aware, this is the only one, and that's what it indicates. Middayexpress (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sure I have read something in the media about this, possibly in the Economist?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is reason to doubt some of the material on the Louis T McFadden page is from an un-biased source. The actual vigor with which that article attempts to place a label on McFadden is clearly fodder for the neutral point of view forum but the single source used to label McFadden is biased. The Mcfadden ^[1]page sites numerous articles form a single source which cites itself. The source is biased and the items in the article are placed there with prejudice and mailice. There is a reference from a 'reporter' named Drew Pearson ^[2]whose wikipedia page states in the opening sentence that Pearson often made claims with no proof - yet wikipedia considers Pearson's yellow press to be encyclopedic enough to appear in the biography of an individual who served as Chairman of the US House Committee on Banking and Currency for eleven years. I am not about to claim that McFadden may not have made some comments that offended individuals of the Jewish faith. I will remind you that in the 1930's and 20's discrimination against many of the Jewish faith was not uncommon, rather quite common. I will claim however that the article on McFadden is heavily biased by the single source of the JTA. It is impossible to look at the article and see the single self citing source attempting so vehemently to condemn McFadden with a label one cannot believe that this is not baised and malicious and done with prejudice to hang a certain label on McFadden and therefore marginalse his work. Having the single source of the JTA relentlessly quoted is done for a single reason. Only substantiating the biased claims of the JTA with JTA^[3] citations fails on scholarly and news organizations points 142.68.89.59 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Drew Pearson is a notoriously unreliable source. Mention of allegations he made should be utterly dependent on their impact at the time (e.g. his attacks on James Forrestal). I cannot offer an opinion as to the reliability of the JTA at the time, and I agree that it would be nice if other sources could be found testifying to McFadden's views. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Pearson is quoted per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, so we are not so worried about whether he was accurate. Certainly it is a fact that McFadden was mentioned in Pearson's column that day. I have corrected the Pearson quote to say that Pearson was noticing McFadden being quoted by the fascist Silver Shirts. User:Binksternet

The phrasing is better but I am having some trouble with the section as to whether it is reporting a controversy of the time, or it is documenting McFadden's sins after the fact. If it is the latter, Pearson is an inappropriate source. If the former, he is appropriate only if he was a participant in the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found a scholarly source on this so it isn't as though we have to rely on contemporary news reports. See Jenkins, Philip (1997). Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 117–120. for an extensive section discussing his antisemitic career. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

it is very obvious that the powers that be at wikipedia have an antisemetic ( whatever that means - the term is thrown about so liberally these days that it is pretty much meaningless as it targets anyone that is even slightly critical of Israel ) axe to grind and it is very important to wikipedia to label McFadden as such ddespite the rampant ant-jewish sentiments of the day. You should at least review the article and check the spelling. The attempts to validate Pearson's comments pretty much put the argument on ice that wiki is biased. There is no editing war because wiki is an autocracy142.176.239.2 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, McFadden stood out from the crowd in his day. He was not holding a median position. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd put Henry Ford up there with him - he was pretty bad though, using the House floor at times to "express" his viewpoint. There was at least one previous discussion about JTA here. There have been a couple of editors trying to seriously white-wash the McFadden article. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing the edit history of this piece, it appears there is a POV-driven attack being made to sanitize this biography by a single purpose editor. "Reliable sources" fussing is a diversion from the real issue. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if any part of India-Forums can be considered a reliable source? This site describes itself as "an established television discussion forum" and "an online youth networking site", but there are also a lot of non-forum articles on the site. Many are simply reprints of production companies' press releases, or user-submitted content. The remainder I'm not sure about; it looks mostly like celebrity gossip to me, and I have no idea if there's any independent editorial oversight. We have a lot of links to this site, many (most?) of which have been added to various Indian TV articles by sockpuppets and anonymous IPs; it's also the source of a disturbing number of copy-and-paste copyright violations:

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 30
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 16
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 24
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 19
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 7
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 May 2
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 May 5
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 20
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 23
• Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-03-07
• Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-05-02
• Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-05-05
• Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-12-19
• Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2012-08-23

And the above are just the ones people have bothered to report with the full URL spelled out; there are many more where different link text is used, and for fresh cases most editors just revert on sight. Is there any reason this site shouldn't be on XLinkBot's revert list? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

no its not a reliable source. i would support a blacklisting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm… apparently this site has formerly been the subject of investigation for spam; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/india-forums.com. I can't find any record as to whether it was ever blacklisted before (and if not, why not, and if so, why it was ever removed from the blacklist). But if there are no circumstances under which it can serve as a reference or useful external link, maybe adding it to the spam blacklist would be a better option. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

India-forums.info is blacklisted, india-forums.com isn't. The 'whois' information for each domain doesn't suggest a relationship, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

india-forums.info appears to have been a ripoff of india-forums.com. (The domain is now parked, but many of its sister sites which are still up closely duplicate the look and feel of india-forums.com.) The relevant entries are here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Dec 1#TellyNagari.com
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Sep 1#Adsense pub-7737919753690258, pub-1000198103236930
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2010#tellynagari.com

These sites were put on the spam blacklist because they are not reliable sources and because their links were inserted into a large number of articles. So probably we could make a request to list india-forums.com on the same grounds. Do you think that would be a good idea, Amatulić? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am seeking to add a Political Position in the infobox of the Australian Greens. The party is the fourth largest in Australia. It holds 1 out of 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives. The other seats are held by the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party, and the National Party of Australia. Each of these contains a political position. The Greens have various policies that would fit into the Left-wing politics category. These include gay marriage, a 40% pollution cut by 2020, voluntary euthanasia, opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, abolition of the Monarchy of Australia, cuts in funding for private schools, free University education for all, free health and dental care for all, compulsury student unionism, abolition of private health insurance rebate, increase access to abortion, increased public housing, no mandatory detention of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, an end to the Pacific Solution, end the Northern Territory emergency response, increased multicultural programmes, gay adoption, establish intersex as a gender, increased restrictions on the media; particulary News Limited, increased social security, a stronger line on Israel-Palestine, increase overseas aid and increased rights for unions. These policies are all available on www.greens.org.au/policies. Some are available in the Wikipedia article.

The Wikipedia article on Left-wing politics notes 'In politics, the Left, left-wing, and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'. This describes the Greens perfectly. The page also says 'the term (left-wing) was applied to a number of revolutionary movements...including green politics'. The Greens are clearly to the left of Labor, which is described as 'centre-left'.

I also note that other Green parties around the world, affiliated to Global Greens such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens, Wales Green Party and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand are described on their articles as 'left-wing'. One particular user has reacted to my proposal quite vigorously. Others have expressed support, others opposition. I am having some trouble with my sources, with one user in particular questioning their reliability. The sources are: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Act Now http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

Oz Parties http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html

Sky News http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=785779

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3812920.html

Article by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4156564.html

http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-199/feature-tad-tietze/

More reliable sources I think:

Encyclopedia of World Constititions Page 54 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=encyclopedia+of+world+constitutions&source=bl&ots=YdnwQpZEuo&sig=nziEolioj7GZIhu_oiEwdpN3mJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e7FCUL2BCYyZiAeBlYHoCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20world%20constitutions&f=false

Left Turn by Antony Loewenstein http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=encyclopedia+of+world+constitutions&source=bl&ots=YdnwQpZEuo&sig=nziEolioj7GZIhu_oiEwdpN3mJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e7FCUL2BCYyZiAeBlYHoCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20world%20constitutions&f=false

Endame for the West in Afghanistan study http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YZCpm7n4JoIC&pg=PT24&lpg=PT24&dq=australian+greens+left-wing&source=bl&ots=yVzH-p--S4&sig=iYYk2CRmwGpXO-noLdbvkY0eMVw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prFCUNKeE42XiQf4mIHQDQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=australian%20greens%20left-wing&f=false

The Death of Social Democracy by Ashley Lavelle http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Death_of_Social_Democracy.html?id=e-V-2PYJWVkC&redir_esc=y

Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4zJcjo9fofsC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=australian+greens+left-wing&source=bl&ots=F9dNFD_Ouj&sig=9lHoKPnVudRDGy9S0rJgSjpRDhc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prFCUNKeE42XiQf4mIHQDQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=australian%20greens%20left-wing&f=false

Could some people comment on the reliability of these sources. That would be of much help. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see also the discussion/custard pie fight at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source: a Greens magazine http://wa.greens.org.au/system/files/private/GI%20webaugust2012.pdf where the party is described as 'Clearly left-wing'. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This argument is not really about sources. The sources listed above, along with others, can clearly be used to support a section in the article that deals with the political position of the Australian Greens. However, this editor, who is now forum shopping, wants to just add the two words "left wing" to an infobox. Many editors think that a more nuanced approach should be taken and not add anything to the infobox. The political position of this political party is not simple. This is not an issue about sources, but about editorial judgement. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also proposed that this be written in the article 'The Australian Greens are considered to be to the left of the Australian political spectrum, although they reject this terminology' Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"The left" is so broad that it could mean anything. Most of those disagreeing with you aren't disagreeing with your fundamental idea that the Greens are to the left of the other two major political parties, or that the Greens are not somehow "above politics" or a "new politics" as they themselves claim, but they are simply saying the situation is far more complex. And I'd actually contend that what the party say about themselves is interesting, but irrelevant. Go to a party conference for any party (major or minor), write down what they say about themselves and compare it to the weight of published material on them and one will often find disagreement. I'm aware of a fair bit of the scholarly opinion on the political spectrum and since the end of the Cold War, "left" and "right" have loosened in meaning. Witness, for example, the supposedly "far right" parties such as One Nation, National Front, BNP and so on (and there have been fights of a similar nature on those articles too), but then look at their policies and map them and you'll find they're silent on some issues, far left on others (especially economic) and right to far right on others (especially on immigration and cultural policy). The new Katter Australian Party managed to capture votes off the Greens at the 2012 Queensland election to occupy 3rd spot by being firmly left-wing on economics and relaxed on many social issues (while taking a right-wing stance on one or two, but nothing like One Nation). Most of the sources you've thrown up about this don't actually deal with these issues - there are academic papers for and against the position, as well as debate within the media. Simplifying that debate to two words in an infobox doesn't do it justice. Orderinchaos 09:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No party has a simple political position. But readers come to Wikipedia seeking information, and when we put information into an infobox, we don't do anything more than provide the skeleton of a summary. It is standard for most political party articles here to give an indication of political stance in the lede and info box, backed up by deeper and more detailed content within the article. The Australian Greens sit within the global Green movement, to be sure, but in Australia, they have policy positions on many social issues, and it is bizarre to see anybody trying to avoid describing their stance on social issues as anything but left wing. If editors want to wage ideological warfare, rather than provide good, well-sourced information to those seeking it, then perhaps they could find useful outlets elsewhere? --Pete (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points, but the main discussion is going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Australian_Greens.You probably should post this there Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Which raises the question, why did you begin this discussion in the first place? Without even linking to the NPOV/N discussion.... I have to agree with Bduke that it sounds like you're forum shopping. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the current established version of Richard Dawkins article there is a passage describing RD's view on religion being a virus. I am proposing in this edit to add Michael Shermer's criticism on this specific topic. On top of Shermer's original book, I found a secondary source that cites the very criticism by Shermer. The question is whether these two sources together bare enough reliability for the added content.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are probably over a thousand writers who have commented on Dawkins and his stance regarding religion, so whether a particular source is "reliable" is only a tiny part of deciding whether a particular comment on Dawkins is WP:DUE for inclusion in Richard Dawkins. Unless the author commenting is very notable, there seems to be no need to include their opinion unless it has received significant coverage in secondary sources (which would show that people other than editors at Wikipedia believe the author's views are significant). Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

True, there are many authors who criticized Dawkins, but this one Michael Shermer is notable due to being a promenant atheist just like Dawkins himself. and yes there are famous secondary sources citing the very comment by Shermer: The Dawkins Delusion, by McGrath

--216.31.219.19 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence being added does not say much does it? So why bother inserting it? Just saying that a criticism of something is unjust is the same as saying you think the criticism is wrong. If you just want to say that Dawkins' description is controversial even amongst atheists, say that? Anyway I do not think this is really an RSN issue. (It maybe looks like one because of the efforts being made to mention one specific person who disagrees with Dawkins.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no issue in reliability of the source. So you know, it was a group decision to post it here. As for the non-RSN concern you mentioned I guess I can propose a longer quote from Shermer:

"Skeptic atheist Michael Shermer describes this portrayal of religion by Dawkins unjust. According to him 'for every one of these grand tragedies there are ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good that go largely unreported in the history books or on the evening news. Religion, like all social institutions of such historical depth and cultural impact cannot be reduced to be an unambiguous good or evil.' "

--216.31.219.19 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN isn't the correct venue for deciding due weight. The weight is dubious at best. The secondary source has dubious reliability for interpreting what shermer meant; it aims for a different position than Dawkins does. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, it was not my call only to post it here. That aside, this secondary source is merely quoting Shermer on his comment on Dawkin's portrayal of religion.216.31.219.19 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you are using it in it's capacity as a primary source for the quote. It does not help with weight though. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like a set of eyes to check the edits by a relatively inexperienced editor. They did a great thing by creating Cupio dissolvi, but are using unreliable sources (I'll get to the synthesis part later) to argue that this phrase is somehow identical to death drive. Such sources include this from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (caution: user has the tendency to cite archived versions that are almost illegible), and this forum for a translation and another here (which are needless and interpretative; I found plenty of reliable translations in the published sources (see the Wolfskeel, Balint, Screech references). This PDF, from some website containing an interview with Sudhir Kakar serves as a quick synthesis to help editor equate Christian mysticism with Freud's death drive. I would propose that Kakar (whose article is a bit of a puff piece) is not qualified as a scholar of Christian mysticism and that the equation is unwarranted if based on this interview.

By way of historical reference, this was the article as I found it. Note, for instance, the many "references" that are in fact Google searches. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: editor's desire to include Kurt Cobain in the Pauline Epistles, etc., is made clear by their latest revert. I'm not going to (edit) war over this right now, but they are certainly making a mockery out of a perfectly good topic. If someone wants to weigh in on the original research aspect, that might save a trip to the next noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Another note: editor is not, in fact, relatively inexperienced; scroll down. Mea culpa. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing that struck me when I looked at it was that the translation source (in addition to being non-reliable in its own right, since it appears to be a forum post) is for the Italian phrase, while the article is about the Latin phrase found in the Bible. While the article could perhaps use a section on the modern usage of the phrase as it evolved from its Biblical usage, as it stands now, it's just not applicable to the main thrust. (Such a section would have to be closely watched for synthesis, of course, and probably would end up being impossible to write verifiably, but still.) The "Notable idioms and phrases" is just a random website/blog, so that's not reliable, either (it has the disclaimer "This document contains only my personal opinions and calls of judgement, and where any comment is made as to the quality of anybody's work, the comment is an opinion, in my judgement"; kinda a dead giveaway). The other two are probably reliable sources, but neither of them are talking about the phrase in our sense; one just uses it without discussing it at all, so it's not useful for the article, and the other uses it in reference to Socrates and Plato, so it also can't be relevant to the phrase as used in the Bible hundreds of years later. Needless to say, the Kurt Cobain thing is a total non sequitur. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. I appreciate your latinity, Writ Keeper. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Government Hooker" is currently a featured article candidate, and Wikipedian Penguin (talk · contribs) has brought up concerns with two ([4])([5]) the sources used in the article. Both of these sources are from PopCrush. He has been unable to find any editorial qualifications or previous information for Amy Sciarretto, the individual responsible for writing the articles. I was originally reluctant to use a PopCrush source, as I am not fond of the website's format. It came to my attention that is was the only non-blogging site that directly verifies that the song was featured in a promotional video for the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards. In addition, her review can be seen in the "reception" section of the article. I used it because reviews for the song were very limited to begin with. It is also worth nothing that various good articles use PopCrush to verify some of its information. —DAP388 (talk) 21:49, 04 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Filmtracks.com a reliable source? I would like to use it for the music section in Sense and Sensibility. It is solely run by Christian Clemmensen, who explains his background here. I came across it randomly; thoughts would be appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with a privately run site is that authorship and editorial review are not independent, so its credentials need to be established. Do you know if it is used as a source of information by other reliable sources? For instance, if Entertainment Weekly or Variety referenced it in their articles that would go a long way in determining its validity. Alternatively, if the guy who runs it is independently published in this field he may qualify under WP:SPS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across this from Entertainment Weekly. I may not need his review after all, but I'd still like to know everyone's thoughts for future reference. Ruby 2010/2013 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The site is little more then a very elaborate self published website. The author has no credintials and admits as much on the "About the site" page where it states "Clemmensen, a piano performer from youth, claims no connection to the industry, formal training in cinema, or even sanity, but through time and stubborn will he has endured to maintain what some consider the community's darkest, most controversial corner of villainy." There is no editorial oversite or fact checking of any kind that can be seen or inferred. This is basicly a fan page.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor is edit warring to remove an attributed quote to CSICOP saying it is not reliable. See [6]:

Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow has suggested that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena." Source: CSICOP Responds to the Recent UFO Report Sponsored by the Society for Scientific Exploration

Can regulars please give their opinions on whether this statement is reliably sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First, just a practical bit of advice about this type of edit war. The edit you mention involves a lot of different edits to different sections, not just the text mentioned in your post here, and not only material which has clear sourcing. When there is dispute, I would suggest working in smaller steps, starting with making only the least controversial and best sourced edits. Maybe then this one paragraph might be accepted if some of the others were removed? Some of the sentences being removed read a bit harshly, which is generally not appropriate on an encyclopedia, even if justified. In any case it is probably not helping you achieve consensus. JournalSource claims to be removing un-sourced things, and at least some of it is un-sourced. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The material removed was consistent with WP:FRINGE; it wasn't overly harsh, you should see what the actual sources say! That's besides the point though, the editor removed this quote specifically questioning it's reliability: [7]. Even though it's not self-published, and press releases can be reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The source for the CSICOP statement appears to be a press release. Press releases are self-published and fall under the constraints of WP:SPS. They "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...." See earlier discussions at RSN, such as [8]. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster. This particular statement seems to be OK, but the diff is way harsh. For example, it's inserting " scientific journal of fringe science" into the first sentence, when the very next sentence says "According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science." - we don't need to insert our jargon when their own words say it better. For this particular statement, though, Timid Guy seems to be misunderstanding what WP:SPS self published sources and press releases can and can't be used for - they can be used about themselves, but that's not a "can only" - they can also be used for the statements of established expert(s) on the subject of the article, and CSICOP are pretty established on the subject of fringe science topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science. --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the sourced paragraph in question I tend to think it is acceptable, as per GRuban and IRWolfie. I do not think it matters so much in this case that it is a press release because the aim of the quote is just to show a notable critic's personal opinion. As per GRuban a press release can be reliable for the opinions of the party that puts out the release. Concerning whether that one critic is notable or not I have no opinion and of course it is not the purpose of this forum to discuss notability, but as a normal editor I would say that if the critic has even a bit of notability it might still justify mentioning him because it is always good to include critical opinions in order to give a balanced coverage, and this is apparently a subject area that is both controversial and not particularly widely written about. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Can the website Sattigadu - http://www.sattigadu.com/ be used as reference for any article related to Indin Cinema. I feel it can definitely be. Just wanted confirmation. 2)It can be used for articles realted to various film stars from Indian film industry and thier films. 3)Example - http://www.sattigadu.com/happy-birthday-to-ajith-kumar.html - says that ajithkumar's father is Pallakkad Iyer - so this source can be used in Wiki article on Ajith Kumar.Onceshook1 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It is little more than an amateur blog/fansite, most likely produced by one person. See the empty about-us page, or the rubbish posted in the education section for evidence. If it was a reliable source about Indian Cinema then I suspect that more than 108 people would like it on facebook. Its photo gallery and posters sections are chock-full of copyright violations. Bottom line, it is in no way a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a book about WW II by Russian revisionist historian Dyukov. The book was described here. According to preface of the book in Russian, the purpose of the book is to refute mainstream "Western" historians who are described as "enemies" conducting "Goebbels propaganda". ("Наши враги — и внешние, и внутренние — покушаются на самое святое — на народную память о Великой Отечественной войне. ... Вторя геббельсовской пропаганде, псевдоисторики внушают нам...Эта книга — отповедь клеветникам, опровержение самых грязных, самых лживых мифов о Великой Отечественной войне, распространяемых врагами России." Google translation: Our enemies - external or internal - encroach on the most sacred - on people's memory of the Great Patriotic War. ... Echoing the Goebbels propaganda, pseudo-historians inspire us ... This book - a rebuke to the slanderers, the refutation of the most sordid, the false myths about the Great Patriotic War, distributed by enemies of Russia.). There is currently a discussion here about using a chapter from this book in Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Does "The Great War Slandered" qualify as RS about WW II? My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• • P.S. A historian (Dyukov), who claims that during Stalin's deportation of Estonians in 1941 "quite possibly not a single person died" [9] (Не исключено, что во время депортации вообще не умер ни один человек) goes against all reliable sources, eyewitnesses, and serious historians who described conditions of these deportations. BTW, he has no PhD degree if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Understand correctly from what?

If you don't like what he says, it does not mean that he is not reliable...

However, it is not even about him; he is the editor of the book, not the author of the actual referenced text that you question in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article. -YMB29 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you deliberately being misleading?

It says nothing about "mainstream Western historians."

The authors of the book most of all are concerned with refuting Russian amateur historians, such as Rezun, Solonin and Sokolov, as well as historians and writers from the Baltic States. -YMB29 (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The revision of history is most actively taking place in the Baltic States and Poland. (Наиболее активно ревизия истории проводится в прибалтийских республиках и Польше.)

In the countries of "old" Europe attempts at anti-Russian revisions of WWII history are less common than in the Baltic States and Poland. While in Eastern Europe special research institutions are created for this purpose, such as the Estonian Presidential Commission of Historians, the Lithuanian Center of Resistance and Genocide, the Polish National Memorial Institute, the Liberation Movement Research Center in L'vov, and numerous museums of occupation, in "old" Europe the revision of history is limited to the local media. (В странах «старой» Европы попытки антироссийской ревизии истории Второй мировой войны носят менее регулярный характер, чем в Польше и Прибалтике. Если в странах Восточной Европы для этих целей создаются специализированные «исследовательские структуры» вроде Комиссии историков при президенте Эстонии, литовского «Центра сопротивления и геноцида», польского «Института национальной памяти», львовского «Центра изучения освободительного движения» и многочисленных «музеев оккупации», то в «старой» Европе ревизия истории ведется силами местных СМИ.)

So nothing about "mainstream Western historians." -YMB29 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the author is a revisionist attacking Western scholarship appears to be false - he is defending Western scholarship. Also, we do not determine the reliability of sources by performing our own fact-checking. Even the most reliable sources have errors. Nor would we deem books unreliable because the views expressed were critical of accepted opinion.

Incidentally when you bring books to the board, you should say who published them, which in this case was Penguin, and also Dyukov was the editor not the author of the book. While that may be a minor point it shows you probably have not read the book.

TFD (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading couple of chapters from the book it is obvious that book is not defending Western scholarship. It is explicitly defending the Soviet perspective of the matters, not Western. That is not to say that the book would be unreliable or other such. Furthermore book seems to be aimed against the studies, or opinions as case might be, critical to the Soviet Union that have been made after the Soviet Union broke down - again, as per earlier statement neither are those (anti-Soviet or anti-Russian) claims unreliable because of what they criticize - there is clear lack of objectivity on both sides. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So you can read Russian now? It is not defending the Soviet perspective, nor is it refuting the Western one. -YMB29 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the minor detail that according to the books own introduction its goal is to "protect our past". In other words per definition to defend Soviet/Russian perspective. That however was not the point i was making, what i referred was that regardless of possible POV issues or other bias related to such material the book is not in itself a unreliable source. Just that care must be taken when representing such views to maintain NPOV on the articles - exact same applies to the material "from the other side" of course. Claims such as "he is defending Western scholarship" does not really help the case at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse the comparison but if Dyukov is seriously denying deaths during Stalin's population transfers, wouldn't that make him about as reliable as David Irving? Machinarium (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Side remark: on this noticeboard we need to focus on whether the author and his publications would be considered reliable and accurate by people in his field. Authors who are reliable and notable enough can still be used in appropriate ways as sources, even if their point of view is quite controversial. (In order to get the right balance, controversial sources should sometimes be used with a suitable attribution in order to let our readers know that there are other opinions. But that is not normally all that difficult.) I am sure David Irving's opinions are mentioned in Wikipedia in many places, because he is very notable, but his opinion is not only "POV" but also not widely considered accurate, and for that reason his opinions are not cited by us in any way that might mislead our readers into thinking that they are mainstream. I have no idea whether this Russian author is anywhere near that level of controversy (I doubt it), but just want to make sure that we focus on the right criteria.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

His views certainly aren't mainstream, the population transfers have been widely recognized as crimes against humanity. Judging from the mans wiki article he also contends that the deported people were 'Nazi collaborators', even though the majority of the deportees were women and children. I think if Dyukov is cited somewhere there should at least be a mention that he is controversial. Machinarium (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He is controversial in the Baltics mostly. He denies the amount of deaths for the Estonian deportations. I think he bases this on actual study of archival data.

I don't know exactly what he writes or how controversial he really is. Again, he is not the author of the disputed text. -YMB29 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the "defending Western scholarship" to be a most remarkable claim here, indeed. The author appears to be in a "time warp" at best, and the artice, while his views may be cited as an extreme minority, I suppose, should give no more weight to his "interesting views" that it does to the views of others who deny that Stalin was anything less than a saint. And when we have strong reliable sources showing that a source has errors, that does not mean we perpetuate the errors as "fact" - the opinions are citable only as opinion, and shuld not be given in Wikipedia's voice as "fact." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The preface of the book is about the entire book, not only about the chapter written by Dyukov. According to preface, the purpose of the book is to refute "enemies" of their country, "foreign and domestic". This is very definition of an advocacy/propaganda source. This has nothing to do with scientific research. Please read Moreschi. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is what you like to think... As I said above, it is written mostly by real historians who are refuting new historiographies, mostly from the former USSR (not the West), that are often formed by amateur historians. -YMB29 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about the chapter by Asmolov [10], this certainly sounds like writings by a publicist. One of his ideas: the political regime in North Korea was less oppressive than in South Korea. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Asmolov is a historian with a Candidate of Sciences degree (PhD), specializing in the Far East, so drop your accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim by Asmolov that political regime in South Korea (apparently in 1950s) was more oppressive than that of North Korea is certainly not mainstream history. The claim by Dyukov that no one possibly died during Stalin's deportation is also not mainstream history. Perhaps for that reason the Russian/Soviet degree of Candidate of Sciences in humanities/history/social sciences is usually not accepted as PhD in US universities. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, did you even read the article about that degree?

Why are you being misleading again? Dyukov was talking about the Estonian deportation only.

I don't think you are qualified to determine what is mainstream or not... -YMB29 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not. But Doctor Miller tells about this book in his lecture the following: "Do you think that anyone will take seriously writings by Dyukov beyond the borders of our country? Here we laugh about publications by Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, and rightly so. And they will laugh at the publications by Dyukov". My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So you found a negative opinion on him from his Russian wiki article, and what now?

Once again, the author is Asmolov, not Dyukov. -YMB29 (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a transcript of public lecture by Dr. Miller [11], not ruwiki. Miller tells about the book "The Great War Slandered" that it is a laughable piece of propaganda and argues that it was supported by the FSB and people connected to Russian presidential administration [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I did not say that it was "published" on Russian wiki... It just appears there.

One expert opinion does not make it unreliable, especially when the opinion is more about Dyukov than the book. -YMB29 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not even close to reliable, revisionist history at it's best. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is an attempt at anti-revisionism, but I guess you read it or read real reviews of it.... -YMB29 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to compile a very long list of all allegedly "revisionist" historians "disproved" by authors of "The Great War Slandered". However, judging from this and this, they are trying to disprove a number of mainstream researchers like Nikolai Tolstoy (his book Victims of Yalta), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (his Gulag Archipelago) and Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov who is known mostly for his books about CPSU history. This is a typical situation when actual revisionist writers (like Dyukov who apparently does not have even Russian "candidate of sciences" degree) declare a bunch of famous mainstream authors to be "revisionists". My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well whether those people are considered mainstream now is questionable, especially Solzhenitsyn and his Gulag Archipelago...

Anyway, you need to stay on topic. The author of the text that you question is not Dyukov. -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Relibility refers to facts, not the opinions expressed in books. If you want to question whether the opinions are notable, then go to WP:NPOVN. This is a book from a mainstream Western publisher (Penguin) edited by an expert historian. The statement that the writer claimed "during Stalin's deportations in 1941 "quite possibly not a single person died"" is false. Dyukov was referring to the 1941 deportations from Estonia, during which 10,500 Estonians were forcibly removed to Russia. He is not, in this quote taken out of context, questioning that the deportations took place or that deaths occurred at their destinations. I could find no reliable sources about deaths that occurred en route. BTW Nikolai Tolstoy was found liable for libel against WW2 Brigadier Toby Low for false accusations of war crimes, and chose to be a defence witness for the WW2 Nazi concentration camp guard John Demjanjuk, in his trial for murdering Jews. He is certainly not mainstream. TFD (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Why do you think it was published by Penguin? According to this, it was published in Moscow by Eksmo. Yes, he said that "quite possibly not a single person died" during Stalin's deportation of Estonians in 1941. He makes this claim without supporting it by any data, documents or references to other publications, as typical for non-scientific publications and unreliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he references it to a source or not; that is off topic.

So you complain about lack of referencing and non-scientific publications, but at the same time bring up Solzhenitsyn as a mainstream source... -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided says that it was published by Penguin Books. Your logic appears to be faulty. You claim without sources that people died in transit, yet require writers who question that claim to provide sources. TFD (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, this is wrong translation by Google. Russian: "М.: Яуза, Эксмо, 2008." Google Translate: "Moscow: Jauza, Penguin Books, 2008." Obviously, Penguin Books and Russian EKSMO in Moscow are different. Moreover, it was precisely one of the points made by Dr. Miller [13]:

What publishers publish his book? - "Europe», «Regnum» «Eksmo." This also tells about something. «Regnum» is headed by Kolerov who served in the administration of the president, "Europe" - is Pawlowski and his center."

My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WRT any possible claim that "no one died" see [14] Suspicion Under Stalin

Indeed, for 11 years this blameless woman had languished in a Soviet labour camp as a "bourgeois recidivist": my mother was sure she was dead. At first, Delia refused to open the door. Once inside, however, black and white photographs of my mother, whom Delia had not seen for almost half a century, were excitedly removed from an old shoe-box. Her father, as the "capitalist" head of Tallinn customs, had been shot, while her mother had died in the Gulag as a "class enemy". Delia was thus left with a "spoilt biography", Soviet-speak for a shameful bourgeois past.

Rather seems to imply that Stalin was less than a Mister Rogers-sort. Many other accounts making any claim that "no one may have died" a tad laughable were it not so sad. Collect (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dyukov said that possibly no Estonian died during the transportation to the resettlement territory.

And again, keep on topic. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

During the deportation means just that, not that they didn't die at all at some point. Please. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, three hundred people from the group ([15]) were probably shot later. However, the claim that no one died during transportation is hard to believe because there are many published accounts of numerous deaths and inhuman conditions during similar transportations. It frequently took weeks to transport people between relatively close destinations, absolutely no medical assistance, almost no food and no water, no toilet; cold or extreme heat; overcrouding; the transported were civilians, including sick people with heart conditions, elderly, toddlers, and women who gave birth directly in the train. My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, according to this publication, "The first cases of death occurred already on the way to Siberia.". My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The two sources disagree, so what? This is not the place to discuss that... -YMB29 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dyukov has built his career as a pro-Soviet polemicist and darling of Russian state media whenever Russia needs to denounce the Baltics, to call occupation a lie, etc., etc. Oh, and let's not forget his farce of a film blaming the Poles for WWII. Nothing his name is associated with is reliable. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

just want to know how others would rate the reliability of this source -- say from 1-10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Language_Monitor#Other_Analysis_and_Rankings

http://www.languagemonitor.com/fashion/fashion/

not sure of their methodology but site's pretty bad

personally i would never rely on a source of inadequacy like this but on wikipedia it looks like much is allowed -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

one example of usage is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan#Fashion_and_design that is up for GA review. Waveclaira (talk)

A kind of blog that gets itself quoted in the press sometimes. The author had a bio here that was deleted long ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul JJ Payack), indicating that his general opinions (e.g. on whether Milan is top, fourth or sixth among fashion capitals) may not be of great interest. I'd suggest deleting that sentence with its three footnote references to GLM; any major fashion magazine, or any major newspaper reporting on fashion, would be a far better source for a quote on the significance of Milan.

The real focus of the site seems to be the topic "new English words". Whether it is reliable on that matter would depend (for us) on whether expert and respected linguists say so. Andrew Dalby 12:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone here not involved with the discussion verify if there are reliable sources backing up the use of the term "Gaza Holocaust" as it relates to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#September_5 ? --108.23.47.101 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

Jeanne boleyn would like to revisit the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley regarding the opinion that this Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (Contents) amateur website is not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as most editors are amateurs and not academics with unlimited access to university libraries, etc., we are pretty much restricted to online sources. Medieval Lands is probably at the moment one of the few websites that does cite primary sources, and removing it as a reliable source pretty much debars me from further editing on historical biographies of which I've created more than 100. Thanks Wikipedia, I'm sure this decision is one of the most astute yet in the ongoing process to drive away established editors from the project. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Bad luck—if you wish to conduct work outside of Wikipedia then go ahead, but by using unreliable sources you have tainted the parts of the project you've touched. The Resource Exchange project within Wikipedia and the public libraries system can support valid editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if Fifelfoo says so it must be true. This place is unbelievable. "Tainted the project" have I with over 300 articles including two GAs? Piss off with your pathetic arrogance, Fifelfoo. You can only flash a big pair behind the security of a computer screen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks regarding my sexual apparatus. Please do not use unreliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this a little over-done Fifelfoo. This is a webpage that basically collates information from primary sources that are indeed hard to find online, and it is hosted by a journal. It is not a personal webpage. It not a top level academic journal perhaps, but still medieval genealogy is not really an academic subject (or perhaps we could characterize it as an area where academia itself uses sub-optimal sourcing). In any case fact checking and reputation for it do exist here to some level, and collating primary sources is not necessarily something that we can much better sources for. The source might not be ideal, but I find the way it is being discussed rather silly. Has anyone actually disputed anything cited from it, or found anything controversial? If so then I think a sense of balance should be kept. Some sourcing is better than no sourcing. We are not dealing with a personal website here, nor anything which is flashing any other red lights? It is also not true that there are lots of good alternatives. We are talking about medieval primary sources. It seems strange to be talking about "tainting" and treating this source in the same way that some really bad sources get treated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew you say it is hosted by a journal. What is the journal how frequently is it published? What is the quality of that journal -- who publishes it, does it have a review board, does it carry adverts (and is its circulation reviewed by third pary), would it be purchased by the History departments of Universities etc? -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Foundations, is the journal of the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy. They have a review process and no adds. They are funded by memberships. I think one of the objections to them is that many members are not professional academic historians. (But I believe it gets a few.) OTOH, there is no such thing as an academic genealogist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"There may be one" (© Lewis Carroll). Andrew Dalby 12:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it the job of wikipedia to publish original genealogies? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. This source is now being attacked for any use at all, without reference to context, and as I said, I think some of this is getting silly. For example look at your question: if we cite a real third party source, we are not being original on Wikipedia. We can question the reliability of a source, but simply equating the use a borderline source as original research is not showing a constructive attitude?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, Cawley cites his primary sources which are mainly charters, calendar rolls, etc. It is not anything like Genealogy.com or TudorPlace. Can you point out any factual errors Cawley has made in his work?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] Medieval Lands is extremely useful when one is starting articles on medieval people: as regards their parents, marriages and children it usually provides the best synthesis we can immediately find, as well as a very good collection of original sources, usually quoted verbatim. Thank heaven it exists. Over on Vicipaedia yesterday, when I was beginning articles about related people with links to Hélinand of Froidmont and Philip II of France, I don't think I could have pinned them all down without Medieval Lands.

We're stumbling over the differences between starting an article, bringing it up to current Wikipedia norms, and perfecting it.

To bring it up to current Wikipedia norms, we need "reliable sources" in our current terms. We therefore have to deprecate Medieval Lands, which won't count as a reliable source till we happen to find some scholarly articles that cite it, and which itself does not make a point of citing modern secondary sources. But we mustn't forget that we used Medieval Lands to start the article: therefore we must continue to cite it (at least in External Links) otherwise we would be plagiarizing.

To perfect an article, above current Wikipedia norms, we will need to cite the primary sources, as proper research encyclopedias do. When we move on to that stage, we will need Medieval Lands still to be there -- and still to be in our references or external links -- because that's when we'll really need it! Andrew Dalby 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Copying the text from Cawley in anything but a quote would be a copyright violation. If his sources are replaced with new sources, there is no reason to keep any reference to his work. Plagiarism rules such as you suggest apply to Cawley, only apply to PD articles from which we directly copy text or an unusual article structure (see the guideline WP:Plagiarism for details) -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That guideline is confusingly written: if you're reading it to say that the concept of plagiarism only applies to PD material, it has misled you. Yes, I agree that copyright violation could be involved as well. But as long as Wikipedia acknowledges Medieval Lands (in some way) in cases where our articles are significantly derived from it, and so long as Charles Cawley is happy about this (which I believe he is) the problems don't arise :) Andrew Dalby 12:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the project is tainted by the use of Charles Cawley as a source, but usage of this source must be in the form of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Charles Cawley in some of his biographical entries cites his sources, and those are often reliable sources. Although In some articles that I have seen, some of his speculation is mentioned, and in others used as as an attributed inline authority, (which he clearly is not) and I think all such usage should be removed.

I searched on http://fmg.ac which returned 100 of articles and have tagged all such usage unless the sources Cawley has used have also been cited (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT).

Yesterday I realised that there were also a number of articles which cite Cawley without including a link to his website (EG Marie, Duchess of Auvergne). There are no other citations in that article, and I have marked those Cawley citations as: ^{[self-published source][better source needed]}. I do not think that can be construed as damaging the project particularly as the focus in recent years has been quality and not quantity. I would suggest that improving citations in those articles I have marked will improve the project more than adding additional information to articles with Cawley as the sole source for that information.

Looking at the citations in Marie, Duchess of Auvergne (there are three but only two to specific Cawley pages). Capet and Bourbon, (the third does not include a page so it probably means refer to the previous that is Capet. Using Google search for Marie of Berry on the site:fmg.ac returns two pages containing "MARIE de Berry" Capet and Burgundy Duchy, Dukes The former has an entry MARIE de Berry (1370-Lyon Jun 1434, bur Priory of Souvigny). Using that entry how can we confidently says that she was born in 1370? The death is probably derived from the primary source cited ("footnote 798") but even that is not clearly stated. For the rest of the entry there is no other citation. Compare that with this footnote from Joscelin of Louvain. I don't think anyone would have a problem with using Cawley when he is used that way (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT).

I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources.

I am currently going through citations to Darryl Lundy's The Peerage. Lundy usually cite his sources, but they frequently are not included in Wikpedia citations (see for example the article BLP article Pippa Middleton) There are also problem where Lundy is not cited and his source is cited, (See here and now) a breach of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT -- The reason I could be confident that it was taken from Lundy's website is because when the editor copied Lundy's citation he or she left in Lundy's comment "Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage."

As I have been going through articles that cite Cawley and Marek, many of those articles also cite other genealogical cites such as:

• http://roglo.eu/roglo
• http://genealogics.org/index.php which has its own wikipedia template {{Genealogics name}}

Often the pages that use these four websites contain no notable biographical details and are nothing but genealogical entries (birth marriages children and deaths) of minor Continental European nobility of people for whom little notable historical details are available on the web (even in foreign languages because web transliteration is behind English sources), but there are reliable sources available for at least the genealogical information such as Europäische Stammtafeln). The advantage about similar British nobles is that, thanks to the availability of Victorian volumes on line, there are more reliable sources available and usually enough details on line to make a judgement if the person is historically significant enough to warrant a biographical article. A first useful step in deciding if these Continental European biographies should be kept is to mark the sources used as unreliable if they are unreliable. If no reliable sources are added to the articles after a reasonable period of time then they can be put up for AfD under not notable. Hopefully it will not come to this, and many of these articles will be improved over the coming months by adding biographical details about the subject from reliable sources.

Having said that I do realise that there is a real problem with historical bias. Often the only historical record we have for women who played a notable part in the societies in which they lived is only through their marriages and children as that is all that was recorded at the time. I think that is an issue that should be discussed on the talk page and at possible AfD's and weighed into the balance when discussing whether a biographical article on a woman should be included in Wikipedia.

One final though. Since the {{Rayment}} templates were marked as unreliable, I have noticed that editors have started to replace the citations that use Rayment with more reliable sources. Hopefully marking theses other as unreliable will result in the same benefits to the project. --PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you PBS for getting this away from allegations of tainting the project, and looking at real examples where things can be improved. Sourcing is context relative, as Fifelfoo himself often repeats.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as PBS implies, that Medieval Lands offers a particularly useful start for articles about medieval women. Not only their marriage and family but their philanthropy too: Cawley cites all those charters etc. I've used it in exactly that way (Hawise of Monmouth, Rohese of Monmouth). Andrew Dalby 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I'll just stick to writing about Northern Irish paramilitaries and the Troubles as I get more positive feedback in those fields than I do on historical bios. Being accused of "tainting the project" is my exit cue, so I really no longer care about what constitutes reliable sources for historical bios.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to pick up on one point that Andrew made "OTOH, there is no such thing as an academic genealogist". Up to now professional genealogists can beset be seen as producing stud books for those in society who were willing to pay for such information. I suspect that social network analysis tools (such as the police use to analyse criminal networks via their phone usage) will be let loose on the genealogy and the subject will become much more prominent as an academic discipline because of the insights it will give into the possible reasons why certain families supported others politically for reasons that up to now have been overlooked (it will also throw up lots of possible incorrect associations that litter current genealogical compilations). The closest analogy I can think of is how genetic research has had, and is having, a profound effect on historians interpretations of poorly documented historical migrations. However this is speculation does not get us any further in this particular thread about the usage of Cawley as as a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me also point out that including or excluding Cawley's work as a RS will not offset the academics' disdain for Wikipedia's historical articles seeing as we're all amateurs, Cawley or no Cawley, so....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. Incidentally, although I'd love to find some academic praise of Cawley's work, I'm not aware of any academic criticism of it either. Just no mention at all as yet (so far as I know). Yet some use it, just as some use Wikipedia ... On the other hand, Christian Settipani, whose early medieval genealogies I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, has an academic foothold with Katharine Keats-Rohan. You can't trust the academics these days. Life ain't what it used to be Andrew Dalby 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting to be told why there is a problem using Cawley's website when he provides a long list of his sources of which there has never been an academic dispute. This move is just simply counter-productive and an attempt to inject an exclusive country club ambience into the project. There may as well be a banner reading "Amateurs not welcome".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See above use his site, but only where you can cite the reliable sources he has used. This is nothing to do with his abilities good bad or indifferent (because we are not in the position to judge that), it is because his site fails WP:V. Looking at the example I gave above, what part of Marie, Duchess of Auvergne (a previously unreferenced article article to which you made large changes and added the 3 Cawley citation) can be supported by Cawley using his secondary sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)? -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess if you say it fails WP:V you may be right, PBS, but I must say I'm not sure which clause it fails.

Marie, Duchess of Auvergne lacked a precise link to the entry at Medlands, so I've added one under external links. Odd that we provided an accurate link to Familypedia (an open wiki site) and not this, but ... Wikipedia is a work in progress, as they say. Andrew Dalby 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To me, this looks like an overreaction by Fifelfoo and PBS. Cawley is most certainly not a self-published source—he is hosted by the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. They list his Medieval Lands as one of their "well-regarded" projects. Thus the concerns about WP:V are satisfactorily answered. The tagging should be reversed, saying that Cawley is a "self-published source" and that a "better source [is] needed". Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are several ways to measure reliability , and Cawley's pages do not meet any of them apart from publishing and even that is up for debate as his project's home page includes the sentence "The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is pleased to host these pages on behalf of the author, Charles Cawley" -- host not publish. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My professional website is hosted by my internet service provider; I pay them. Cawley's work is hosted by the FMG as a project of FMG. That's very different. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a self-published source. It's easy to correct our mistake there: we can simply remove that part of the "warning" from our Medlands template.

Medlands remains fine to cite in external links -- one of the best possible candidates, for medieval biographies, since it always adds the genealogical depth that we don't have, as well as a mass of useful references to primary and secondary sources.

The other part of the "warning" is still valid when Medlands is cited in a footnote. It is still true that we want a "better source". The Medlands site does not currently meet our reliability standard because, so far as we know, there is no published reaction to it in academic history writing: it isn't (yet) part of the literature. That could change in the future, and if it changes in Medlands' favour, we would then remove the second part of the "warning" as well. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Verify credibility (with the failed=y) set is an alternative to "self published" and/or "better source needed". Andrew if we go back to the Marie, Duchess of Auvergne which part of the article do you think Crawley can be used as a source? I have edited the article and added what I think can and can't be reliably cited. As you will see from my edit AFAICT most of what Cawley's text does not cite reliable sources. For example it may well be a fact that Marie married only three times. But that is an inference that Cawley draws from his research because he has found three marriage contracts. If he were a reliable source then his opinion expressed in his text could be used for three marriages as a fact. But as it is there is no reliable source backing up that information which is stated as a fact in the Wikipedia article. Or take another case Cowley states that Marie is the daughter of JEAN de France and JEANNE d'Armagnac (marriage contract cited) but only one source is cited for one of the children (not Marie). For the brief historical facts (as opposed to genealogical facts) about both Marie and her husbands (eg "Appointed Connétable de France 31 Dec 1392 by Charles VI King of France") Cawley cites no sources, so these will have to be found in reliable secondary sources. If this biographical entry is typical of his sort of work then citing his sources, highlights where citing him without qualification adds potentially unreliable information into Wikiepdia. If he were an established published historian then the need to cite his sources would be unnecessary (although often helpful to a reader for further research).-- PBS (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, personally I don't agree with the current orthodoxy "if we've decided it's reliable, it doesn't have to cite any sources" -- but that's just an aside, not relevant here. OK, I've had a good look at Cawley on Marie, and a good look at Wikipedia on Marie, and I think you've taken a lot of trouble over it and done the best we can till we find the better sources we need. My formulation on his sources for Marie and her siblings would be just slightly different from your hidden notes (visible at the diff you have linked above) but it's so difficult to pick the relevant sources out that you could be absolutely right, as you certainly are on her children -- i.e. no sources at all. And that's before we've asked how Marie and Philippe managed all that procreation in less than four exciting years ... Something odd there, you know.

My suspicion is that Cawley has used a recent secondary source (Kerrebrouck, cited at his note 800) for this whole family. If so, clearly, that is a source that we would want to consult and cite a.s.a.p. in preference to him. You say "If this biographical entry is typical of his sort of work" -- well, it isn't (I'd say), but, on the other hand, this is not a unique case.

And yet, PBS, look beyond. He's really useful. The more obscure the family, the more primary sources he has cited and the more useful he is. I'd still say what I think I said above. Where we've used him to build an article he should, at least, remain cited under external links. Where he occurs in footnotes he should be tagged "Better source needed": I think that phrasing is exactly right.

Two problems, though: the mess that the page has become and the repetitive tagging that makes us look like apes calling an intelligent life form "unreliable". It isn't so -- we're not apes -- but that's how we make ourselves look. All the efforts Wikipedia once put into the design of its templates has been thrown out on this page. Three links to the same footnote in the lead, and eight more links to the same footnote below, all in a very short text. Nine citations of Medlands, three tags calling it an unreliable source (pots and kettles?), three calling it a self-published source (mistake), three saying it was retrieved in September 2012 (useless), and three saying better source needed (true, but boringly repetitive you'll admit). And still not a suspicion of doubt about the one reference to "Familypedia". Somehow Wikipedia has to do better than this! Andrew Dalby 17:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like destructive criticism, sorry, I don't normally and wouldn't have done it this time unless you asked! If it would help I'd be happy to rework the referencing on that page to show you what I mean. I am meanwhile starting the Latin page to see afresh what might be done from online sources. Andrew Dalby 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see it as destructive criticism. Usually I would have moved some of the hidden inline comments to the talk page which means that the number of ref tags for footnote one would have been reduced. But some of the text probably needs to be removed such as "married three times" because it is speculation based on an unreliable source. The problem with removing the unreliable source tags (what ever they are) on the three general references, is that if only one of the Cawley citations contains such a tag, then readers may infer that the others are reliable.

The access dates are needed, because when Cawley reworks his pages the tags to section often fail (and help with locating archives of the page); but also because "date=" has to be set for the warning templates to keep the bots happy. One could separate out the two and have "accessdate=" and "date=", but that seemed like a waist of time to me as they would usually be the same, so I combined them (but that is easy to change if you do not like it).

There are just over 800 pages which cite Cawley of which about a dozen do not have the warning on all his templated entires. Here are three examples: Adolf of Nassau (1362-1420) and Richilde, Countess of Hainaut because Cawley's source are included, and Leonardo III Tocco which has a warning in the References section but not on the inline citations.

The reason that the Familypedia does not get a tag (nor did Cawley when included as an external reference) is that they are not cited sources, so they are not covered by WP:V and so don't need tags.

I suggest that you do rework the page Marie, Duchess of Auvergne and lets see what comes of it.-- PBS (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks PBS, I'll have a stab at it later today. About Familypedia: yes, I understand that, but a reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia's RS rules won't understand it. That reader would infer that Familypedia is more reliable than Medlands. That's why labelling Medlands "unreliable source" and not labelling Familypedia similarly is unacceptable. We have to look at it from the reader's point of view.

I agree with you about the hidden comments: one of the things I was already going to do if you agreed was to put them on the talk page. Those doubts and queries need to be visible to interested readers. About the access dates, on the other hand -- we shouldn't pester a reader with useless information just to keep bots happy. We're writing for people. So, if the access dates have to be there, they have to be hidden.

I can't see anything speculative about the statement "She was married three times". We have three marriages, backed by three cited marriage contracts, don't we? And they are common knowledge, all over the Web, aren't they? Are you yourself challenging one of those marriages? Why? -- (Added later: I can reassure you, anyway. This really-reliably-authored and reliably-published 2000 book goes into detail on all three marriages. (Don't know if you can see it from where you are?) They really happened.)

Anyway, let's move to the article :) Andrew Dalby 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have alter the template to use {{Verify credibility}} rather than {{self-published source}}. I agree that most of this conversation about this specific template can be now be continued on talk:Marie, Duchess of Auvergne because I think we are further from agreement on what is an adequately cited article than I thought we were and it is not directly relevant to the conversation about this specific source. But there is one point about the use of information derived from Cawley own synthesis that I think is relevant to this thread. Andrew you write "We have three marriages, backed by three cited marriage contracts, don't we?" Yes but that does not mean that there were just three marriages, there could have been more. If a Wikiepdia article were to find three reliable sources and draw that inference that she was married three times, it would be a breach of WP:SYN to make such a statement. Information in a Wikipedia article can not be derived from an unreliable source, so to make the statement that there were three marriages needs a reliable source. As Cawley list three marriages derived from primary (and therefore reliable sources) one can list those marriages but one can not say she was "married three times" one can only say that she was "married at least three times" or simply let the facts speak for themselves and just list the marriages without stating a number. If of course there is a reliable source that says three marriages then the number can be included in the article with a supporting inline citation to the reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to write "She was married at least three times". Wikipedia will never attract academics and historians to the project. These people would likely rely heavily on their own research and often publish this themselves. Seeing as that would be deemed OR, most-if not all-would be reluctant to cite from a source (however credible by Wikipedia standards) that they themselves consider erroneous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, we might, although it sort of half-implies that there could have been a fourth ... In fact the family is well known and well-documented, and I don't think there's a chance of that being so, so it would be a mistake to imply it ... But, still, if it gets over PBS's problem, no objection! Andrew Dalby 06:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "We have documentation for three marriages. There is no evidence for any others"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, Jeanne, but if Wikipedia followed PBS's logic, lead paragraphs could never be written at all. If we have three documented marriages enumerated in the body of the article, and they are among the important features of her life, and we have no earthly reason to suppose there could be any more, it's right and sensible and unexceptionable to write in the lead paragraph "She was married three times". Lead paragraphs summarise the salient facts, and footnoting them is deprecated. PBS's argument on this is wrong all through. Andrew Dalby 17:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course lead paragraphs can be written but lead paragraphs must follow the three content policies and the prohibition against WP:SYN is clear on this point. One can only says she was married three times if there is a reliable source that states it. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I've found one, so no prohibition is now breached. Andrew Dalby 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think others may have had about enough of this and it's time to sum up. If I'm wrong about that, or if my summary is wrong, tell me so or ignore me :)

A template has been added to several hundred pages as a vehicle for links to "Medieval Lands". The template includes one or two warnings ([unreliable source] and [better source needed]) and the edit summaries say "Charles Cawley is not a reliable source. See RS Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley". This was done with the best of motives, but the warnings are POV, the summary is POV, and the template makes a mess of pages especially when it occurs more than once on a short page (see e.g. [16] with its nine warnings). I don't know but this may have been the reason why Jeanne raised the issue again.

Well, that's a good thing, then, (a) because I don't recall any RS consensus to add all those warnings and summaries (but I could easily be wrong!), and (b) I don't think there is a firm consensus here any more about how we should treat "Medieval Lands".

I suggest that we advise

1. keeping the templates, which are handy;
2. adding the note "better source needed" against footnote references to Medlands. Reason: it is currently true that in our practice Medlands doesn't count as a "reliable source" and it is true in our practice that we want better sources;
3. removing the other warnings. Reasons: too many warnings and repetitions make Wikipedia look unprofessional; calling a serious website, the result of a massive amount of careful work, "unreliable" is false, rude, and the worst possible acknowledgement to an author from whom Wikipedia has drawn great quantities of information;
4. adding the One-source headnote (with something like the wording I gave it at this edit) on any page on which Medlands alone is cited in footnotes and references. Reason: "reliability is questioned" is true -- see above :) -- and NPOV.

Might there be consensus for that, or something like it? Andrew Dalby 18:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, Wikipedia is setting itself up for ridicule with the templates scattered all over historical biographies. What's more, it's going to repel rather than attract more editors to the project. Medieval Lands has never been deprecated by any scholar or historian. It remains the only online source that provides free information on virtually every European noble family up to the 16th century. Lastly as I don't see a clear consensus for tagging ML as un "unreliable source", I have no intention of searching for "better sources". I've neither the time, money nor inclination. PBS's personal crusade has left a sour taste in my mouth and put me off editing historical articles. I'll stick to Northern Irish paramilitaries. Less hassle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I disagree (no surprise there), the type of formatting proposals you are putting forward seem to be to for a specific layout (one that you use). Not all usage includes a general reference list and short citations, and for example if there are two Cawley inline citations in an article one which cites his sources (SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) and the other does not the obvious place to put the warning is on the cite without the additional citation to a reliable source. If however there are a series of citations such as in Leonardo III Tocco to a number of different Cawley pages, it may be better simply to put the warnings onto the general entry in the References Section. I do not think you can draw a hard and fast rule, particularly when the format of citations can vary so much between articles. As for the the use of one-source headnote that is nothing directly to do with Cawley usage, but an editorial judgement about the usage of sources in general. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, PBS! I guess you're talking about my formatting of references at Marie, Duchess of Auvergne? I did it (as a single example) without using templates because I'm concerned to show how such a page should look, without multiple warnings, repetitions, etc. I'm not urging any specific referencing method -- I've never used that precise layout before -- just a more professional appearance.

On the main point, then: if I read Jeanne rightly, she's in favour of no caveats. Having meanwhile worked hard on that page, I finish up closer to your current view, PBS, that "you can['t] draw a hard and fast rule". We do need to say "better source needed" sometimes. OK, so, just as use of the one-source template should be an editorial decision, saying "better source needed" should be an editorial decision as well, not a default. Andrew Dalby 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to say that I like the direction that both Andrew Dalby and PBS are taking, and I think a practical compromise should be found perhaps it is easiest if I remark points that I feel should guide this process:

• First, too many warnings and repetitions really is a thing to be avoided. Please no one treat this as a "non problem".
• Second, the thing we keep saying is that RS is relative to context. Therefore in general "blanket" efforts to remove or tag specific sources from WP is a type of strategy we should only use for the very worst types of publications, and in this particular case, as I pointed out earlier, we do not seem to be dealing with such a case.
• To a large extent I think the best ways to use this source, like most sources, requires case by case discussion.

As a final point, Andrew commented upon my remark about genealogy and academia. But I would remark that it is not just that academia is fallible, they also often rely upon old pre-internet books such as Burkes, or books by people often referred to as "antiquitaries". In my opinion, these types of works are the closest thing to internet publications that you can find before the internet, but we tend not to see much criticism of them on WP because their use is hidden to our internet generation. Researchers such as Keats Rohan do indeed deserve special mention, but she has also I think some association with the FMG and similarity in purpose and style. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, I find that very helpful. Food for thought, expecially as regards academic use of older genealogical publications. Andrew Dalby 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get any response to this the first time, so here goes again. Can VR-Zone be considered a reliable source? Specifically, I'm asking about the reliability of this article as a source for the following content at 16:10:

On the other hand, there has been criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. For this reason, some consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are usually designed for taller, rather than wider screens.

The site seems like a reliable tech news outlet, referenced by several other established news sites like Engadget, PC Mag, PC World and Tech Report, as well as a number of articles on Wikipedia. The author has written ca. 100 articles on VR-Zone, and has also contributed to several other news sites like PC & Tech Authority, HPCWire.com and The Inquirer (Google search because I couldn't find author profiles on theinquirer.net). Indrek (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope someone else will reply as well -- I'm not familiar with this field -- but the source appears quite reliable to me. I can't see any reason for excluding it. If the claim it's being cited for is controversial, it might help to give in-line attribution ("an article in VR-Zone said" or "X, writing in VR-Zone said"). Andrew Dalby 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Personally I don't think the claim is controversial, it's just an opinion on a trend in the computer industry. I should also note that the statement quoted above is supported by several other reliable sources as well, which are all in agreement with the VR-Zone one. Indrek (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You can find similar opinions among the columnists of the Inquirer e.g. [17]. I vaguely remember some Ars Technica guys were in the same boat, but I can't remember the article. I think it's a widespread enough opinion that you can write something like "... according to several technology journalists, including those of X and Y". Tijfo098 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about VR-Zone itself but I'd also consider the info uncontroversial, so I'd go ahead and use it. If you look at the Lenovo blogs (blog.lenovo.com) there are many complaints about 16:9 and the Lenovo staff responds that doing anything else would drive up costs too much to be competitive. Lenovo analyst Matt Kohut flat-out hates widescreen[18] There was similar gnashing when 16:10 became standard: a user poll in 2006 was about evenly divided.[19] Older Thinkpads with 4:3 IPS displays are still sought after even now. The most popular tablet today (the Ipad) uses 4:3 IPS and I figure Apple must know something. Samsung and maybe others offer desktop monitors that can swivel into portrait mode, which also seems worth mentioning. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Seems to be a consensus for the inclusion of that source, so I've added it to the article. If anyone wants to amend the paragraph in question, for instance to list the individual news sites cited, please feel free. Indrek (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is being used as a source for the death of the writer Alan F. Alford[20] where I've removed it twice, and also for the renewal of the tv series [[Ancient Aliens}]][21]. I'm extremely dubious about the first in particular, although maybe I should have brought that to BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Specifically: Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. Statement on his magazine: [22] Facebook posts: [23] [24] Andy Lloyd, Dark Star News: [25]. New Dawn magazine gives his death year on this article. [26], and Alford's Facebook posts come several times per day until 11/11/11, when they stop [27]. So it looks likely. Unfortunately, none of that is really a sufficient reliable source for such an important fact in a biography of a (possibly) living person; "likely" isn't good enough, given that his official biography doesn't mention it [28] (and clearly someone is still paying the web hosting bills). I think this may be one of the cases where even though we suspect it's true, until we can get an obituary or something similar from a mainstream or published book source, or his official page, we may have to leave this on the talk pages. --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For Ancient Aliens, though, it's not a BLP, and Giorgio A. Tsoukalos officially serves as consulting producer, so I'd say he is a reliable source (per WP:SPS as an expert, or even a statement about self). --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok I guess, as long as it is attributed (as it is) so we aren't stating it as fact. The History Channel would be my preferred source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it didn't happen, then it's an elaborate conspiracy given that multiple sources corroborate it. His "official" bio appears unchanged since 2006, so that doesn't mean much. Also it's hosted on his main publisher's web site, Eridu Books, so I don't think Alford had to keep paying for it. Frankly his entire bio is based on sources that are either self-published, or published by his obscure publisher(s). So I don't expect his death to be front-page in The Times. I wonder how his bio passes WP:WRITER to begin with. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, according to our article, his first 3 books were put out by Hodder & Stoughton, which is not an obscure publisher, and one reached #11 bestseller in the UK. According to our rules Notability is not temporary, but that's not necessarily true for The Times. --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

#11 UK bestseller in a given category is quite temporary and not exactly a criteria in WP:WRITER. (Out of curiosity, do we have a biography for the author whose book was ranked at #10 in that category at the unspecified moment in time when Alford's was 11th?) Anyway, I have no intention of debating the article's notability any further here. Good luck finding reliable sources for it. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notablity isn't the issue here, it's a reliable source for his death. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that multiple selfpub sources who are in a position to know, taken together, pass the "expert" criterion in WP:SPS. I'd slightly disagree with Dougwelller with regards to notability - if someone brings it up, that makes it an issue. The article does seem to be sourced entirely/almost entirely from selfpub sources written by the subject or people associated with him, or from book reviews. And I think any article that starts "Alan F. Alford, B. Com, FCA, MBA" raises a red flag. With all due respect to his memory, why, indeed, do we have an article about a writer whose existence seems to have barely been documented and whose passing has been noted only by his Facebook friends? Formerip (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because our bar for biographies about writers isn't as dependent on the sorts of things one might think it would be. For example, there's this guy, whom we know almost nothing about other than from sources written by the subject; this guy, whom we know less than that about, and who may not have existed at all - each of their articles are somehow much longer... :-) --GRuban (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm editing the Stephen Strasburg article and wanted to know if his entry at www.biography.com was reliable for inclusion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be; it's the official site of The Biography Channel, an internationally available cable television channel, specializing in biographies. --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think not. Gawker is a gossip site, and the China News 24 blog it references has no explanation as to how it arrives at its stories or what credentials it has. Sorry. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sorry, I'm grateful. I came looking for some independent expert advice, and got it. <tips hat> --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly was an unusual death, though. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How is that list anything other than an arbitrary collection of factoids???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• As per discussion this and that, I would like to have accessment ruling from experienced editors about these sources.

Isahitya written by admin Reviewed by Prof.G S Jolly written by admin and here is the editor and team

Studies in women writers in English edited by Mohit K.Ray and Rama Kundo, they write in preface and

this

All about book publishing Dr. Nandini's interview by GS Jolly (GSJ), deputy editor of AABP,and publication's editorial board

Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion the source this Urdu section and that English section and its editorial board is reliable. What do you think?. I want to be sure.It was cited to Muhammad Iqbal, but was removed saying forum. Can anyone spare a bit time to access that.Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This apparently WP:SELFPUBLISHed web site is used to include certain juicy details in those articles, apparently because they are hard to source elsewhere, for example several passages supposedly from the judicial interrogation of Safarov, e.g. all those tagged in this edit. Opinion on the site's fitness for such purposes? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, this site obviously does not qualify as RS. However, one can use this site to find other (reliable) sources on the subject. For example, I am sure this is a correct document, but it must be independently verified and sourced to another (real) publication, which is provided at the bottom of the page. In other cases, one might use something like this as an "external link" at the bottom of wikipedia article for convenience of readers, but not as a source to justify any statements in the article. Speaking about tagging, this is not anything inappropriate, but it would be more productive to request a verification at article talk page. If there is an original Hungarian text, then a link to original Hungarian text with translation to English could be OK. Remember that translation can be done by any wikipedian, but if there is a professional translation elsewhere (even on the site like sumgait.info), then it can be used, unless someone tells that translation from Hungarian was incorrect and can provide an alternative (better) translation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is an original Hungarian text, then a link to original Hungarian text with translation to English could be OK.
  • A reference rather than a link. Offline sources can be used, and they don't become less reliable if they are republished online. Of course, care must be taken to ensure that the user adding the infomation has actually read the source. Colchicum (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I mean reference rather than simply a link.My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the webpage from the website that is used in the case of Ramil Safarov article is the translation of a court document, i.e. the first interrogation of Safarov. There is no interpretation nor opinion voiced about it on the page, and the source is used for direct quotes from the interrogation. In lieu of any interpretations, I believe translation of a court document is fair to use, irrespective of the website it is hosted on. Chaojoker (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that My very best wishes has clearly addressed that. Thank you very much, Chaojoker (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two important details here. First, it must be quoted for example as "Archive of Budapest Police Headquarters, Case number: 136-I-144/2004.", unless it was published elsewhere. Then you could also provide a link to translation at the web site. Second, this is a primary source. Since you only directly quote the source, but do not provide your own interpretation, it can be used. My very best wishes (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not as simple as that. Some of the info there was definitely interpreted, e.g. the "ethnic hatred" given as motive for the crime in the infobox was cited to sumgait.info. The inline ref is corroborated by posts on the talk page, which were also interpretative, e.g. Talk:Ramil Safarov#Ethnic hatred. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, adding "ethnic hatred" in infobox on the basis of such primary source is obviously OR. One needs multiple RS to support such claim.My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what a NYT article of yesterday says [29]: "Mr. Safarov told the police that his Armenian classmates had insulted him and that he had grown increasingly angry, finally buying an ax and waiting until before dawn one day to carry out his plan. He passed those hours by finishing his English homework and taking a bath, according to a transcript of the interview published by Armenian activists." Although they don't say exactly which "Armenian activists" they're referring to, NYT is cautious enough to use attribution for statements about the transcript. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is precisely the point. Is it "a transcript of the interview published by Armenian activists" or is it an official Hungarian police document publicly available somewhere? Only the latter would probably qualify as primary RS. Saying that, several statements by Safarov obviously contradict each other. But such discussion belongs to article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple RS for ethnic hatred. But I just want to be clear; are you suggesting that if the criminal clearly states "I hate [Armenians] so much" and "my job is to kill them all" during his interrogation, it would be an "interpretation" to cite that as motive? Chaojoker (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This type of question was debated many times on different wikipages. The most common answer: you need a majority of secondary RS (preferably not Azeri and not Armenian sources) claiming precisely that: "Safarov killed because he hated all Armenians" (BTW, was his crime officially admitted by court as a hate crime?). Another possible answer: we suppose to look at multiple sources and briefly summarize their content. Would any reasonable reviewer define his motivation as "ethnic hatred"? Based on this single primary source, the answer would be "yes". However, since he retracted his statements and claimed something different later, this is not so simple, and one would need better sources. At the same time, you can quote something that Safarov said in article about Safarov and let reader decide for himself what it really was. No need to dispute the inclusion of "ethic hatred" to the infobox. That would be my suggestion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hate crime#Hungary says they do have a statue for those. A google search shows that the article in question (174/B) was adopted in 1996, so it was definitely applicable at the time. However, the prosecution may have thought it unnecessary to prosecute him for that (as well) for various reasons. That's why we need better sources. Alas, they don't seem to exist in English at the moment. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with basing definitive statements on that site is the poor quality of the translation, as well as who's done it (activists). That's why we need sources to be secondary and as independent as possible. Insofar NYT was cautious enough to avoid making unattributed statements of intent based on translations published by Armenian activists. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Translation. Sure thing, I would not recommend anyone to use translations from unreliable sources, unless you know the language and can verify yourself that translation was accurate. At the same time, if translation was correct and taken from an outside source, one must provide link to the source to avoid copyright violations. Do you know Hungarian? If you do and you think that translation was wrong, you can provide your version of translation. Just in case, it would be a very bad idea using Google translate to "disprove" translations made by people. Based on my experience, Google translate fails miserably in a lot of cases.My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know Hungarian. But did they even post a copy the original document somewhere? I've only seen their English translation on that site. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If materials are publicly available and have been archived by reliable 3rd party (e.g. court in Hungary), they can be used according to the policy. Just make sure that everything was correctly referenced, translated and quoted. I do not see any proofs that anyone mistranslated anything on purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this has caused a bit of controversy. One of the hosts of this show was fired under mysterious circumstances, supposedly for misrepresenting his military career, leading to posts like this [30]. I'm not quite sure whether to trust this source or not. Is this a source that can be considered reliable? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. In any case, the information there on him is apparently reprinted from http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php/17461-The-Truth-About-Dave-Canterbury-The-quot-Pathfinder-quot, which I also do not consider reliable for negative blp. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The original discussion for this website I started is located here, but did not receive much discussion. The content I want to use it for is for the Scanlation article on potentially for related articles. I want to use the website's history of scanlation, information on the process, and interviews with scanlation groups and industry publishers and want to know if the website would be a qualify as a reliable source for that purpose. Thanks for the help. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you already provided enough information that the site can be used for routine information about its community. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the intended use. It seems AngelFire wants to use this apparently self-published website as a source for claims of fact relating to scanlation in general. Goodraise 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, nearly all websites are self-published. If you mean something like "a fansite", then say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean something like "a fansite". I meant what I said. Goodraise 12:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this source Gosselin, Denise Kindschi (2009). Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Intimate and Family Violence (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0136139034. which cites a Human Rights Watch study RS for this content "According to a study carried out by Human Rights Watch it is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of women in Pakistan have suffered some form of abuse" Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This editor should be banned from writing about Pakistan, per the standing ARbCom sanctions on Pakistan--India. Look at his history, e.g. at Rape in Pakistan and at DYK. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that is the way to comment on the source issue, I don't like what this guy wrote so topic ban him. get real. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No. What is relevant is that you have recently returned from a block for tendentious editing regarding Pakistan ("which continued despite a stream of requests to stop") and you have violated your 1RR restriction. To treat you as a sweet-hearted editor who happened to mis-cite an article (and this happened to put a negative spin on Pakistan) would be denial. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: DarknessShines is not currently under a 1RR restriction. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

<- I assume the Gosselin's source is HRW's "Crime or Custom? Violence Against Women in Pakistan" report from 1999 although I can't tell from Google books. The HRW reports states "Estimates of the percentage of women who experience spousal abuse alone range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent" on page 1 (and again on page 35) of the report. The sources for those figures are given in footnote 42 on page 35 of the report. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sean The book "Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Family Violence" mentions its source being "Human Rights Watch, 2006" for the statement cited in this article. I am unable (up till now) to find such a report by HRW in 2006 which says so. --SMS ^Talk 16:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• @DS It seems that you haven't seen the cited HRW report yourself, if you have kindly share with others too so we can assess this source in a better way. Besides in this type of cases you need to say where you got it (in the reference). --SMS ^Talk 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SMS, what does it say about the source exactly ? I can't see enough in snippet view although on page 27 I can see something about an HRW 2006 report starting "Forms of violence...". It might be a section from a world report. I think the article can report what Human Rights Watch said in 1999 about the various estimates by other organizations without using Gosselin as long as it's attributed to HRW and made clear that it's a 1999 report. More recent data may be available and preferable I guess and editors who aren't too busy with a propaganda war against Pakistan and Pakistanis should probably go look for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems HRW had a campaign titled "Forms of Violence Against Women in Pakistan" but the link seems to be unrecoverable (see [31]). There is an interesting article in the Pakistan Journal of Criminology, Volume 2, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 93 - 110, "Violence Against Women in Pakistan: Constraints in Data Collection" that might be a useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can see the relevant text of the book in two snippet views (see these: 1, 2). On page 27, the detail of the source "Human Rights Watch 2006" is given: "Human Rights Watch, 2006, "Forms of Violence against Women in Pakistan." Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/pakistan/forms.htm. "(again you can see it in two snippet views: 3, 4). May be you are right that this report of 2006 just reiterated findings of the 1999 report but I still suggest finding the new one. --SMS ^Talk 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the 2006 campaign document "Forms of Violence Against Women in Pakistan" is online anywhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What I think needs to be cited for the statement is the publication in the report, online or not. It is relevant that another author has accepted it sufficiently to use it in a published textbook, so that can be cited also. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. The statement this source needs to support is an exceptional claim .i.e. about 70-90% (56-72 milion) women in Pakistan are abused. There was another statement in the article, that was also nominated as a hook for DYK: "that 97% of women interviewed in a study claim to have suffered some form of domestic violence in Pakistan" and that was also cited from a similar reliable source, which further cited it from a survey which revealed that it was done on convenient sampling. So my point is that we should at least know how this exceptional figure was found and what process was used to find it. --SMS ^Talk 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To add some context. Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence suggest some insight in the statitics of domestic violence. The numbers vary highly between surveys. Egypt has studies showing both 34% and 80% to take one example. Going through the sources provided in that article, an 70-90% sound exceptional high. Belorn (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Women in Pakistan face numerous problems but the most endemic one is domestic violence.Women in Pakistan encounter multiple forms of violence, most endemic form being domestic violence, which remains a pervasive phenomenon.the most endemic form of violence faced by Pakistani women is domestic violence Really? Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If the case is that Pakistan has *the* highest number of domestic violence in relation to population, then yes, that is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A junior lecturers research paper is an paper published by the university he was working at, and does not qualify as and exceptional source. The second source is 5 PhD (All non-professors) repor, who's study is only about the District Jacobabad with an sample size of 84 people. The narrow focus and small sample size is clearly an disqualification as an exceptional source for an claim about the whole of Pakistan. It's statistics also show that 40% of the women has been tortured, a number which is doubtful representative for 80 million people. The third source is a badly copied article form somewhere (it cuts off mid word). It also do not say anything about the statistics 70-90%. All it says is: "Within the nation of Pakistan, violence against women and domestic violence are commonly reported to occur". That alone is not enough to support a 70-90% claim. Belorn (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this book [32] written by an Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology & Criminal Justice Department from one of British Universities [33] appear to be a reliable source per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Anybody who made it through most of undergraduate statistics for psychologists or sociologists should know that a 70-90% confidence interval suggests a badly planned study. Anybody who is familiar with survey sampling would be skeptical of claims that the confidence interval resulted from a random sample of the Pakistani population. Nonrandomized survey sampling is useful for predicting that Dewey beat Roosevelt and other falsehoods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, this is not a truly random sample, and this is not a confidence interval. However, this source is still academic and "reliable" as defined here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is very much a red herring. The 1999 report linked above seems to be the original source of the "70-90%" figure, and it makes it explicitly clear that it derives this from multiple studies - "Estimates of the percentage of women who experience domestic violence in Pakistan range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent" - and not from a single piece of research. The footnote indicates four studies; "at least 80 percent" from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (1996) and the Women's Ministry (1985); "95 percent" from Amnesty International (1997); "70 percent" from Amnesty International reporting on Pakistani research (1998). Given that this source is freely available and clearly shows its working, why are we trying to conclude the figures can't be traced just because of the 2006 republication? Citing the 1999 HRW paper should solve the problems. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this answers the question. This is not a confidence interval, and not an improbable number for societies with arranged marriages and bride kidnapping traditions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In trying to find out if Joof, Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham. "Senegambia - The land of our heritage" is a reliable source, I discovered I can't even find it. It's used in several of our articles[34]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I found "Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade," but not that. Googling "Senegambia - The land of our heritage" -wikipedia I'm only finding sites that took their stuff from us. Barring someone finding it on Amazon or Scribd (not that we tolerate such piracy, of course... >_> ), I'm convinced this source has somehow managed to be more fake than the Simon Necronomicon. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I found he wrote The root cause of the bread and butter demonstration in 59, the source you mention is citedhere but I do not have access. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The inability to find references in a Web search engine to a third world published book is hardly convincing evidence that the latter doesn't exist. Here is a non-Wikipedia reference to "Gambia: Land of our Heritage" by Cham Joof. (According to our article, he is not normally referred to as Joof, but Cham Joof. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would approve.) http://www.smcm.edu/gambia/documents/publications/gamble/Gamble%2044.pdf on page 9. It's listed as Banjul 1999. It also says "Many of the items listed are rarely to be found outside The Gambia." (surprise) and "In the present bibliography about 26% are items which I have not peronally [sic] seen, and are marked *" - this book is not marked*, so I would gather the author did, in fact, per(s)onally see it. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just the tip of a larger iceberg, so get used to it. As I said before on this page, post in a few places that Isaac Newton's fave cheese was Cheddar and it will eventually appear in Wikipedia, then in a few books and eventually be declared RS. But that aside, this source is not a WP:RS item by any measure, whether the book exists or not. If you can not find evidence of where a doctor got his medical degree, will you take the pills he prescribes? This is not a WP:RS source in my view. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: Shall we try the Newton Cheese experiment to see if it works? History2007 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article says Cham Joof was a Gambian historian and journalist. Clearly he's a multiply published one. What is your view that he is not a reliable source based on? --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is no source for Wiki, and in any case, he seems to have only gone as far as high school education and his claim to fame in his academic years there was being elected goalkeeper according to the Wiki article. I wonder if Niall Ferguson was a goalkeeper... In any case, Ferguson is what I see as a WP:RS source, not this one. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The absence of university degrees doesn't necessarily make the source completely unreliable. Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) is a journalist without a university degree, and I doubt that anyone here would reject his history-related books on that ground.

The decision here needs to be whether this source is strong enough to support particular statements, not whether it's the best possible type of source for any and all history statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Have we ever agreed on anything? No. Let this fellow break Watergate, then we will talk... by why do I bother... I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit was removed for having an unreliable source for it. Is this an unreliable source for the subject matter? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite its name, Environmental Research Foundation appears to be a local NGO with rather extreme ideas about environmental preservation on it's "About Us" page. Its publications should not be used to cite facts on Wikipedia, except about the organization itself, assuming it would even be notable for an article. The title of the article in question "Donna Shalala, Secretary Of HHS, Bends The Rules For The Fiber Glass Industry" sounds squarely like activism to me. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clearing that up for me ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Several users insist on removing the {Primary sources} tag from Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). I am not really sure what the basis of their position is. All of the TSR/Wizards of the Coast publications are from the company that produces and owns the trademark for D&D and are therefore obviously primary sources. The other sources listed are:

1) something by Paizo Publishing, the owner of the Pathfinder game trademark - this source is used to verify that in a Pathfinder game sourcebook there is a critter called the "brownie". Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

2) something by Necromancer Games which is used to verify that a critter called a brownie appears in the book published by Necromancer games. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

3) something by Avalanche Press which is used as proof that the Avalanche press book contains a critter called the brownie. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

The only potentially non-primary source is the White Dwarf magazine appearance. The publisher of White Dwarf had been the licensed publisher of D&D materials in the UK up until the year before this article appeared and so it is potentially a third party source. However, it would be a farsical claim to suggest that the two sentences cited to that source counter suggest in any way that the content of the article does not meet the criteria flagged as problematic with the tag: "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If the topic is limited to the Dungeons and Dragons game, then all three of the sourcebooks are non-primary, since they're not published by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Is that the question you were actually asking? Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is: whether the tag describing the article as relying on primary sources is appropriately placed. Is the content of the article relying on 1) books being used in a primary source manner ie simply to verify their own content/existance of certain words on their pages 2) sources closely affiliated with of the creator and owner of the D&D franchise /associated licenses. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, that they are published by someone other than TSR/WotC says that they are independent, not secondary. Both are required for sources satisfying WP:GNG, but they are different things. Whether a source is secondary or primary is something that is going to vary from source to source, and I will remind you that WP:PSTS acknowledges that a given source can fill multiple roles.
I don't agree that Paizo or other parties using the OGL are necessarily "closely affiliated" with WotC/TSR, but as discussed elsewhere, some companies like Kenzer had relationships with WotC that would compromise editorial independence per WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand how sources that have specific licencing agreements with WotC and bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" could be "independent" of the D&D franchise and of WotC. Independence does not only mean "editorial independence", but also "no conflict of interest". Avalanche Press and Necromancer games both having direct financial interest and direct participation in the D&D franchise itself, there's no way they can be independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone the least bit familiar with OGL would have to conclude that they're independent of TSR/WotC. The entire point is "We won't sue you for writing compatible materials provided you require people to buy our book. Beyond that, we have no editorial control, and don't care that you exist." WotC only wrote up the licensing agreement, but never actually talks with, meets with, or interacts with OGL licensees in any way. My uncle (who has never even seen a D&D book, much less talked with a WotC employee) could publish an OGL product right now. The OGL license is not a discussed business deal with individual companies but a promise by WotC to not sue people who write or sell fan creations as long as WotC products are advertised. OGL products are not even "independent," but fan creations, and should be treated as nothing more than fan faction unless they are notable on other grounds (see Pathfinder). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that "unless they are reliable sources on other grounds"; reliable sources are not required to meet wikipedia notability requirements; they are two separate issues. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if they're independent. "Independent" is not an alternative spelling for "secondary". I'd recommend that editors look at WP:USEPRIMARY. And yes, all three of those would be primary sources. No matter what the document is, if you're using it as proof that the document contains the word ___, then you are using it as a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We've had several discussions and AfD on Dungeons & Dragons that have been going nowhere. The main point of disagreement is the nature of sources used on articles about fictional D&D creatures like Adherer, are they primary/secondary, affiliated/independent ? I've come here to have the matter evaluated by fresh and uninvolved eyes.

To contextualize: Dungeons & Dragons is a tabletop Role-playing game, played using core rulebooks which are official manuals detailing storyline and gameplay mecanics, published by TSR/Wizards of the Coast the creators and copyright holders of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. These manuals or "sourcebooks"/"handbooks" , as they represent the game itself, are primary sources, I think we can all agree on that.

Now, there is disagreement whether other manuals used in D&D are primary/secondary, affilated/independent. There are two different types of manuals:

• Manuals which are commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, providing original fiction and game mecanics intented for use in a D&D gaming session. Though not from the official D&D publishers, these books are published under certain licencing agreements that allow them to use material (story and gameplay) from the official D&D game, and to be sold as part of the D&D franchise (they bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"). An example would be Tome of Horrors published by Necromancer Games (see an official preview in pdf).
  • My view is that as these books provide original fiction and rules for D&D, and as such don't provide "analytic or evaltive claim" (as secondary sources do), they fully participate, at primary level, in the building of D&D as a game and so I see them as primary sources not "independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG). Other users have expressed the view that since they are not from the official D&D publishers these manuals are secondary and independent.
• The second example is official core rulebooks, thus primary sources, from other tabletop role-playing games which are not D&D. Some can develop their own gaming mecanism, some others can reuse story and mecanics from D&D (again through specific licencing agreements) while still being completely different intellectual properties from different creators. See for example Pathfinder Roleplaying Game from Paizo.
  • Some contributors use these official manuals to argue that when these feature a fictional creature that also appears in D&D, then the manuals from other games are secondary independent sources, because there is no official affiliation with the D&D franchise. They also say that the appearance of the creatures in other games is a proof of notability. Again they argue that merely not being from D&D makes it a secondary source, despite not providing any analysis. My view, however, is that since these manuals are primary sources for their own games, they use the fictional creature to build their own fiction and their own mecanics, and don't provide any analytic or evaluative comments on the creature as it appeared in D&D, since they are not commentary books but primary sources for games (which I think is not "significant coverage" either per WP:GNG). I think being a secondary sources requires more than just "not being D&D". As such, they are not independent from the fictional creatures they feature, and since they are not D&D they just don't deal with the creature from the D&D franchise (thus don't deal "directly with the subject" per WP:GNG).

Thanks for helping us on this. We've had AfDs on D&D fictional creatures in the past and some on-going, including one last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) which outcome was the redirection of all articles nominated per consensus that the various manuals (both D&D extensions and other games), the only sources found, were primary/affiliated. Now that other AfDs have started, a user disatisfied with this outcome claims it was "not policy-based" and that "a lot of editors disagree", I think this is a good opportinuity to see which interpretation on sources is policy-compliant, and maybe to reach a wider consensus that won't be easily dismissed (note that the previous AfD had 21 participants, yet that didn't seem to be enough for some).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• This has also been brought up here before. - SudoGhost 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that a rigid black-and-white distinction between "primary" and "secondary" can sometimes be unhelpful - there are grey areas - but these sources are very much on the primary side of the spectrum as far as I'm concerned. Now, it's often reasonable to use primary sources for uncontroversial claims, but I don't see how these articles pass the GNG if none of the sources are independent. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 08:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the issue of independence requires careful attention to the actual publishing situation. I do not think that most OGL publishers lack "editorial independence" per WP:IS, though some companies like Kenzer had licensing arrangements that gave WotC an editorial approval role that would compromise "editorial independence".

The contention here regarding Primary or Secondary is that it assumed that these books only contain in-universe text that provides little significant coverage apart from the creature stats. In reality, many products go beyond this, discussing perceptions and uses of various game items from a game-play (vice in-universe) perspective. So I think saying all these sources are necessarily primary (or strictly primary) fails to give them adequate attention.

The problem I have with many of the articles and why I frequently vote for merging or deletion is that despite having sources I consider credible, many of the articles lack any semblance of significant coverage from those sources. Simply saying that a creature appeared in a certain book isn't worthy of a stand alone article; at best, it's a line entry in a list article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of independence does not only reside in "editorial independence", per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" [...] "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations." Per WP:IS: "a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

Can anyone demonstrate that sources that state "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" have "no strong connexion" and "no affiliation" to the subject, which is D&D ? That they describe D&D in a disinterested perspective and no potential from financial gain by being tied to the D&D franchise ? I agree with all that you said, except I don't see how these sources could be seen as independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see use of the D20 STL as constituting a "strong connection" to Wizards. These folks are not on Wizards' payroll and their works don't go to Wizards for approval. I'll assume we agree that editorial independence is met, so I'll move on to the discussion of disinterested perspective. WP:IS says "no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication"; that's referring to the original work, not the source (reviews that are very typically uses as WP:RS are usually published with financial gain of the publisher in mind!) The way OGL (which are sometimes STL) products are done is to take an existing product that has already been published and use/expand on material therein. Indeed, they may be citing a product that is out of print! It's not like they are promoting the product that is about to come out, and in some cases the OGL product may be intended to replace or supplant the given product or correct its perceived deficiencies. I don't think use of the D20 STL implicitly constitutes a conflict of interest.
Even if the consensus were to judge the presence of this text to constitute a conflict of interest, many products (especially newer ones, and the D20 STL is not available any more) use the OGL but not the STL. For example, the much debated Tome of Horrors has a new print that lacks the logo and D&D text entirely. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Publishing something under a particular product licensing agreement automatically makes that content "closely associated" and non-independent from the material under that particular product licensing agreement about that product. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." As per my response to jclemens on the D&D project page the fact that the publishers in the gaming world are "incestuous and tightly integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights" or ITICCDMPRIPR indicates that we must be even more vigilant than usual.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As I state above, the OGL/STL is not so much an agreement by WotC with individual businesses, but a blanket promise to not sue compatible fan creations provided they do not infringe on WotC's rights or income. It's no different than Stephanie Meyer not suing people who write Twilight fan fiction: we don't discuss the fan fiction unless it becomes notable on its own. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how Tome of Horrors could have editorial independence since they state in introduction that they "worked closely with WotC". And the fact that they "require the use" of official D&D products shouldn't be brushed away as just "not infringing on WotC's right" because these are the implications of such a mention:

• If someone new to RPGs buys Tome of Horrors and sees the mention "this product requires...", isn't the buyer effectively going to buy D&D products out of concern he wouldn't be able to use ToH on its own, hereby making it promotional ?
• Doesn't that mean that the product is directly marketed to players as a product affiliated to D&D, and thus effectively relying on D&D and its customers to exist, and so having direct financial gain in being identified as a full part of the D&D experience ? D&D reviews aren't part of the D&D experience and aren't essencial components of a D&D session, ToH is, so please no more irrelevant comparisons.

There is also the issue of independence excluding "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The subject is a creature in D&D. ToH provides the creature for D&D (ie it provides original fiction and gaming mecanism for D&D that didn't exist before). How would ToH not be affiliated with the creature it effectively makes available to D&D ? ToH are effectively the original authors/makers of the 3rd Ed. version of the creatures they deal with in the book. Independence with the subject ? How so ?? Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The financial reward which TSR received for publishing these works was the same as any publisher. The concept of editorial independence which is being promoted here is absurd because it would tend to exclude all commercial publishers which would include most publishers of textbooks and journals. An author who writes a maths text book has a financial interest in the work and the publisher of that textbook does too so this state of affairs is quite normal. What we seek to exclude for this purpose is two special cases:

1. Vanity presses, in which the author pays to have the work published rather than expecting an income
2. Self-promotion, such as an autobiography in which the author is writing about himself

Neither of these cases apply to the main D&D works such as the Monster Manual which were written by paid authors and published in an ordinary commercial way. The fact that the content formed part of a larger body of work is little different from a textbook about calculus being part of a series of works about mathematics. Warden (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The complainants here obviously have no idea what licensing really is. Licensing like the OGL is a way for everyone to feel secure about their intellectual property rights. It's just like the CC-BY-SA or GFDL licenses that govern our contributions to Wikipedia. The OGL essentially says "We agree not to sue you, you agree that this intellectual property remains ours, and we all happily make games compatible with each other" If anything, it's more akin to a standards document than anything else. Again, the complainants have no idea what a license really is if they are asserting that the OGL creates a financial entanglement between a publisher of D&D compatible products and WotC. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is about the relationship between one publisher and the other; that is a completely different topic than the relationship between a publisher and the content they publish. If I write a D&D rulebook, that's not an independent source for D&D, it doesn't matter if you gave me permission or not. If I wrote a book or article about D&D, that would be different, but these are not books about D&D, they are D&D. Rulebooks created for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game are not independent of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, otherwise what would be a non-independent source? - SudoGhost 07:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with SudoGhost's comment, wikilawyering on OGL doesn't explain away the fact that D&D rulebooks still "require the use of" official D&D rulebooks, and legal explanations aside, that's because such books contain material for a specific gaming system without including the necessary core rules and mecanics to this system that would make the material work on its own. That makes it fully dependent on D&D.
      Also, everyone is reminded that WP:GNG requires sources to be "secondary", and a secondary source make "evaluative or analytic claims about primary sources". I may not agree on everything Sangrolu wrote, but he was spot-on on one thing: however people may claim sourcebooks like ToH to be secondary independent, no one has been able to extract a single analytical or evaluative comment from these books, for use in articles. There's not a single line in the creature sections of ToH that would explicitely refer to "D&D" as an external/seperate instance, and that could be taken as comentary on D&D without the use of original reseearch. That's because these sourcebooks either integral reproduction of D&D material without comment, or original content for D&D that doesn't provide any commentary. Sangrolu was a bit reluctant to acknowledge it (yet he is fully aware of it), but that makes them primary and affiliated sources. Please forget OGL and answer the real questions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The OGL is seriously only WotC promising not to sue people who write stuff for D&D. There are a lot of shitty products on RPGnow and other websites published under the OGL that no one in their right mind would begin to think that WotC would have encouraged. This is not wikilawyering, this is assessing things as they are.

Here is the original text for the OGL. Point 5 affirms that the material contributed is the author's and that WotC has nothing to do with it. Point 7 tells authors to keep their hands off of WotC's current property because the author is not connected to WotC. In other words, OGL products are, as far as WotC is concerned, completely independent of their product D&D, ergo it is independent of D&D, even if it is compatible with it and requires the use of WotC's rule books. To enter into an OGL deal, all you have to do is just distribute (usually self-publish) material that complies with that license.

The intro to ToH says that Necromancer games checked with WotC to make sure they were not using any monsters that WotC was ever planning on using. This is not work by, an endorsement from, or approval from WotC; this is not WotC entering into a deal for Necromancer games to work for them, this is simply Necromancer games making absolutely sure that they were complying with the OGL. 'Publish whatever you want, as long as it doesn't steal from us and still makes people buy our books' (the OGL in as few words as possible) is not a direct business deal. To imply that WotC was involved beyond confirming "we're not using that" is either a complete misrepresentation or misunderstanding. ToH never say that WotC gave Necromancer games any input into how to design the monsters, or that they condoned, agreed with, or approved of Necromancer game's results beyond saying "we're not planning on using that, so you can use it in an OGL product." No evidence that Necromancer games is an authority on the subject has been provided, either.

The Sathar has d8 racial HD and starts with two racial levels. It's class skills are jump, swim, knowledge (arcana), and craft (baskets). They have 4 + Int mod skill points per level. They have great cleave as a racial bonus feat, even if they do not meet the prerequisites. They are gargantuan-sized creatures. Their only attack is a psionic blast with a range of 50,000 feet dealing 36d4 damage, will save (DC 10) for double damage. -- There, I just distributed material completely compatible with the OGL (WotC decided to not include the Sathar in D20 Future). Do we get to include this complete misrepresentation of the Sathar in the Star Frontiers article once I shoot an email to a WotC employee saying 'y'all aren't using the Sathar, right?' It's later OGL material discussing prior TSR material. This is the problem with including OGL material in articles, and why OGL creations should be treated as fan-works and nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So in any case we agree they are primary sources (they're not independent of their version of the creatures they're dealing with) which don't providing "analytic or evaluative claims" on another source ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "we" you are referring to here, but I'll say that analytic or evaluative claims are a function of the particular source in question, not the source's status as an OGL sourcebook. Some sources may be usable, some won't. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

...and that's the difference between third-party publisher and third-party source. What WotC considers a "third-party product" has absolutely nothing to do with what Wikipedia considers a third-party source. Those terms aren't interchangeable, and have completely different meanings. WotC's involvement (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it; if the sourcebook is written for Dungeons and Dragons then it's not independent of Dungeons and Dragons, it doesn't matter what level of "official" status the book has, the book is no different than the other sourcebooks in terms of content. Independence from a publisher doesn't mean independence from a game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources for the game they're written for any more than a video game's code is an independent source for a creature in that video game. - SudoGhost 09:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but to me the entire discussion here appears to assume that any primary source can never be a reliable source? That is not really true. For simple information, "the horse's mouth" is often the best source. There is no absolute ban upon using secondary sources on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, what's being discussed is whether these primary sources can be used to show notability, if they are the only sources in an article, such as with Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons). - SudoGhost 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see how a self promoting publication such as a book effectively selling a game and part of that game's industry can be worth doubting as an RS, but it does not seem to be an automatic disqualification such that we can just leave the discussion there? And there are ways to try to cross check from other directions. For example a book of rules about a game might be highly cited and easily proven to be a standard reference amongst people interested in that game. RSN discussions which are too purely about the definition of primary or secondary or tertiary are destined to go in circles because they become arguments about arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, its quite simple, either we follow WP:GNG or we don't. And, from that, either we conform to the definitions of primary/secondary/terciary found in WP:PSTS or we don't.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you're still trying to answer an RSN question, in which you take an individual statement and see whether the source is strong enough to support it. This appears to be better suited for the WP:Notability/Noticeboard, in which you take a handful of sources and see whether they're strong enough to support an entire article. This kind of question really shouldn't be brought here. They could go to NN or they could go to AFD and fight it out, but there's no question here about reliability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but I am not sure of that. Anyway, we should be careful not to bounce a question between different noticeboards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently User:Kurmaa claimed that "Lower Assam", coined by the Ahom people, is derogatory and should not be used on Wikipedia (diff). Do the accompanying links ([35], [36], [37]) show that the term "Lower Assam" is actually derogatory, or that it was coined by the Ahoms?

This argument was accepted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati and together they have gone on a mission moving "Lower Assam" to "Western Assam", and changing all "lower Assam" to "western Assam" in many Wikipedia pages. Before making large scale changes on Wikipedia, it is important to verify the claims.

A discussion on this topic is given here: Talk:Western_Assam#Move_proposal. The opposing view in summary:

• "Lower Assam" was coined by the British, and not by the Ahoms. "[The] territory from Biswanath to Goalpara—was known as Western Assam; but another name—Lower Assam—gradually came into use." (Banerjee, A. C. (1992), "The New Regime, 1826-31", in Barpujari, H. K., The Comprehensive History of Assam, IV, Guwahati: Publication Board, Assam, pp. 1-43)
• "Lower Assam" has official status since Government of Assam has a Commissioner, Lower Assam Division (48 Shri Sabbir Hussain SCS-1996 Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Assam; [38])
• Lower Assam is more commonly used in the Internet
  • Here are the results of a count on scholar.google.com:
    • "lower assam" 1,020 results
    • "western assam" 410 results
  • And here are the results from a google search:
    • "lower assam" 878,000 results
    • "western assam" 54,100 results

These arguments have been ignored by both User:Kurmaa and User:Bhaskarbhagawati. I request WP:RSN to please check the sources and decide whether the claims made by User:Kurmaa is correct. Thanks.

Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a point of detail. Concerning discussions on talk pages between editors, concerning how to word things nicely, of course RS rules do not have the same importance. If an editor believably knows that a geographical term is potentially offensive there is no reason to ignore this personal knowledge on the "verifiability not truth" principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true, but we would want at least to verify reliably that some people beyond Wikipedia consider it offensive. This is part of an ethnic dispute that's being played out on various Wikipedia talk pages (we've seen it at RSN before). Do we know yet whether the dispute matters to anyone in the real world?

The term isn't derogatory in origin: it refers to the lower part (i.e. geographically lower, nearer sea level) of the Brahmaputra valley. It may still be seen as derogatory now: that certainly happens. However, where the term has official status as the name of an administrative division, I think it would be pushing our own POV to sideline it or cease to use it in referring to that administrative division. Andrew Dalby 10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So Lower Saxony, Lower Canada, the Low Countries, Low Fell, should all go I guess. And I'd better move away from Bas-Bretagne and back to Grande-Bretagne to improve my self esteem. Paul B (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, Paul. You can't get any lower. Loire-Inférieure is no longer an option. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How can we determine that a person "believably" knows something? One of Kurmaa's claims, that the Ahoms coined the term "lower Assam", is definitely false. None of the links he has provided shows a derogatory use of the term. Chaipau (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is the question. I suppose that an extreme counter argument might be that if one editor is offended by a term then at least we know that one person is offended, and that would usually mean there are more? But on WP, where a multitude have to work together despite not knowing each other, it is sometimes possible that a particular individual or very small group has convinced themselves of something unusual for the wrong reasons, for example a misunderstanding of an English term. Anyway, is there any obvious compromise which simply avoids the question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

From the recent trends, Kurmaa and Bhaskarbhagawati have zero-tolerance for "lower Assam". So, no compromise seems possible. They seem to be driven by an acute antipathy toward the Ahom people (diff).

Nevertheless, with respect to the question, what should Wikipedia consider reliable source for derogatory use of a term? Should not the aggrieved party at least demonstrate a derogatory use in real life? When Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) created the page ([39]), he did not consider it derogatory. In fact he created a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lower_Assam, along with an extensive system of categories, templates etc. to go with it to project something of which is obviously fiercely proud. BB then was won over by Kurmaa. So, as far as the real world and the Wikipedia world is concerned, here is an instance where a person has been able to propagate his WP:FRINGE theories via Wikipedia. Wikipedia seems to be helping, in this case, to create a derogatory term where none existed. Chaipau (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my suspicion. Having seen such arguments from Bhaskarbhagawati before, I think our time is being wasted. There should be no question of taking this issue seriously unless we have good evidence that people in the real world take it seriously. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let it be on record that the campaign to make "Lower Assam" a derogatory term began on Wikipedia. Kurmaa is now campaigning for support in an online forum: [40]. In the link, Kurmaa is quoting himself (cut-and-paste), from a section that he wrote as User:130.65.109.101 diff. He had to write as an IP user because he is currently blocked for sock puppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurmaa/Archive). Chaipau (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fine, John Van Antwerp (1994), in The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (University of Michigan Press, ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5). Page 600 of this work is quoted in Siege_of_Shkodra in a sequence that makes the timeline chaotic and confusing. Fine seems to be well-regarded as an RS, but even the best make errors. The quote in the article creating the problem is:

In 1477 the Ottomans captured most of the territory of Zeta together with Žabljak and defeated the main army of Ivan Crnojević late in 1477 or early 1478.[11][citation needed] Then they concentrated their forces at Shkodra.[12][citation needed]

This order of events or battle sieges disagrees with Franz Babinger (whose treatment of the events is in much more detail than Fine's tertiary work Aleks Buda), and also disagrees with Kenneth Setton, Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Kristaq Prifti, Selami Pulaha, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Marin Barleti, 15th and 16th century Ottoman chronicles, etc., etc.

Fine's timeline:

1. 1477—Zabljak falls
2. June 1478—Kruja falls
3. Sept 1478—Drivast falls
4. "Shortly thereafter"—Alessio falls
5. Then Shkodra is attacked (attack fails)

Franz Babinger's (and the others mentioned above) timeline:

1. June 1478—Kruja falls
2. June & July 1478—Shkodra attacked (attack fails)
3. August/Sept 1478—Zabjlak falls (AFTER Shkodra attacked)
4. Sept 1478—After Zabljak, Drivast attacked
5. ca. Sept 1478—After Drivast attacked, Alessio attacked

I can provide, if requested, all the works and page numbers for the above secondary sources.--Rereward (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, citations on the other side would be quite helpful - even if not all, at least several of the strongest/most detailed ones. In general, where we have a dispute between reliable sources, we list what both sides say, with citations. If it becomes clear that Fine's work is a summary in one paragraph, while the other side goes into greater detail, we can give more weight to the other side. --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And, OK, here are several of many more sources to help guide analysis.

1. Babinger, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time." New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978. pp. 359–369 contains "Book Five > The Sieges of Krujë and Shkodër." Pp. 364-365 contains Babinger's order listed above.
2. Schmitt, Oliver Jens (trans. from German by Ardian Klosi). Skënderbeu. Tirana: K&B, 2009. pp. 411-422 contains a chapter entitled "Më pas" (After [Scanderbeg's death]). Page 416 explains the order, translated into English as: "Finally in 1478 the exhausted defenders of Kruja opened the gates ... after this [the sultan] besieged the Rozafa Fortress at Shkodra. But the fortress held. Nevertheless, in a short time the Republic of Venice ended the 16-year war against the Ottomans. Shkodra was eventually ceded to the sultan ... previously (emphasis mine) Drishti had been taken in the attack ... the fortresses of the Crnojevics also fell."
3. Buda, Aleka, lengthy introduction in Barleti, Marin. Rrethimi i Shkodrës. Tirana: 1967. See treatment on pp. 3-22. Specifically p. 13 clarifies the order in agreement with Babinger ... translated into English: "The deep losses and failure of the Ottomans made it clear that Shkodra could not be taken with a direct attack. On the other hand the sultan's prestige demanded a swift success. To this goal were the actions taken against the castles of Zabljak, ... Drivast, and Alessio ..."
4. Barleti, Marin. De Obsidione Scodrensi (Venice: 1504) reprinted in Lonicer, Chronicorum Turcicorum (1578). Book Two describes the 1474 and 1478 sieges of Shkodra. Book Three (pp. 264-271) discusses its failure and the subsequent actions against more specifically pages 267-268 (actually 4 pages).
5. Ottoman chroniclers Tursun (1480s), Kivami (ca. 1500), Idris-i Bidlisi (ca. 1510), and K. Pashazade (ca. 1525) all give the exact same chronology—see Pulaha, Selami (ed.). Lufta shqiptaro-turke në shekullin XV: Burime osmane [Albanian-Turkish Wars in the Fifteenth Century: Ottoman Sources] (in both the original languages and Albanian translations). Tiranë: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë dhe Gjuhësisë, 1968. pp. 105-109, 114-124, 163-173, 206-231.

We do not have to use every source just because it is reliable, so this becomes a question of WP:NOTE (notability) and balance (WP:DUE weight). Of course if this generally good author is suspected of making a typo or something we can simply avoid using him. On the other hand, if the author is well known in this subject area, we possibly need to have a mention of alternative theories?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much.--Rereward (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

can this dissertation be used as RS? [41]

It will be used on article Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi to state that the person may have been "harari" taken from page VII on dissertation. Baboon43 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The source itself appears to be reliable, as it was a dissertation which resulted in a PhD for the author. (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.) Dr. Avishai Ben-Dror was awarded his PhD in Middle East Studies for that dissertation from Tel Aviv University School of History in 2008.[42] He is currently a History Professor at the Open University of Israel.[43] However, I have to say that I am a bit surprised that an eight-page paper with no footnotes was accepted as a dissertation, but it's possible that it's only an abstract or an abridged version. I can't find anything else online, and I'm experiencing difficulty accessing academic journals through my university's library right now. Horologium (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only an abstract, but as long as what it's sourcing is not controversial it's probably fine. a13ean (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The citation to the article titled "So brave ... and so beautiful", The Scottish Sun, June 25 2008 was removed from the article Sophie Morgan with the simple edit summary "don't cite the sun".[44] The source was used to support the non-contentious statement "She has also appeared in the reality TV show ‘Beyond Boundaries'." In understanding that tabloids are problematical, and should never be used for gossipy or contentious information, is the source okay in this instance for non-contentious facts, or not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a bad revert. For non-contentious factual claims which are not about science, The Sun, Scottish or otherwise, is reliable. Formerip (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

What source

I am looking to your opinion on whether the following source is reliable: Soundscapes. It is an online magazine that calls itself "journal on media culture", published by one Hans Durrer under ISSN 1567-7745. In particular, I wish to use it as source for the Beatles song analyses by musicologist Alan W. Pollack, which are published there (here: Notes on ...).

Where is it used

The source is already being used, e.g., in the featured article "Hey Jude", section Critical reception:

Music analyst Alan Pollack praised "Hey Jude," saying, "it's such a good illustration of two compositional lessons—how to fill a large canvas with simple means, and how to use diverse elements such as harmony, bassline, and orchestration to articulate form and contrast." He also said it is unusual for a long song because it uses a "binary form that combines a fully developed, hymn-like song together with an extended, mantra-like jam on a simple chord progression."[44] Pollack described the song's long coda and fadeout as "an astonishingly transcendental effect,"[44] [...]

(Reference [44] is the source in question)

Where else do I want to use it

I want to use it in the "Paul McCartney" article, subsection Musicianship/Vocals, to add a new sentence:

Musicologist Alan W. Pollack calls McCartney's vocal performance on "Hey Jude" a "tour de force", crossing into "real soprano territory" at the end of a flourish of more than two octaves^[4].

Why do I think the source is reliable

I would argue that Pollack's work in general, as published by the source in question, has been referenced by at least two good quality sources:

• Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for quote
• Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for quote

According to WP:RS#Usage_by_other_sources, this would help corroborate Pollack's and the source's credibility, at least for the Pollack series. Since the claim is not very exceptional and I would present it as Pollack's opinion anyway, I suggest that the source is sufficiently reliable to support the claim. What do you think?

Very much looking forward to your thoughts, thanks for your answers! --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really do apologize for the editorial comment here, but I think Pollack's "Notes On" series is fantastic. 'Twould be a shame if it were not considered reliable. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jprg1966, thanks a lot for your enthusiastic answer! I'm curious myself to see whether this source with its superb content stands the test of Wikipedia's standards.--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bothering to ask? Has someone objected, or are you just not feeling properly WP:BOLD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This site also archive's Pollacks "Notes on", and it may or may not be more reputable than Soundscapes. But I don't edit Beatles articles anymore, so do with that what you will. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, there was indeed concern about the source, from GabeMc on the Paul McCartney Talk page, what with PMcC being a Featured Article and all. Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evanh2008, the source you are linking to is precisely the Soundscapes page, if I see it correctly? Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. One of our links was a redirect to the other, but I was too lazy to click and notice that. Never mind! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Evanh2008 :-) Besides that, what do you think of my argument above, that the source is reliable because reliable sources quote from it? Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This query arises because I'm trying to improve the page Marie, Duchess of Auvergne. Like many other biographies of nobility etc., it has a section headed "Ancestry" that consists of a collapsed table using the Ahnentafel templates. It has been tagged with the uncited-section template. I need to know how to raise it to the desired standard so that I can remove the uncited-section tag.

I feel sure (see Talk:Marie, Duchess of Auvergne#Ancestry section) that there must be some guideline or discussion about sourcing these tables, and there must be at least one Ahnentafel somewhere that has been sourced to the desired standard, but, if these resources exist, I can't find them and the editor who placed the uncited-section tag hasn't been able to help me. So is there, somewhere, a pattern I can follow? Is there a consensus somewhere about how detailed the sourcing has to be? For example, is it necessary to footnote directly every name in every table? That would require an additional 30 footnote references on any page that has a complete Ahnentafel -- so I hope this wasn't the consensus, but I can face it :) Or, as I hope, is the reader expected to click each name and find sourcing on the linked page?

I can't quite see where else I am to ask this question, so I started here. Please gently guide me if there's a better place. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth on my talk page kindly suggested two examples of equine pedigrees with footnotes attached: this certainly gives me a clue about how to do it. I suspect there may never have been a discussion. Andrew Dalby 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, whenever I've seen this discussed before it's been in the context of "I've no idea how to do this, but..." - as you say, it's quite likely everyone's just avoided it. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be the best forum to discuss this at? I am not all that sure, but it might be better to go beyond this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PBS has now raised the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Persondata#Ancestor fields. Andrew Dalby 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Should quotes from prominent people used to advertise or promote a book be taken as reliable? What about if they are on a promotional website for the book? (In this case Sex at Dawn) For example at : [45]

I think quotes like this are somewhat suspect because they are stripped of context, or are being produced primarily as a favour to the author or the publishing company. On the other hand, the book is being promoted by a real publishing house, so presumably they haven't completely fabricated the quotes. Is there a standard policy with regard to context-less promotional quotations?

In this case, could the praise from the various academics on the list be taken to constitute a certain level of academic approval of the book on an equivalent level with published book reviews? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The individual reviews themselves should be cited, and not the promotional website for the book, and if these are included in the article there should also be a search for other reviews which the publisher didn't want to highlight. For obvious commercial reasons, publishers only ever highlight positive reviews, and then cherry-pick the most positive part of such reviews, so they should also be checked to make sure that the reviewers are being appropriately quoted. Pure blurbs (eg, praise from the book from someone who hasn't actually reviewed it) should not be repeated in articles as they're not a reliable source on the book - blurbs are generally either a favour to the author from their friends/colleagues or a favour to the publisher from its authors, and are not an independent assessment of the book (though most serious authors won't write a positive blurb about a bad book under any circumstances given that doing so damages their reputation). Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D is spot on here. We can't trust excerpts, editors need to have seen the actual review and it needs to be verifiable and we need to see if it really is a reliable source . Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That is in line with my own thinking. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is to read the review. The minimum rule is that you WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which means that you would cite blurbs you read at the website as being from the book's website, e.g., "Alice Expert, as quoted on www.bookwebsite.com" or just plain "www.bookwebsite.com". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are biblical scholars who are professors generally reliable for discussion of biblical episodes in the Book of Acts, specifically for Paul the Apostle's trial in Corinth in Acts 18:1-18? Specific sources that date this to the years 50-51 (which is accepted as the majority view and can be used per WP:RS/AC in any case) are:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor "Paul and Gallio" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 112, No. 2, 1993 also as "Paul : a critical life" ISBN 0192853422 Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Rainer Riesner in the The Blackwell Companion to Paul edited by Stephen Westerholm (May 16, 2011) ISBN 1405188448 Wiley-Blackwell, 2011
• Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology by Udo Schnelle 2005 ISBN 0801027969 Baker Academic Publishers
• The Language of Belonging by Mary Katherine Birge (Dec 1, 2002) ISBN 9042911026 Peeters Publishers, 2002
• The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony Thiselton 2000 ISBN 0853645590 Eerdmans Publishers, 2000.
• The Book of Acts by F. F. Bruce (Jun 30, 1988) ISBN 0802825052 Eerdmans Publishers
• Apostle on the Edge: An Inductive Approach to Paul by Michael R. Cosby (Oct 20, 2009) ISBN 0664233082 Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

My view is that the subject of the Book of Acts is inherently a "biblical subject" and hence these professors of biblical studies published in these respectable sources would be WP:RS. And in fact hardly anyone else publishes on that - it is hard to find people outside the "field of biblical studies" who write about the Book of Acts and the trial of Paul.

Now, if the conclusions of these scholars about the dates 50-51 for the trial are accepted as WP:RS, are the methods they use for arriving at said conclusions presentable? I think so, for if the conclusion is considered acceptable (and the majority view supports it) the method each scholar uses to arrive there can be presented, and the reader informed of it, provided it is directly attributed to that scholar.

By the way, all of these 7 scholars by and large same type of things (with some variations, as expected of course) and support the same date range of 50-51 for the trial of Paul in Acts 18:1-18.

In any case, these professors who study and teach the subject of the trial of Apostle Paul in Acts 18:1-18 seem WP:RS to me on that subject. Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that biblical scholars who are 'real' professors in notable institutions are reliable sources for this. I'd be wary of honorary professors, those without a clear affliation to a mainstream institution, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did check and they are all non-honorary professors and seem to be getting paid real money for being there - when alive. Most are alive now. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these are all likely to be usable sources. We don't have a "no religious scholars" rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's better to play with all the cards on the table. The sources cited above are not being used to discuss Acts 18:1-18 per se. They are a means of analyzing a snippet of Roman history concerning the term of office of the proconsul Gallio in Achaea. (See Suetonius on Christians#The health of Gallio.) Casting this as a discussion about Acts misrepresents the issue.

I have disagreed with a number of these sources here in a discussion on reliable sources (I haven't closely looked at them all). The question is: can a source that is factually unreliable be a reliable source for its opinions on the material that it is factually unreliable about? Here are some examples:

1. Birge makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome.

This is what Seneca actually said: "I kept saying the same thing my dominus Gallio said when he began to feel feverish in Achaia; straightway he went on board ship, insisting that the sickness lay in the place, not in his body." Does Seneca say that Gallio returned to Rome?

2. In a lovely little infobox Cosby makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!

This error is made clear here though I can supply numerous other examples.

3. Thiselton makes the false claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.

Does Seneca say that Gallio did not complete his term of office? (Seneca's exact words are found in the first point.)

An editor can answer these factual questions.

Related to these "inaccuracies" there is a "potential inaccuracy" (as per WP:Inaccuracy) found in a comment by Murphy-O'Connor.

• Murphy-O'Connor claims "The impression of a fussy hypochondriac given by Seneca is confirmed by Pliny", also stated here, end of 3rd paragraph. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny (see quote below) notes Gallio in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption, saying that he spat or coughed up blood (Latin: sanguine egesto; translated as "suffering from hemoptysis"). Somehow Murphy O'Connor conjured up hypochondria.

Another writer who is used in the same section of the article, but not mentioned in the above list, is Craig Evans, who makes the false claim here that Pliny "describes and recommends the remedy of Gallio who, after drinking waters that caused illness." (Italics added) But this is what Pliny said:

Sea-water also is employed in a similar manner for the cure of diseases. It is used, made hot, for the cure of pains in the sinews, for reuniting fractured bones, and for its desiccative action upon the body: for which last purpose, it is also used cold. There are numerous other medicinal resources derived from the sea; the benefit of a sea-voyage, more particularly, in cases of phthisis, as already mentioned, and where patients are suffering from hæmoptosis, as lately experienced, in our own memory, by Annaeus Gallio, at the close of his consulship: for it is not for the purpose of visiting the country, that people so often travel to Egypt, but in order to secure the beneficial results arising from a long sea-voyage. (source) (Bolding added)

Any sign of Gallio drinking water that caused illness? Evans demonstrates that he doesn't understand his primary source, Pliny. Pliny is talking about coughing up blood. Evans is not in the ballpark. The above examples show the writers to be factually unreliable. And we, as editors, must interrogate sources to validate their reliability for the purposes they are being used for. Otherwise we are not doing our jobs. We cannot make judgment calls of our own.

Incidentally, History2007 misrepresents one of the writers in the above list, Schnelle, in this statement in the article: "a number of scholars such as R. Riesner, F. F. Bruce, Udo Schnelle, M. K. Birge, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, A. C. Thiselton and Michael R. Cosby state that it is likely that tenure of Gallio in Corinth lasted less than a full year". What Schnelle actually said is "it is possible that he did not serve out his full year in office". (My italics.) He certainly doesn't say it is likely. The inclusion of Schnelle in the list makes the Wikipedia article inaccurate.

An editor can decide yes or no as to the factual information of a source. (See WP:Accuracy. History2007 will deflect by saying the essay has "no application as policy", but it is attempting to be a guideline as to how editors approach the reliability of sources.) Whatever the outcome, the editor has the responsibility of interrogating sources for their reliability. It's done all the time. Is the source tendentious? Does the source have footnotes or checkable primary sources? Is the writer an expert in the field? Is the material scholarly and peer-reviewed? Are the sources factually reliable? It's part of the job. A number of the sources above have not proven to be factually reliable. -- spin^control 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there is a really long discussion on this here with the material above presented and discussed on the WP:RS talk page, as well as the related project page. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am currently online searching for an album review of an article I am working on. I came across this review and wanted to know if it is a reliable source, I then search to see if there are other articles who used this website as a source and found over 50 articles that have. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a blog or gossip-type opinion piece. For what kind of info is it cited? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The site does have an editorial team[46] and they appear to have been quoted in other news outlets.[47][48] To me they seem at least borderline reliable. For reviews though, it's more about selecting opinions that carry sufficient weight. For latino artists there may be weightier reviews in Spanish or Portuguese. Siawase (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Government Hooker" is currently a featured article candidate, and Wikipedian Penguin (talk · contribs) has brought up concerns with two ([49])([50]) the sources used in the article. Both of these sources are from PopCrush. He has been unable to find any editorial qualifications or previous information for Amy Sciarretto, the individual responsible for writing the articles. I was originally reluctant to use a PopCrush source, as I am not fond of the website's format. It came to my attention that is was the only non-blogging site that directly verifies that the song was featured in a promotional video for the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards. In addition, her review can be seen in the "reception" section of the article. I used it because reviews for the song were very limited to begin with. It is also worth nothing that various good articles use PopCrush to verify some of its information.

I originally had a question about this, but no one voiced their opinion on the reliability of the website. Can I please get some feedback on the website? I don't mean to be snappy, but I'm getting a bit impatient. —DAP388 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this site has any sort of editorial oversight, fact checking or does corrections. From all I can see it doesn't quality as a reliable source, much less as a high quality source as required in FAs. Siawase (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that this diff using this Facebook entry by a nonexpert on the abortion topic is not a Reliable source. But the only other editor working on the article does not agree. (Note he has removed the other reference from an advocacy group website.) CarolMooreDC 01:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy. Cow. Lemme jump in and help if I can. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My position is based on: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The question is if Stephan Kinsella is an expert. I believe his is since he is published regarding libertarian legal issues. That said, I will attempt to rewrite the portion in question as discussed in the talk. If I can let Rothbard do his own talking, the expertise of Kinsella will be irrelevant. Dude6935 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kinsella would more clearly be accepted as an expert on the plank of abortion in Libertarianism if someone had ever quoted him on it in a reliable source. Once he's quoted or his position described in such a source then that source can be introduced. The problem with Kinsella's own blog or his Facebook posts is the problem of one hand clapping or a tree falling in the forest. Kinsella must be noticed or his opinions are not useful to us. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will see if I can find a source referencing Kinsella on abortion. Dude6935 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Because of a basic axiom of libertarianism: non criminals are to be treated in the “gentlest manner possible.” In Block, Kinsella and Whitehead (2006) we state: “She may evict this interloper from her ‘premises.’ She must do so in the gentlest manner possible, for the trespasser in this case is certainly not guilty of mens rea.”6 The point is, the fetus is not purposefully committing a trespass." http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-32.pdf

After looking at the linked paper, it appears as if you will need to attribute the quote to all three contributors: Block, Kinsella and Whitehead, not Kinsella alone. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your last statement. Doesn't the link establish Kinsella's expertise on evictionism? Isn't that the sole point of contention? Dude6935 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This new ref is here. I haven't investigated content, but that's an issue for the article talk page. Unfortunate it takes a WP:RSN to get people to take one seriously and beef up refs. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Over on Talk:Athletics_at_the_1908_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_marathon#The_first_mile, there is a bit of uncertainty as to whether a certain blog could be allowed as a reference in the context of debate over the length of the 1908 Olympic Marathon in the associated article.

According to WP:RS, it is suggested that though general blogs are not considered reliable, under certain circumstances blogs run by (say) professional news outlets whose contributors are professional journalists could be considered. The blog in question is actually the blog of the U.S.A Track and Field Road-Running Technical Council. It is moderated, and I would therefore think that posts appearing on it which originate from the professionals in the field (such as Mike Sandford, Pete Reigel and others) should be OK as citations. Hell, if you can't cite professional course-measurers, whom can you cite? :-) Any comments please? Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a messageboard, not even a blog. Isn't there a book out there or something that talks about Marathons and the history of them? Arzel (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Several books. I have a copy of "The Marathon Makers" by John Bryant, one of the most often cited sources for such stuff. This is in addition to that. "The Marathon Makers" is more about the people behind the story (the athletes and the celebrities of the day who had a hand in how it turned out), less about the nuts and bolts of course planning and measurement. Unusually, in the case of the London 1908 Olympic Marathon, the nuts and bolts are more important than they normally would be just because the claimed length of that particular marathon became fossilised as the standard marathon distance to this day. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve, what is the statement that you wanted sourced by the blog/messageboard? Location (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Things like Sandford's comment "This 150 yards is in fact the "missing 150 yards" once mentioned by John Disley when he was researching the marathon start." from this item for instance. I might also add Sandford's other comment that in his (professional) opinion the first mile may be 30 m short, but certainly not Disley's suggested amount. So as you can see, it's nothing outrageous, but it's the sort of detail you're not going to get anywhere else quite frankly. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)