Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

The Abusive Hosts Blocking List

Is The Abusive Hosts Blocking List a reliable source? Does citing it violate WP:BLP?

I came here to complain about the same site. Here is their page on Barbara Schwarz, which is being used as a "reliable source" for her article: AHBL: Barbara Schwarz. The last paragraph is a disclaimer saying that they just repeat what other people have said, including Usenet posts -- which in Barbara's case are the main issue. Steve Dufour 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that their listing of her contains two parts; One explaining why she's listed and the second is a FAQ about who she is. We are not citing their FAQ, but instead the fact that she has been listed by them for her behavior related to usenet. Abusive Hosts Blocking List, more about them. Anynobody 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They might be a worthwhile organization. However I don't think they can be a source for information on a living person when they just invite people to post their opinions and don't take responsibility for them. Steve Dufour 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really consider reading what you're talking about, they do not ...just invite people to post their opinions and don't take responsibility for them. Once again, this is not what the reference is used for, but the FAQ you seem to be bothered by so much says: This page is a collection of resources and opinions others have posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw their own conclusions.

By not reading what they said carefully, you come off as either trying to quote them out of context or looking less than brilliant. Anynobody 08:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the page that is cited in the article. Usenet and other Internet postings are not good enough to be WP reliable sources about living persons. Steve Dufour 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that because they created a FAQ about Barbara Schwarz on the page which also discusses her reason for being listed with the AHBL they can't be used as a source?

We've been through the "USENET isn't a reliable source..." discussion several times, I'll refreash your memory. WP:RS says:Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons other than their author, (the usenet posts in question are by Barbara Schwarz and about her life) and refers us to WP:BLP#Reliable sources which says:Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise impossible-to-verify statements about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article Since the posts are by her, we are not violating that policy. Anynobody 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again. They say themselves that they are repeating things posted on Usenet and elsewhere on the Internet. There is no way to tell for sure who is posting the material.Steve Dufour 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com and USsearch?

Resolved

Recently an editor has added information to an article (Jaclyn Reding) that I'd previously deleted due to the fact that I couldn't find any reliable sources. The information in question being her supposed maiden name. When asking him where he'd gotten the sources and if he could put them in the article he was slightly rude and claimed that he used Ancestry.com to find her parents through a deceased brother and ussearch.com to connect her to her husband. I am wondering what are the reliabilities of these sources? The author is vague on her own website not stating where she was born, what her husband's name is, or if she has any family at all. I hate to get into a conflict with an editor in the first place, but I'm concerned that this borders on original research. I don't want to remove the information without merit because that could escalate this situation into an edit war, which I'd like to avoid so if anybody could shed some light on these two places I'd appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. USSearch cannot be used either, as it would violate WP:NOR. If that information is not available in a secondary published source, we should not put it in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All right that makes sense. Thanks a lot! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late on this one, but I would disagree. Some of Ancestry.com is user-generated, a great deal is reproductions of primary sources. For example, my name is David Mayall, I was born in England in 1969. If you look for me at Ancestry.com, you will find me. Not as user generated content, but as a transcription of the index of births (a primary source). It is impossible to say whether content from Ancestry is a reliable source without knowing which database it was extracted from. Mayalld 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

The following article is being used to reference an quote in the Battle of Jenin article to present "evidence" of an Israeli war crime, could I get some input on whether this source meets RS: [1]. The wikipedia article seems to make me think that it wouldn't due to the WP:REDFLAG that the statement it is presenting causes. Kyaa the Catlord 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of particular note, the Gush Shalom article here notes that it is an activist group with a clear agenda against the Israeli "efforts" in Palestine. Kyaa the Catlord 07:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Telegraph linking to the document, describing it as an "eyewitness account". Here is Human Rights Watch citing the article and noting that a Gush Shalom translation is available, effectively vouching for it. Here is Teddy Katz referring to the article in a UN document. Here is the actual journalist discussing the article on a nationally syndicated American radio show - or perhaps they hired a voice actor? Can't trust those left-wingers!

Really, now, I previously brought to this noticeboard some alleged quotations that only showed up once on Google and was shot down for it. We are currently using one quote on the basis that a single editor says he called the news agency and verified that yes, an article with that title was published on that day (but he doesn't know what it said.) Now you're telling me that this extremely well-corroborated piece isn't good enough? I think the operating principle here is not WP:REDFLAG but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Eleland 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your ability to AGF startles my mind. I'd like to point out that I did not remove PR's inclusion of this material, I just asked for an uninvolved opinion on it. End transmission. Kyaa the Catlord 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not remove it, certainly. You asked around if there were grounds for removal. I.e. you were minded to remove it, if there was backing for your intention. Your second post talks about an 'activist group' with a clear agenda. Nearly all established RS sources on Israeli-Palestine issues are 'activist' in the sense that they publish articles for and against Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. Eleland is correct. Uri Avnery has been in Palestine/Israel since 1933, fought in the 48 war, was elected to the Knesset, can be said to be an insider intimately knowledgeable about Israel's politics and policies and his organization has not, to my knowledge, a reputation for falsifying documents. Samuel Katz's opinions are cited as evidence, correctly, for certain establishmentarian views on the Palestinian territories. I edit them, knowing them to be completely erroneous in substance, but do not erase them. Nor should Avnery's Gush Shalom perspectives be hustled off for having an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Look at the claim. A drunken, destitute former Israeli conscript claims that he drove drunk a piece of heavy machinery he did not know how to operate in an effort to lay waste to as many Palestinians as possible. This is simply linked to by reputable press agencies, not directly quoted, not swarmed by Christianne Ampour or any of the pro-Palestinian media. This exceptional claim does not have the sort of media coverage required by WP:REDLINK to meet the standards. Yes, I'd like to see it gone from the article, but rather than merely removing it myself, I came to the proper place to have sources checked against our RS standards. And I get gruff for it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better addressed by posting a Request for comment, as it is clearly a content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a translation of a piece of reportage published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper. Yediot Aharonot articles are cited all over Wikipedia. No one questions the reliability of it as a source. It fits all Wiki criteria. You take exception to the 'exceptional' claims made by the driver,i.e. you dispute the content. But the claims made don't have to be true, the source that prints them however has to be reliable. The only valid objection you might raise relates to possible errors in Gush Shalom's translation. I very much doubt that in a long article of that kind, you are going to encounter a systematic linguistic distortion of the claims made by the bulldozer driver. The source is Yediot Aharonot, not Gush Shalom.Nishidani 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My remarks about CAMERA above are equally applicable here, I think. If Gush Shalom is quoting a reliable source, then its best to go straight to the RS, confim it in context, and cite that. That being said, articles that are based in large part on the quotes selected by advocacy organisations of GS' type are, in my opinion, not the sort of thing we really want. Hornplease 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA is a hate-site, we'll reference the article "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" when we reference articles on "Jewish Duplicity". Gush-Shalom is an "activist site", but it's not a hate-site, it doesn't operate as a propaganda organ for anyone, it's unlikely to be funded by people who are protecting moneyed interests, it has no particular reason to cheat, it's been around a long time and there is no indication (that I'm aware of) that it does cheat. The problem with articles in Israeli newspapers it that, more than most, they don't keep their archives available for very long (and have been known to change articles eg when Peres called Jenin 2002 a "massacre"). PR^talk 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a hate-site. In fact it's a reaction to real hate sites by Arab & Islamist propaganda against Israel. One of it's most notable features is the dispelling of the myth that Ariel Sharon claimed "We Jews run America" in 2001. Sadly, there are still people both in the Middle East and the west who believe that garbage. ----DanTD 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

washington times

requesting comments regarding source's reliability

here - [2].

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, it seems none of the references to The Washington Times actually link to the cited articles on the newspaper website, so the Times reliability isn't yet the issue. Flowanda | Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the article's publication and text have been validated so the first link is the one you should be looking at if you want to go over the entire article (p.s. from camera's quotes we've validated about 46 out of 50 so there's no reason to believe any of them is false). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has, and I'm sure you're all sincere and diligent, but that doesn't mean the sources meet WP:RS or that the citations will survive once you're not around to protect them (i.e. if you believe that Wikipedia is around for the long haul and that its core policies will prevail). As a casual reader of this article--I'm totally clueless about the subject, btw--I'm not going to dig through all the discussion and the edit histories of the editors involved in this obviously volatile article to figure out who or what is verifiable and believable. Like the majority of readers, I'm going to read the article and if, for some reason, I look or click on the actual links in the citation and end up somewhere else beside the Washington Times, then chances are good the warning bells are going to go off, and I'm going to begin questioning all the facts and everybody's intent.

Do you see what I am getting at? This is not about individual editors or somebody's word, but about doing the hard work now to find rock-solid NPOV facts and sources that keep editors from arguing about this exact same issue 10 years from now, or constant fighting about including equally unverified sources and content. Short term, you may gain exception to use these sources and even list them as Washington Times articles; long term, well, the edits will go away unless they are soundly sourced and can be easily verified and updated as Wikipedia and online archiving improve. If you want this article -- and your edits/sources -- to live beyond you, then source the facts and references strictly to WP:RS, not to prevailing, temporary opinion or current tolerance. Flowanda | Talk 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article claims to be quoting the Washington Times in one of the instances of footnote 25, but the footnote itself cites someone else's web site. And other instances of that footnote don't mention the paper. If you want to source something to a newspaper, source it by stating the article title, newspaper name, and publication date, not by linking to somebody else's page purportedly quoting the paper. It may be ok to include a note saying that parts of the article are quoted on a web site, after the proper citation, but the proper citation needs to be there. As for material sourced in the same footnote to CAMERA but not sourcable to a major newspaper or similar: the WP article on CAMERA states that it takes a non-neutral pov, so its reliability seems dubious for claims beyond "one side of the dispute takes the position that..." —David Eppstein 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede is available without paying for it (preview) and this contains the key claim cited here. When numerous ([3], [4], [5]) mirror sites have an apparently identical article - and their ideological biases are all over the place - I think it's safe to treat it as a legitimate source. This being said, Paul Martin ("Sayed Anwar") of the Washington Times was very publically, and very credibly, accused of repeated journalistic fraud on CBC Television, an accusation which has not been retracted or, to my knowledge, credibly disputed. That's the real issue. Eleland 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it...I see the problem you're trying to solve, but the citations seem misleading when they go somewhere else other than the website page that's listed...changing the citations to include the actual source and the reasons they're being used would help clarify their use. I also see other ways editors will probably challenge the sources-the sites you listed may have pulled the exact text from the article itself, but they might have all pulled it from altered sources...and if they're not considered reliable sources, there's still no way for readers to easily verify for themselves. And I noticed one of the sites you listed above listed a fair use for research notice at the bottom...do the sources cited in the article have permission/exception to publish the entire Times article on their sites? Flowanda | Talk 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Times article here in WP rings all kinds of alarm bells about this paper - the Rev. Sun Myung Moon founded it in 1982, still owns it, has pumped a $billion and more into it and said he wanted to make it "an instrument to save America and the world."

But there is a second concern so serious that it amounts to a conclusive reason not to use this particular reference (even if we'd accept the Washington Times for this very, very surprising claim). The re-posting of this article (or at least the one used) is on a race-hatred site. It carries a link to an article "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page" - immediately above this very story! We'd not tolerate sources picked up on David Irving's IHR web-site, and "papillonsartpalace" is substantially worse. PR^talk 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Shibli Nomani a reliable source?

More specifically, is Shibli Nomani's Sirat an-Nabi (The Life of the Prophet [ Muhammad ]) a reliable source for the life of Muhammad?

I believe the answer is yes. Nomani was the professor at Aligarh Muslim University, and considered a reliable source for Islamic history. He has been referred to as the "leading Muslim historians of the day [1857 - 1914]" by Francis Robinson (head of the Department of History, at Royal Holloway, University of London). (Source: The British Empire and Muslim Identity in South Asia, by Francis Robinson. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 8. (1998), pp. 281.)

Further his works (including Sirat an-Nabi which is in question here) have been regarded reliable. A review published by Annemarie Schimmel (from Harvard University) regards Sirat an-Nabi as an important biographical work. This review also confirms that Nomani was a professor in Aligarh. Finally the review praises the Murad's work. (Source: Review of Intellectual Modernism of Shibli Numani: An Exposition of His Religious and Political Ideas by Mehr Afroz Murad Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1983), p. 810)

What do you guys think?Bless sins 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomani's status as a historian does appear to be recognised (cf. "Cambridge History of Islam" vol 2B (1992) p. 646, 699 Cambridge University Press; "Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science" (2000) p. 924 Routledge; and others). feedback from experienced RSN contributors would be welcome. ITAQALLAH 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he's also considered a "a well-known scholar and historian". (Source: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. A Venture in Critical Islamic Historiography and the Significance of Its Failure. Vol. 41, No. 1. (Jan., 1994) pg. 27, Numen © 1994 BRILL)Bless sins 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Episodes used as sources?

Episodes can be used as reliable sources, right? I mean if I editing an article on a tv show and I need to cite something in the article, I can use an episode from that show as a references, correct? If I need to cite information about the character, or something that happens on the show, an episode would be considered a reliable source? I mean, it's not easily changed as per a website. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Episodes would be primary sources and acceptable only in certain cases. See WP:PSTS - an article relying on primary sources "should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If Cailil's comment is supposed to mean, "no... an episode is a primary source, so you can not use it", then I disagree. If intended as "Perhaps... it is a primary source, so be careful how you use it... don't use it to support your own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of the show - as that would be Original Research" then I agree. I would say an episode of a tv show is a very reliable source for blunt factual statements about the plot of the show. Less reliable for discussion of character development and things like that. Blueboar 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I do mean "perhaps but be careful."--Cailil ^talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification... I agree. Blueboar 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be considered is taking statements out of context. Also, if you are watching a video, try to cite the time at which the statement is made. Bless sins 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say an episode of a tv show is a very reliable source for blunt factual statements about the plot of the show. That's exactly what I mean. I mean to use an episode to support factual statements, like what this character drove, or his alias, his firearm, etc. This discussion was brough about because over at Talk:Miami Vice, Arcayne removed citations to the firearms sections that were cited through the episodes, stating that it was OR. The firearms used were those ones stated in the article and cited by the episode. I don't see why that user finds it synthesis/OR. I mean do the character have to come out and say on the episode: Hey, this is a Bren-Ten or a Beretta? If the object looks like it, is the same size like it, and functions like it's suppose to, isn't it safe to say that the object is what it is suppose to be? It's not like we're saying they're using an M4 when it's a Walther PPK. Is this borderline, wrong, correct? And can this website be used to support the facts through the episodes? And this section of that website talks about Miami Vice and backs it up with sourced information. A little guidance/direction would be helpful. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to be extremelycautious in providing commentary about a TV show. Caution applies to avoiding WP:NOR, WP:V and a myriad of other policies. Remember also that this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of indiscriminate information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, there are reviews that can be cited. For some types of articles, where the material is often challenged, such as popular culture sections, it is in practice useful to find and cite these. In some cases, it may be appropriate to cite specifically to the exact time in the show.But for the straightforward plot, I think needing to use a secondary source could be an absurd requirement. But I know not everyone agrees with me here. so as Jossi says, be very careful.We don't always agree on everything about this, but we certainly do agree on that piece of advice. DGG (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(My interpretation is as follows:) The primary sources should be reliable for purely descriptive comments, like the names of characters, plot descriptions, and other undisputable "facts". While any further discussions (quality, moral, impact, etc.) should need independent sources. Oceanh 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Exetel

A recent editor on the Exetel page has been citing a number of Wikipedia policies in an effort to force through some of his edits and remove some of the references on the page. Having looked at the policies it seems that what he says does have some merit.

One of the sources used on the page is Boing Boing, a blog site. WP:SPS (cited by this editor) says that blogs are largely not acceptable as sources but may be in some circumstances. As far as I can see Boing Boing doesn't seem to satisfy the requirements for exemption. The editor in question claims that Boing Boing is acceptable because it "used to be a magazine, contains some of the more influential people in technology, and is labeled on Wikipedia as a "publishing entity"".[6] Try as I might I can't find anything to support this claim so my question is, is he right?

Another issue on the page is the use of references that don't directly mention the company. A source used to support a claim that Exetel has implemented a certain policy refers only to "another ISP" but doesn't mention Exetel.[7] The article does link to another article on another website but does that make the first a reliable source for the claim? I know the second is fine (that's the source I'd use) but I'm not sure if the first is OK to use.

Finally, can a forum post be a reliable source? The editor has, for some unexplained reason, got it in his mind that two policies of this ISP are linked and were implemented at the same time and will not take my word for it that one of the policies was implemented in March 2004 and the other was implemented in November 2006. I need to convince him of the facts so the two can be separated on the article's page and the only source I can find is a post from the company CEO on the highly moderated Whirlpool forums.[8] --AussieLegend 12:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts are definitely not RS. Blogs are dubious in all cases - and in this case, there is undue weight being given to it. PR^talk 10:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

antiwar.com

Is antiwar.com a reliable source for the purposes of ascertaining antiwar opinions and criticism of groups/people from an antiwar perspective which could be considered "hawks?" I ask because a dispute exists at Foundation for Defense of Democracies over the use of antiwar.com criticisms of the group in question, even if clearly labeled as from antiwar.com. Ngchen 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no it isn't a reliable source for any article, except its own. To give an example, L. Ron Hubbard once claimed that human bodies stopped gamma rays better than concrete. This is obviously not the case, so using his book as a reference in the gamma ray article would be improper. However using it to discuss claims of false knowledge in the L. Ron Hubbard article would be acceptable. Anynobody 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the articles: "Antiwar.com has repeatedly accused the organization of being a front for the Israeli-lobby. [9] Also, antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has accused it of being in favor of "permanent war" and of being hypocritical with regard to supporting democracy with regard to Uzbekistan. [10]" is badly written, but along the right lines. The writings (or at least the name) of Justin Raimondo must be known to millions. Unless he's credibly accused of falsification (or even if he's known for it!), his claims (with anti-war used as a reference) deserve mention. Nobody's going to misled into thinking the FDD is discredited thereby, but the link takes people to a relatively prominent critic of the FDD, and enables readers to get a broader view.

And there's another point - it's important there be some link to critics (either anti-war or other), since some people will see a statement by the FDD and wish to challenge it - one of the important purposes of articles is to enable readers to find criticism and potentially add to them. PR^talk 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources (again)

I apologize, because I'm sure this has been asked before, but isn't there a policy that says foreign language news stories cannot be considered reliable on the English wiki? I found an article which references a sensational news story, but all the links are in Dutch. Can I delete these references and request a citation? What is considered appropriate in this case? It's probable that that the news story was not covered by the English language press.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RSUE - official translations are preferred to editors performing their own translations of foreign language sources, but where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source: "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." So no you can't delete and request a citation. A foreign language newspaper is a reliable source if it meets the usual criteria for WP:RS. The article need to be checked for the accuracy of the translation though--Cailil ^talk 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But how can the average English-speaking user hope to verify the "accuracy of the translation?" If no translator is available to give his/her thumbs up (and how would this approval not be original research?), do we just let the reference stand? Seems unwise.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a big problem. Policy clearly intends that there be translations available, and it continues with a caution against translations provided by involved parties. But on some topics, we find references (sometimes from hate-sites) inserted by edit-warring editors with no translation whatsoever provided. This situation encourages Bad scholarship to drive out Good.

However, in this case, this is a major European language, in the Latin alphabet, and I can understand it well enough to confirm at least some details. Furthermore, the story may be "surprising" but it's not "surprising" if you know what I mean! Find "Babel-Fish" and get an automatic translation if you're still not sure. PR^talk 09:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? There are many speakers of non-English languages, you can use Babel templates or regional noticeboards and ask for verification that way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article names two individuals as responsible for the crime. Thus it falls under WP:BLP, which I think demands better sourcing than what we have so far. Since the court inquiries in the Netherlands have only just started, I think a tamer version of this report would be a good choice until reliable sources are obtained that all of us can understand. EdJohnston 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Can a quote from an editoral-like article in Counselor Magazine be used as a citation like this?

In the Alcoholics Anonymous article as a criticism that AA offers No Model of a recovered Person this article is given as a citation for the following.

Charlotte Kasl, Phd. Addiction Counsellor ,Author and Past Member of AA asserts. ' 'A search of approved addiction literature of A.A. and Al-Anon provided me with no definition of a healthy, mature "recovered" person. One is always an addict, dependent on groups, and always at the brink of relapse if he or she doesn't follow certain directives and trust external authority.' '

This looks like an opinion expressed by the author, not a result of a quantitative study of AA and Al-Anon literature. If it was, she gives no citation or method of the research. While the article is published what seems to be a reputable magazine, there is no evidence of peer-review for this particular article. As such, what appears to be just the authors opinion isn't relevant encyclopedic content. -- Craigtalbert 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NB, Periodicals are regularly used as a reliable source, even in featured articles. 82.19.66.37 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Newspaper reports hosted by anti-subject of article site

Old newspaper reports (1985 ) are hosted by an anti subject of article site , these copies of mainly SF Chronicle papers and appear with an extreme of bias to me, these copies on the critical website then lead (by click on link) to to further derogatory comment blog and bulletin board posts all derogatory and personal opinion with no further refs , included is a court report by one plaintiff

here is an example the subject is Adi Da a not well known American spiritual teacher

here is a typical lightmind.com link the ( anti Da ) site ,which hosts the newspaper reports from 1985 click on the bottom links to see where they lead , would appreciate a non partisan opinion ( or 2 ) thanks very much

http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html --202.63.42.221 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the articles have been altered they should still be reliable. The SF Chronicle is the ultimate source, not the website hosting the articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've checked a newspaper archive (ProQuest) and the version of the article there matches the version psoted at http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoid anything on a hate-site. We'd not link to David Irving or the Instituted for Historical Review, because his reputation for accuracy is poor, and he's associated himself with groups we suspect of hate. (David Irving has also been jailed for making a nuisance of himself, but few (none?) of his scholarly opponents consider that helpful). PR^talk 09:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is the SF Chronicle. We don't need the courtesy link to the "lightmind.com" in order to use the Chronicle source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org

Hi are Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org reliable sources? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Obviously biased websites reporting second hand information are not "reliable" sources unless the article is about them, and in the last case the can only be cited to provide information about the sites themselves. -- Craigtalbert 04:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Craigtalbert I understand what you mean by Antiwar.com, but what's wrong with Globalsecurity.org? Anynobody 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sites like Antiwar.com (should be) more than blogs and their dedication to accuracy may be good. Their opinions should not be used (unlike, say, an editorial in an RS). They should not be used as reference for "facts" (but then such information will be better presented elsewhere anyway). They should not be used for quotes in general but might be used to quote, eg named refugees, interviewed by named observers belonging to recognised bodies. They might be used to pass on the account of a 'real' but 'unknown' person talking about something they've experienced in a war-zone eg impressions of a refugee camp. But only if the report is rich in detail about the time spent there. PR^talk 09:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dedicdation to accuracy?" I don't think so. Antiwar.com once tried to fabricate some 9/11 conspiracy theory, where it accused Israel of making some secret deal in Hollywood, California at the corner of two streets which don't intersect with one another. ----DanTD 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

There is currently a controversy on Islam in the United States over the inclusion of information that is thought to be irrelevant by some and relevant by others. Setting aside the issue of relevance since it isn't pertinant here, there has also been a concern raised about the reliability of the sources used as references for the disputed information. I will reproduce the disputed paragraph below with its two references so that those commenting here have some context. Note: I'm not asking for help or advice about the relevancy issue since that is a content question and not a source question. Thanks.

• According to Paul Sperry, the Pentagon has also criticized Islam at least on one occasion. He writes that after a detailed project undertaken to study Islam, Quran and Hadiths, the Pentagon has concluded that "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise where 'beautiful mansions' and 'maidens' await him." It also describes 'Zakat' the Muslim charity as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." The paper also says that the actions of Prophet Muhammed could be considered quite radical by today's standards.[11] [12].

While the main issue on the talk page has been relevance I was hoping to get some help on the secondary issue of reliability, either in this particular case or more broadly for those two media outlets. Are FrontPage Magazine and/or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for news in this context? In general? How are these media outlets classified? What are they comparable to? Other than the fact that some editors identify a bias in these sources and other editors deny any such bias I don't think any of us have a good understanding of the reliability issue. Any help would be great. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda. Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources. Try the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. If the Pentagon took such a position, it would be reported widely. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• ditto to what Jehochman noted. WND and FPM demonstrate very little in terms of evidence of reliability. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. If the Pentagon had made that point, it would've been widely reported. → AA ^(talk) — 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. They are both right-leaning rumor mills. Ngchen 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. --Aminz 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. Note that they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted. Arrow740 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. There was a well-documented case of them verbatim reporting from an Onion article about Harry Potter's satanic ties. --Haemo 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. --Raphael1 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. PR^talk 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what standards these magazines have for oversight and fact checking? That is to say what is known about how they operate in terms of how reliable they are? Thanks again.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue with their standing among "peers" and mostly appear to be op-ed pieces.--Tigeroo 16:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion with the one on Counterpunch above. Beit Or 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

persecution of pagans

not so much a matter of WP:RS but WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTE . After a long and hairy dispute, Persecution of Heathens is now a disambiguation page. Concerning Religious discrimination against Neopagans, a rather short article in spite of detailed treatment of individual cases along the lines of "In 2007, a teacher at Shawlands Academy in Glasgow was denied time off with pay to attend Druid rites (Pentacle Magazine: I Want Pagan Holidays)". This article has three sub-articles, one at Religious discrimination against Asatru, another at Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and a third at Discrimination against Hellenic neopaganism. In my opinion, this is compeltely unwarranted: these are religious minorities of the order of 0.2% where they are most numerous, and while they do face discrimination, they are not singled out according to their specific denomination. To me, this smells of lobbyist activism, not encyclopedic coverage. In this, I am in deadlock with Liftarn (talk · contribs), who maintains that each pagan denomination and sub-denomination should get its own "discrimination" article. Third party input is welcome at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Different religions - different articles. It's as simple as that. // Liftarn

WP:NOTE would demand that each is established as an independent topic. We don't split Racial segregation in the United States into one article per race, do we? --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't merge antisemitism and islamophobia do we? // Liftarn

exactly. That's why I am posting this here for review per WP:NOTE: Does discrimination of Wiccans vs. Asatruers refer to separate phenomena in the same sense as Anti-Semitism vs. Islamophibia refers to separate phenomena? 3rd opinions are welcome. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You can propose merging the articles, or nominate one or more of them for deletion on the grounds that they are redundant. I take no position on the correct outcome because I haven't looked at the situation carefully, but that's the process you could follow. Make sure you have a good faith basis to propose those changes, and follow whatever consensus develops. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that nobody but Liftarn and me can be bothered to look into it, and our opinions of mergism are pretty much opposite. I don't know where else to shop for attention, so if nobody can be bothered to even look at this, I guess I'll just accept that this is irrelevant and stop worrying about it. I do not nominate them for deletion because I do not think they should be deleted, just merged. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All three articles (Religious discrimination against Asatru, Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and Discrimination against Hellenic neopaganism) are head-lined the same "Religious discrimination against Neopagans" and appear (at a quick glance) to be identical. I'd say they were clearly unloved and ask for an AfD. PR^talk 08:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

US army regulations as verifiable sources for how army is supposed to act

Is there any reason why the AR series of goverment publications would be rejected by Wikipedia editors as verifiable sources on reasons why the US Army acts or does not act?

The question relates to the naming of units in describing those units to non-military organizations that are not in a unit's chain of command. Upholding the history and traditions of regiments within the US Army force structure is covered by AR 600-82 (other sources appear to derive their rationale on this public domain publication). AR 220-1 describes status reporting of subordinate commands to higher levels, also citing AR 220-5 which provides that within the Army's reporting channels, the word "regiment" is an assumed part of the name of a regiment and is not used in an official designation, but on websites such as www.army.mil available for non-military users (such as Wikipedia editors), the usage is generally to name regiments with the word "Regiment" appended. This practice also extends to printed material made available for public consumption by regiments and not intended for use within the Army itself; it appears to be the practice used in our United States Army article as well.

The issue relates to an accepted matter for mediation. I am concerned that because of any connection I may have to the US Army, I may find myself banned by the government from remaining as an editor, should there be a result of Wikipedia mediation that disparages the use of active unit's oral traditions in favor of an interpretation of Wikipedia's full compliance with policies approved of by Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Foundation. It has come to my attention that at least one other popular website is now off-limits for use by persons connected to the US Army. My concerns extend to how the mediation results may be interpreted by Internet users in general in their determination of the Wikipedia as a reliable source of usable information. Hotfeba 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I understand your question. FWIW we have an article on Army Regulation 190-8.

IMO Army Regulations are reliable sources for whatever policies or procedures they lay out.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of maps

Would you call the following two maps reliable: Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920 claims names.png; Image:Border-Lithuania-Poland-1919-1939.svg? The first one cites some, but not all sources. The second one cites no sources, and a possible error has been raised on its discussion page. But both are also broadly correct, and helpful in related articles. Are they reliable or unreliable? Should they stay or be removed?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Need 2nd opinion about reliable sources for definition of the Nobel Prizes

I am at a complete standstill with another editor in the Nobel Prize article regarding reliable sources about whether or not the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize. Could someone please help and give feedback to this discussion? While I believe this is a topic that has a lot of misinformation on the web, it would be helpful if someone else could review this case. You may find it helpful to also read the intro to the Nobel Prize in Economics article. Some definitions of a Nobel Prize are included in the discussion, copied from the Nobel Foundation, another from M-W (listed in a different debate that includes the same editor), etc. There are also references to derived definitions listed in the discussion as well as definitions made up by individual editors. Clearly not all definitions can be correct as they contradict each other. –panda 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you prove something is a reliable source?

WP:RS states a reliable source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but how do you prove this? Obviously the major news sources, like NPR, BBC, NYTimes and others are reliable, but would Canadian Content and Policy Review be considered reliable sources? Also, WikiNews is not considered to be a reliable source, is it? Thanks —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Content's "About" page says "An overview of CCIM - Canadian Content is a unique company bringing forth news, entertainment, and knowledge right to your home computer or anywhere in the world you might be. Canadian Content's staff is a highly qualified group of individuals with more than 25 years combined experience in website design and editorial research. We pride ourselves on being Canada's first and foremost website to bring forth controversial topics as well as everything that matters most to Canadians." Avoid using it for anything "surprising", except in cases where it is quoting non-partisan individuals of some standing in society. PR^talk 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion columns?

The New York Times is a reliable source, but what about Times opinion column in a BLP (rather a BLC: biography of a living corporation)? I don't think fact checking or editorial oversight apply in those cases and thus I feel uneasy about relying on them as sources. If what they say is accurate, I think it should be easy to find something other than a columnist saying it, in my opinion. My concern is based on what I see at Overstock.com if someone would please take a look and weigh in.--Wally Ball 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a factual claim made in an opinion column in the New York Times should be usable as a reference. It seems that bsalert.com was removed as a source, which is highly justifiable. But note that there seem to be many other sources with basically the same informatioin. The 'Sith Lord' remark now comes from several places, including the Wall Street Journal (found by googling for overstock.com and 'sith lord'). Apparently Patrick Byrne talked about the Sith Lord during a conference call with financial analysts that was being *recorded*! Truth is stranger than fiction. EdJohnston 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting a birthday with conflicting sources

Resolved

What is Wikipedia's policy regarding reporting someone's birthday when there is conflicting information about it. I'm thinking specifically of an actor where there has been at least 2 or 3 different birth dates and/or birth years reported in IMDB, on fan sites, and elsewhere. Should the birthday not be reported or should the one that the majority of sites list be used? It's verifiable, even if it may conflict with info from other sites, and it doesn't seen any particular source is more reliable than another in this case. (IMDB has changed this actor's birth date a few times.) This actor hasn't been in an interview that I know of where they've revealed their birth date and they have no official website. –panda 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither fan sites or IMDB are generally considered reliable sources. You should go with the most "official" or reliable date reported. --Haemo 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So if all of the sources are IMDB, fan sites, or gossip magazines, would it be best to just not include the birth day/year until a reliable source comes along? I'm not sure what would be considered a reliable source in this case. Would the actor's best friend's website be a reliable source? You would expect that their best friend would have the correct information. –panda 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Teach the controversy: describe in the text of the article the conflicting date information from all sufficiently reliable sources. —David Eppstein 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! –panda 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Think Tanks as A Source

Is there a general policy as to whether or not think tanks should be referenced as sources? I ask because of the following [13] being sourced on the LYNX Rapid Transit Services article. In my opinion it should not be used as it is from a conservative think tank, and I feel the same standard should apply to liberal think tanks. Thoughts? Patriarca12 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, think tanks can be a valid source. But you are correct in that they can easily exhibit bias. As such, I think the best way to deal with it would be to write "The Liberl/conservative think tank X has claimed Y." This way, the information is put out, while the reader is aware of any possible bias. IMO, the same guideline can be used for reputable, yet biased sources such as political magazines and such (e.g. Salon.com, The American Conservative, National Review, etc.) Ngchen 16:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, think tanks are acceptable as POV commentary sources, as in, "According to the X Foundation, this argument is specious because blah blah". There is a definite variance in quality of "think tanks", though; the RAND Corporation is an eminently reliable source on many questions, while this "John Locke Foundation" appears to be little more than a pen name / 501c3 cover for a few conservertarian ax-grinders. Barring some evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't think that their POV is worthy of inclusion at all. If, let's say, a couple of newspaper editorials, or an opposition politician, have made similar statements than cite them, not this little website. <eleland/talkedits> 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that finding reliable sources that comment on a think tank's importance is the best way to determine its quotability in Wikipedia. One way to get an index of which ones are significant would be to find a survey (like the one at [14]) to see which ones are the most quoted in the press. This particular list only went down to #25, and the John Locke Foundation was not in the top 25. I also noticed that many of the top 25 have their own WP articles, but often with no reliable sources commenting on them at all! Clearly there is room to improve. As for the John Locke Foundation, my studies didn't confirm one way or another whether it's a significant organization. If you had access to Nexis, you could look up how often it is quoted in the press. EdJohnston 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In many instances think-tanks fall afoul of the self-publishing and reputation for rigorous fact checking criteria. If they do research that is published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals or is reported widely in mainstream media, then their work meets Wikipedia standards. If not, then Wikipedia is not the forum to establish their position. The same criteria should apply to links to think-tank papers. The existing criteria suffices to sort the influential from the crackpots Lettering 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that different think tanks have different levels of credibility. Some are essentially crackpot organizations, while others are quite respected. The respectable ones, which you note tend to get referred to in the media (even if it's not on the topic in question), are quotable as reliable sources.Ngchen 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Asma Barlas

There is a dispute re the reliability of Asma Barlas's book titled "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an (University of Texas Press, 2002). User:Arrow740 argues that "Barlas has no qualifications as a historian." [15]. This issue was discussed in details without reaching any consensus. Below, I provide the arguments made for reliability of this work:

This book was published by University of Texas press and has received the following reviews:

1.David Robinson in Muslim Societies in African History (Cambridge University Press) says: "For the role of women, start with Asma Barlas' Believing Women in Islam:..."

2.John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."

3.Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin reviewed the book saying: "The book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society. However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."

4. Paul Allen Williams, a professor of Philosophy and Religion in his review of this book says: "Barlas brings a mastery of both Muslim and Western scholarship to her subject, and the clarity and incisiveness of her arguments are a wonderful lesson in creative and principled debate about fundamental issues in Islam." _{Added from my comment at 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)}

Asma Barlas has contributed to several scholarly works like Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an (Cambridge University Press, 2006). She was named to the prestigious Spinoza Chair at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam".

Here is the relevant page from her book [16]. --Aminz 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any dispute, there's been no discussion whatever in Talk at this article. The last edit was 6th July! PR^talk 08:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is on Aisha talk page. Also here [17] --Aminz 08:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is brazen forum-shopping. Read the discussion at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage. The key issue is that Aminz wants to use statements made by Barlas to cast doubt on statements by scholars of Islamic history about Islamic history, when Barlas has no qualifications as a historian of Islam. She is qualified in her field, but that field is not the field in question. Arrow740 08:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

She is a of course a scholar of Islam. In any case, you seem to claim that Barlas is lying when she says:"on the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate Ayesha's age based on details of ..."[18].

This is not the case because the reviewers of such publishing presses usually catch factual mistakes. Different authors may have different opinions in their interpretation of facts but not in reporting them. --Aminz 09:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If any one takes an interest in this, I highly encourage them to read the thorough discussion of Barlas' lack of qualifications at the old talk page. The vague "Muslims who calculate" is also explicated. These "calculations" are meant to contradict Western scholars, mainsteam Muslim opinion, and explicit statements of history in Islamic holy texts. Arrow740 09:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To say that Barlas "has no qualifications as a historian" does not make any sense. Aside from what I said, Paul Allen Williams, a professor of Philosophy and Religion in his review of this book says: Barlas brings a mastery of both Muslim and Western scholarship to her subject, and the clarity and incisiveness of her arguments are a wonderful lesson in creative and principled debate about fundamental issues in Islam.--Aminz 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

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

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

The fact that Barlas has written books on Islamic history published by reputable university presses like the Cambridge University Press and University of Texas Press, and that her work has received mainly positive reviews from historians of Islam, obviously means that her book is a reliable source on Islamic history. Despite all of this evidence, several users (including User:Arrow740 as mentioned above) at Talk:Aisha and Talk:Aisha's age at marriage removed Barlas' book from those articles based on personal opinions (like the example above) despite the fact that they themselves failed to cite any evidence to support their arguments at all. - Jagged 85 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a wikipolicy based objection here? Her work appears to meet the threshold for verifiability and reliability. I've looked at the talk page referred and the objections there focus on her academic degrees. Professionally she appears involved with as well writes regularly for peer-reviewed publications and teaching Islam. Do we have any evaluations of her from her peers that raise issue? --Tigeroo 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing I have issue with here... there are no Wiki-policy based objections against her, nor are there any negative reviews against her from other scholars. The only reason it was removed is because several editors either ignored or disagreed with the scholarly reviews cited above, and they instead preferred to make up their own personal objections against her, mainly based on her being a feminist or lacking a degree in history, which is pretty irrelevant when real historians of Islam have already given her book strong positive reviews. They decided to remove any reference to her work from the article simply because they felt she is unqualified without ever citing any scholarly reviews to support their point of view, which I would consider to be both original research and a suppression of information. I'm not sure whether these users are acting in good faith or pushing for an agenda, but either way, the reasons they've given for removing any reference to her work from the Aisha (and previously Aisha's age at marriage) article are simply unacceptable. - Jagged 85 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which "real historians of Islam" would those be? Her lack of qualifications is a simple fact, and it shows in her writing. Her feminist political theories might be "groundbreaking" but her mention of "some Muslim calculations" cannot be taken seriously, for all the reasons presented during the extensive discussion we had about this months ago. Arrow740 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John Esposito is the editor of The Oxford History of Islam. David Robinson has written books on the history of Muslim societies published by the Cambridge University Press. Kirsten V. Walles works at the Department of History at the University of Texas. Paul Allen Williams has a PhD in the History of Religions. These reviewers are all historians, and some of them are specifically historians of Islam. Why haven't any of these historians picked up on these so-called errors that you claim "cannot be taken seriously"? We have plenty of authority from a variety of scholars to conclude that Asma Barlas is a reliable source for Islamic history. We already know about your original resarch on her, but on who's authority do you make the claim that she is not a reliable source for Islamic history? All the reasons presented by you and others against Barlas at both Talk:Aisha and Talk:Aisha's age at marriage are extremely faulty, because of the simple fact that you would rather rely on your own original research instead of published verifiable scholarly authorities. Such an approach is simply unencyclopedic and a breach of Wikipedia's policies. - Jagged 85 02:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are unfamiliar with arguing for the reliability of sources. The guidelines you are bolding refer to material presented in an article, not an argument about reliability. Hopefully that clears it up for you. About Barlas' book, it is not a book about history, but about a feminist re-interpretation of the Qur'an. The statements you have assembled cannot be construed as a blanket endorsement of all sentences in the book. Arrow740 03:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said that the book is not reliable for Islamic history? Again, that's you saying it. No one has yet presented a single historian or Islamic scholar who endorses this view. Just because a book does not primarily deal with history, that does not equate to historical statements in the book being false. Furthermore, Barlas is an Islamic scholar, and knowledge of early Islamic historical sources is a requirement for every Islamic scholar. If there was anything historically inaccurate, then the university press publishers (who have a reputation for fact-checking) and the peer-reviewers (whose job it is to scrutinize published material) would have picked up on it, and yet not even one of them said there are any historical inaccuracies in the book. Your arguments are based on personal reasoning and original interpretations rather than any scholarly authority, that's the problem. Jagged 85 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By your reasoning, you must find a (justifiably) reliable source explicitly stating that she is a reliable source for early Islamic history. Arrow740 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we already been through this several months ago? Beit Or 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Using edit warring to force something to an article can not settle an issue. --Aminz 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this dispute, nor with one that happened "several months ago". But the fact that a source is published by University of Texas Press makes it reliable. WP:RS states (emphasis added)

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Since, "University of Texas Press" is a "university press", the book is a reliable source.Bless sins 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is saying the opposite. It says that usually if something is an RS it is published by respectable publishers. It does not say that if it is published by a respectable publisher then it is automatically an RS. Arrow740 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So, which verified RS is arguing that she is not a reliable source? It can't just be editors here since that would be original research. → AA ^(talk) — 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia editing guidelines. Arrow740 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for RS is peer-reviewed publications. She appears to be definitely printed in them on the said topic. There appears to be no policy based or non-OR evaluation of her work upon which to disinclude her works. Plenty appear to have been provided making a case for inclusion but none against beyond some editors opinion or characterization of her work.--Tigeroo 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arrow740:

The historian Kirsten V. Walles, from the Department of History at the University of Texas, praised Asma Barlas' ability as a historian of Islam in her peer-review of Barlas' book:

"The book "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society. However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."

"As an historian, I read this book with the intention of being able to assign this to students who have a cursory or minimal knowledge of Islam and the role of women in Muslim society..."

"Part 1 of the book analyzes the primary texts (Qur'an, Tafsir, Ahadith) and main secondary sources (the Sunnah, Shari'ah, and the state) utilized by Muslims. Barlas delves into the historical foundations of these sources and analyzes the methodologies, which led to the transformation of these texts such that they conformed to the cultures of the time..."

"...The only question that is left to answer is, if we are to reread to obtain knowledge and to truly understand history, then who determines what is truth?"

Paul Allen Williams, who has a PhD in the History of Religions, also praised Barlas' ability as a historian of Islam in his peer-review of her work:

"In fact, she is able to bring the riches of literary criticism, feminist thought, scriptural studies, Islamic history, and the Qur’an itself into a coherent, if densely argued, text."

Unless you can find any peer-reviews that explictly criticize Barlas' ability as an Islamic historian, then there is no doubt in my mind that all of this evidence from scholarly peer-reviews clearly point to Asma Barlas indeed being a reliable source for the early history of Islam.

Jagged 85 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

About Barlas' book, it is not a book about history, but about a feminist re-interpretation of the Qur'an. The statements you have assembled cannot be construed as a blanket endorsement of all sentences in the book. The book is about "argument" and "methods" of interpretation, not history. Books written by the actual, mainstream, prominent historians of Islam are what we have included. Attempts by apologists unqualified in this specific area to muddy the waters should not be included; that is irresponsible. Arrow740 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying she is not a RS for the topic at hand. Can you cite a source that backs up what you are saying? She appears to be accepted by her peers with a distinguished career in the field, and that really is the treshold of her competence/ reliability.--Tigeroo 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The book is about the history of women in Islam, and that is what she has been praised for, therefore she is qualified in that specific area of Islamic history. On the contrary, it is irresponsible to rely on one's own interpretions instead of the interpretations of historians. Jagged 85 23:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a reliable source, published by a legitimate scholar in a respected university press, and praised by some of the biggest names in the field. Much of the book is explicitly historical; you can't write about the history of Islamic exegesis without dealing with historical source-criticism. It's ludicrous to claim that the book does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Llajwa 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Smells like a sock of banned User:His excellency. Arrow740 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, what is your problem? Why are you so angry? Of course I'm not a sock puppet. You can see from my contributions that I have started editing pages recently but have added constructively to a lot different ones, based on my interests (which I doubt are the same of that banned user), or else reverting minor vandalism. This is my first comment on any debate about Islam, although I'm interested in it. Please assume good faith. Llajwa 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is dying down, but I'll put in my two cents since I was asked to. I don't object to using Barlas as a source. However, there is an obvious dearth of historians who believe what she believes about Aisha. I think it's just not a prominent enough minority view to be included, even if Barlas herself is reliable in her field. The majority opinion isn't just the product of Western historians, secularists, or anti-Muslims, it's found in Bukhari and al-Tabari.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Barlas isn't really taking sides, but is giving an overview of the debate. Since she is the only reliable source giving an overview of the debate and has clearly presented the minority view as a significant-minority view among Islamic scholars, it would be original research for us to assume otherwise. As a significant-minority view, it should be included in the article, as long as it is clearly described as a minority view and given less attention than the majority view. Jagged 85 00:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks for your input. You are advancing a theory. Can you please let us know the "falsification test" of your theory. Maybe this discussion helps us to even improve the relevant policy page. Thanks --Aminz 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if Barlas is not taking a side herself, but only reporting on the debate, why not use whoever it is she is referring to as the source? Unless, of course, they are not reliable. It seems to me that if there were a real prominent historian who believed Aisha was older than 9, it ought to be reported. If they're reliable, they shouldn't be hard to find. But the fact that we're arguing so fiercely over this disputed source, indicates that there probably aren't any. If we were to report on people who believe Aisha was older, it should not be given undue weight in the section with the real historians who go by Tabari and Bukhari, etc. It should be covered in a section on the controversy, which would obviously also include material on those who use Aisha's age to criticize Muhammad.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of religious scholars in the article who support the idea of Aisha being older than nine, but these sources were previously removed on the grounds of being "religious partisian" sources, which I strongly disagree with especially when it comes to religious figures. I really don't see why a secular historian should be considered anymore reliable than a religious scholar when it comes to interpreting religous sources from their own religion. The Tabari and Bukhari themselves do contain a few contradictions regarding Aisha, hence why there is a debate over this issue among Islamic scholars in the first place, and some relgious scholars also refer to the Sira to support their point of view. In other words, there is at least some evidence for Aisha being older than nine, so it's not like their claims are completely baseless. However, it seems this debate could go on for a long time, so I've thought of a different suggestion that may hopefully resolve the issue at least for the mean time: to leave the Aisha article as it is but to simply have the section regarding her age pointing to the Criticism of Muhammad article for further details. Any comments? Jagged 85 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali was a religious figure, not a trained historian, and certainly not a reliable source for Aisha being older than 9 (why listen to him, and not, say, Jerry Vines or Jerry Falwell). I recall that the rest of the sources weren't much better. If any Muslim scholars, who are considered reliable, make the claim that Aisha was older than 9, then they should be included. But I haven't seen that presented here yet. As for your solution, it would be better to discuss it on the articles' pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I checked with the reference section of Barlas book but she has not mentioned the sources she has used. So, it remains unclear who she have had in mind.

Cuchullain, the earliest biographies of Aisha were written around one and a half century after her. Furthermore, she was the daughter of Abu bakr, the first Caliph (the start of Shia-Sunni split). The marriage of Aisha with Abu Bakr was supposed to strengthen the political ties between Muhammad and Abu bakr. She was an important figure in Shia/Sunni polemics. The early biographers never claimed of passing the true account, just passing on the what they've received orally. And as those Muslims point out there are inconsistencies among the records those biographers themselves have passed to us. If one agrees with one of them, he/she has to reject another one (or justify it with much difficulty). One has to reject one of those accounts passed by Tabari anyways. Which one is only a matter of choice.

I remain unconvinced that I have to prove that Barlas is correct to make her usable. I don't think this is the common practice in wikipedia. Having said that I agree with you that "If they're reliable, they shouldn't be hard to find". Please let me know why "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" is an unreliable source [19]? And why Understanding-islam.com a website belonging to Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research is unreliable? --Aminz 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we seem to have strayed onto the content issue, I assume RS has been established? For a discussion of Mohammad Ali I suggest we open a new thread if it is an issue. Just a reminder, the treshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability of a claim by a RS. Notability goes hand in hand with undue weight, Wikipedia presumes all scholars carry their own set of biases and that truth can be subjective, especially when dealing with topics such as history. Ideally I suggest the characterization of content debate be taken back to the talk page and debate here be restricted to questions of the principle of the Author being an RS.--Tigeroo 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, we should stick to the RS matter. But obviously various editors still object to using Barlas on this, for the reasons given. I don't, necessarily, my problem has always been with using it to promote this minority claim. This is, however, a content issue, not a reliability issue. Barlas' book is used elsewhere in the Aisha article, with no object from me. Others have named their objections here and elsewhere, I assume they still stand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I opened this because of Arrow's view "Barlas has no qualifications as a historian". There is also an active discussion re Cuchullain's concern above. --Aminz 10:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you'd really only have to prove it if someone disputes it, which several editors here have. Additionally, this subject is very touchy, and needs the best possible sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to prove it. Would you please take a look at my comment at 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Thanks in advance. --Aminz 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cuchullain: Islamic scholars (including Muhammad Ali) are trained in early Islamic history and traditional Islamic sources like the Quran, Hadith, Sira, etc. Muhammad Ali was also the editor of an Islamic journal, so I don't see why he should be considered unreliable on the grounds of being a "religious partisan" source. The other Islamic scholars that were previously removed are also qualified in interpreting early Islamic history but were removed simply because several editors interpreted them as religious partisan sources. Jagged 85 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferishta , Shahnama , Chachnama , Ibnbatuta , Al beruni

Each of these books has been used extensively on wikipedia articles relating to the South Asian Subcontinent. There must be one standard on wikipedia weather these are acceptable as secondary and tertiary sources or not acceptable at all. The ensuing rule must be applicable on all articles in wikipedia thereafter . How is this going to be achieved? or is there already a wikipedia ruling on this .
Cheers
Intothefire 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is part of WP:NOR. Since the listed are primary sources either as ancient historians or historical works they are covered by WP:PSTS. Generally for interpreting, evaluating history secondary, tertiary sources should be the ones used because they are based on the consideration of multiple primary sources in concert.--Tigeroo 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that in order to reduce conflict on articles relating to the history of the subcontinent a page is created listing books and sources categorized into Primary , Secondary and tertiary sources . We can draw in more contributors and build a larger consensus .This could then be developed into the guiding principle for citations on articles ? Tigeroo whats your take on that since you are a great one for citing rules ??

Cheers
Intothefire 02:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The sheer number of books would make that a massive project and one that could never be comprehensive. Secondly why duplicate the work that has already been done, how would this be different from the existing policy pages?--Tigeroo 13:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RationalWiki on Conservapedia

Specifically 1 (also see Talk:Conservapedia). Some users on the Talk page propose that RationalWiki be considered a reliable source on this subject, others disagree. Since this is (apparently) a contentious and politicised issue, I thought I'd see what a wider sampling of editors thought.

Please note that we want to know if RationalWiki is a reliable source for this subject, not whether they're right to criticise Conservapedia or not. I shouldn't have to point this out, but some people get very excited about certain topics. ;-) I'm also not seeking opinion about the general utility of RationalWiki as a reliable source, although feel free to comment on that subject if you want. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal note: I think that RationalWiki having an entire namespace dedicated to Conservapedia, and the above page for "rolling reports of the strange, contradictory or humorous activity at Conservapedia" sounds like the sort of thing we don't want to use in our encyclopaedia. Kinda reminds me of Dirk Van de Moortel's "Immortal Fumbles" page, only with the added bonus of political tension. Far too polemical for my liking. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's contentious about this? currently we have 1 editor who wants to add it, and 9 others who say "nope - policy says it is not a reliable source". Where's the disagreement? --Fredrick day 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

By "contentious issue", I was referring to the article as a whole (it seems to attract a lot of political vandalism). I think I might've misread some of the comments on the talk as being in support of the addition, a more careful reading supports your count. Still, can't hurt if someone else wants to weigh in! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikis, by their nature, are not considered reliable sources (you have no idea of the expertise of the authors, there is no peer review or editorial oversight, an article can change dramatically from what it was when cited, etc.) So, no... RationalWiki is not a reliable source for anything except an article on RationalWiki itself. The same is true for Conservapedia ... and even Wikipedia. No Wiki should ever be used as a source except in an article about that wiki. Blueboar 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Review needed, Joe Szwaja

Hi, an IP editor has been very aggressively questioning two sentences on Joe Szwaja, a low-traffic article that I want to get 3rd party review on. They are:

• "Szwaja has been called progressive in regards to certain issues, including gentrification, police accountability, sustainability, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem."

He asserts that unless language indicating facts about the source is included, it is not valid.

And:

• Szwaja has assisted a host of community groups including the Seattle International Human Rights Coalition, as their founder; Common Ground Seattle[9], Initiative 937 to promote renewable energy in Washington state, Jobs With Justice, Community Alliance for Global Justice, and the Seattle Rainforest Action Network.

He insists that each single community group here must be sourced, and that this questionnaire for the candidate is not a valid source. As it's a primary source for simple facts that aren't negative, I think it is fine. Could you please weigh in on these? The discussions are pretty circular to non-existent. • Lawrence Cohen 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "has been called" is vague and should be replaced by the name of the person doing the calling and then cited to a primary source. If a reliable news source has made this statement, you can replace "has been called" with "is". You can cite any official statement made by the subject, as long as you make clear that this is what he is saying about himself, and that the statement isn't coming from an independent source. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I've adjusted the latter statement about his participation to reflect he stated about half of them. About the other, Progressive bit, the IP editor changed the sentence to read,

"In a recent editorial, the anti-authoritarian alternative publication Eat the State called Joe progressive in regards to certain issues, including gentrification, police accountability, sustainability, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem.[5]"

Which reads as unduly harsh and negative in tone to my eyes, and excessive qualification. Would it be best to simply say, "Alternative publication Eat The State," rather than pre-qualify what sort of publication they are? • Lawrence Cohen 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are editorializing, I would delete the whole thing. You can use a source like that to get a direct quote from the subject, but their editorial is meaningless. I wouldn't use an editorial as a source, even from a much higher profile or mainstream publication. We don't really care what each and every publication thinks. We're here to report the facts. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed the passage sourced to the editorial. • Lawrence Cohen 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the other statement, "Szwaja says that" might be helpful to indicate that it's a primary source. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I've adjusted it for that. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lawrence, for taking this to a third party. I wasn't trying to be unfair to Mr. Szwaja, but like I explained before it's my understanding that editorials (which the "Eat the State" piece was) are not relevant for backing up statements like the one that was in dispute. Thanks for removing the contested parts of the page. Much appreciated. And thanks to Jehochman for helping to clarify. 75.92.166.214 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman as a source on Palestinian-Israeli topics

Hello,

There's quite a discussion raging on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus regarding the use of different sources on the main topic, namely the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I don't want to get too involved in the broader discussion, since it is getting quite ridiculous and my question here pertains to one single author, Joseph Schechtman, who is also at the source of an edit war on said article.

Here's the problem: Schechtman is considered by many to be a historian (he is quoted excessively in the anti-Palestinian crowd), and therefore, according to his proponents on Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, merits inclusion. Schechtman, however, has been outed as a fraud by the Author Erskine Childers (UN), much in the same way Joan Peters (who, interestingly enough, quotes Schechtman excessively) was unmasked by Norman Finkelstein. This was later acknowledged by the historian Stephen Glazer and not refuted since.

So the question is, can a historian be considered a reliable source even after he/she has been outed as a fraud?

Cheers and thanks, Pedro Gonnet 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'can a historian be considered a reliable source even after he/she has been outed as a fraud?'

No. But the case of Schechtman is ambiguous. He cannot be cited as a source to consolidate POVs which have been effectively disproven (Childers 1961), but his book can be used for other documents, as indeed Benny Morris uses it, sparsely in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004) p.43 and n.11 p.61, to document Schechtman's analogy, within Zionist circles, justifying population transfer along the lines of the Muslim-Hindu transfer in 1947-8. Nishidani 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved editor - I became deeply suspicious of Schechtman as soon as I saw a statement from his book The Arab Refugee Problem in which he (apparently) says: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." That's a statement likely more unpleasant than anything David Irving ever said (or that we know he's said). It's also false, very clearly. On both counts, that should render him a totally unreliable source (except for "opinions of groups" that he was a member of, obviously). PR^talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, that kind of material should not be quoted from Schechtman, since it is nonsense, and useless for an encyclopedia, being patently untrue (it fails to explain how Jews survived the diaspora in Arab countries etc), and is purely a piece of agitprop. Whoever uses that kind of prejudicial material is clearly not interested in writing quality articles, but in playing with the politics of disinformatsia.Nishidani 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek and Spartan pederasty from self-published primaries

Spartan pederasty and Pederasty in ancient Greece suffer from literal interpretation of historical primary, self-published sources which are known to be unreliable. For example, Claudius Aelianus's Varia Historia is used to claim that pederasty was legally mandated in ancient Sparta, but that work is "not perfectly trustworthy in details," and Aelianus's "agenda is always to inculcate culturally 'correct' Stoic opinions, perhaps so that his readers will not feel guilty."

I am tempted to tag all of the statements supported by primary historical source references with {{Verify credibility}} and remove those such as Var. Hist. which are known to be inaccurate. However, I have recently been in heated debates about this subject, so it would be best if someone else took a fresh look at the problem. 1of3 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook

Is CIA - The World Factbook a reliable source? On their web-site they say that they use the list of most reliable sources for their info, but they do not publish them because of the "Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources.", thus some argue that because CIA - The World Factbook do not publish sources it is not trustworthy, moreover in some cases editors argue that it is biased. What do you think? andreyx109 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the credibility of the Factbook questioned before. It seems to be a reliable source, so if there is a specific disagreement, it should be resolved by comparing various sources. International statistics are very complicated, due to the use of wildly differing standards from country to country. If someone is pointing out a discrepancy between the Factbook and another source, it's worth investigating and discussing. If someone is just objecting to the Factbook because they don't like it, their objection is unhelpful. <eleland/talkedits> 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation and the claim. You can source many things from the CIA factbook, such as a the land area or population of a country. For those sorts of facts, I think this source is quite reliable. If you are sourcing info about the political leanings of a government, this might not be reliable because the CIA has a bit of an axe to grind with, for instance, Cuba. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked into it a little more, and the issue appears to be Christianity in the United Arab Emirates on Christianity by country. However, the source which 88.106.77.208 used actually referred to the religions of foreign guest workers within the UAE, not to permanent residents. Given the large number of Sri Lankin, Filipino, etc workers in UAE there must be a lot of Christians there, but the vast majority of these people are residents for only a few years at a time. <eleland/talkedits> 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but if you look into the references, which i have provided you will see that it states that of all the population (foregin and citezens) 9% are Christians. (foreign only 10% Christians).

The problem with CIA fact-book is in Discussion of Christianity by country, as editor of the article is arguing that CIA is not reliable source as it does not provide any references. If you want to investigate it further please check the Discussion board. andreyx109 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you have a point there. I was misled by the "citizens" thing; apparently some 85% of the population are non-citizens (what a country!). Anyway you can work that out on the talk page, but the Factbook is a generally reliable source. Doesn't mean that other reliable sources can't be used, but it's reliable. The argument that "the CIA figure have no source" is nonsensical and confusing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"but the Factbook is a generally reliable source. Doesn't mean that other reliable sources can't be used, but it's reliable" - On what basis are you saying the CIA Factbook is a 'generally reliable source', or 'it's reliable' - Simply saying something is reliable doesn't make it reliable. The only reason I can see for stating the CIA Factbook is reliable is Appeal to Authority. Are you saying it's reliable becuase it's the CIA? Sorry but that's not good enough. The CIA factbook publishes figures which have no source for and there fore can't be trusted as reliable. The CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA. Therefore there is also the danger political bias too,especially when no sources are published. "Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources." is no excuse. There's certainly no excuse of space considerations when publishing figures on the Web. In fact if you look through the figures of religious adherency ( which is the issue here ) then in some cases there is a source, for example a census, but in most cases there is no source and there is no indication that the figures could not have been simpply a guess or made up.Vexorg 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook also has problems with not saying how they count, e.g., unemployment figures. I remember this was a problem with their numbers for Sweden in the '90s, as the Swedish government unemployment statistic was off by over 4%, which was more than could be explained by how many people were in training programs, etc. 1of3 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA-WF is considered reliable enough to cite in dissertations at major academic institutions. If you look at peer-reviewed scholarly articles you will see it cited. That seems good enough for me, at least for these purposes. Epthorn 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the CIA says that the CIA "...sometimes engages in propaganda...". If that is true, how can Wikipedia editors know which of their publications meet the standards of WP:V and which do not? SaltyBoatr 16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Hello all, I would like to request your august input on the reliability of the following sources: http://www.fathermag.com and http://mensnewsdaily.com for WP articles. On the Fathers' rights movement talkpage, and in particular [20] we have one editor Rogerfgay who appears to be able to post his own articles (in response to requests for sourcing, see above on the talkpage) to mensnewsdaily.com. There is also another editor who is requesting input about an article written by Rogerfgay and cited to http://www.fathermag.com. Input on the acceptability of articles on these websites (including comments on editorial oversight etc) would wonderful before I respond anymore to any of this.--Slp1 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I am in the questioning mood and while you are at it, how about Glennsacks, the website of a prominent father's rights activist? The particular article in question [21] is being used as a source as for the claims of opponents of the fathers' rights movement, (NOW) [22] which seems to be in contradiction of "it does not involve claims about third parties;" though the article has also apparently been published by the the Houston Chronicle, so that may well make it a Reliable Source. Thoughts, please.--Slp1 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew this question of reliability and these sorts of websites reminded me of something in the past. Please see [23] for a related discussion (though it isn't too easy to follow, I find!) Slp1 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Dave. He has had problems accurately estimating the level of specialized knowledge that others have on the issues he is concerned with compared to his own. He sometimes does not consider the real effects of decades of propaganda against his pov. If one assumes that everyone else understands what he understands, it is easy to understand his reaction. Everyone else must be acting intentionally as part of the conspiracy. I do wonder myself to what extent some Wikipedia articles are intentionally misleading. But one can about as easily pick out the propaganda campaign as the source of "common knowledge" that leads some well-intentioned editors to present what seems to be the "accepted" view. Rogerfgay 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I add these notes for your consideration concerning the decisions about reliability. Although the discussion of the David Usher case may be interesting, it may not be related to the requests concerning the reliability of material from Rogerfgay. Mr. Usher was indefinitely banned for making a legal threat against Wikipedia. Other editors offered kind advice to Mr. Usher, and suggested that he was an inexperienced editor. In contrast, Rogerfgay has stated that he has done the hard work of learning to be a Wikipedia editor. As an additional piece of information, Mr. Gay stated that for reasons undisclosed, he would not edit the article in his particular area of expertise, which is child support. Notably, both Roger Gay and David Usher were acknowledged for their contributions to Stephen Baskerville's new book, Taken Into Custody. Stephen Baskerville is a leader in the fathers' rights movement and the President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. Michael H 34 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The link to the David Usher's user page [24] was placed, as was noted above because there is a comment on his userpage about the reliability of some similar websites, and not to compare the behaviour of Usher and Gay, which is, as Michael H points out, quite dissimilar. It would be nice to have some voices weighing about these websites, though! Pleeeease ;-) --Slp1 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A special thanks to Michael and Sip1 for fairmindedness. I have not been editing some sections of some pages related to child support because of my level of expertise and standing related to the issue. My written analysis may be appropriate as reference material, but my experience at Wikipedia says self-referencing is a good quick way to create a problem. So - this reason is not undisclosed but revealed for all the world to know. In my specialty area, I am acting in the role of expert on the discussion pages and leaving it to other editors to decide. This will not stop me however, from editing outside my speciality area, or whenever the edit does not include self-referencing, as I have mentioned on the talk pages. I would also ask that references not be generally rejected merely because some association can be made with the fathers' rights movement. I take it that fair-minded people are in favor of civil rights, and would not reject references merely because material has been written by someone else who favors civil rights. If we do that, it would mean that only material written by people who are against civil rights can be used as references at Wikipedia. Baskerville, BTW, is not only the president of ACFC (largest fathers rights organization in the world). He is a university professor who has done his research and analysis within the academic context and is well published on the subject. I don't know of anyone in the world right now who has provided the depth of policy analysis that he has on this subject. His new book is enjoying great sales for a work in policy analysis and is getting great reviews. Rogerfgay 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for finding this late, I've been very busy. Before I go further I must declare that I was very involved with Mr. Usher and his situation. I do agree with Michael H 34 and Slp1 that Roger Gay has taken a different approach and a very considered one to wikipedia, he has also complied perfectly with WP:COI. However, the issue is not the user but the sources: mensnewsdaily.com is still not a reliable source - its self-published, its partisan (now described in WP:RS's terminology as "extremist" which is I think an unhelpful term), and there seems to be no editorial oversight. (None of these issues are a reflection on Mr. Gay's work just the structure of that site.) The same can be said for www.fathermag.com.

On the matter of Glenn Sacks - I tend to consider his website okay as a primary source. That is to say, it should be used with care (ie for descriptive purposes only) because although notable it's still a self-published "opinion" piece. Again even if published in a newspaper an opinion piece is still only Glenn Sacks opinion and if used in the article it must be noted that it is an opinion held by Mr. Sacks. In this case (due to the claims about third parties) I would err on the side of caution. If Sack's points about NOW can be backed-up by another published reliable source then they should be mentioned, other wise they border on an "exceptional claim."

To address Michale H 34's point that "Roger Gay and David Usher were acknowledged for their contributions to Stephen Baskerville's new book, Taken Into Custody". I don't doubt the importance of Messrs. Gay & Usher within the ACFC, and I think it is unfortunate that so few scholarly works from this perspective are published; however publishing on pages like mensnewsdaily.com fails WP's test for reliability (see WP:RS#Scholarship) - if they have anything in a journal or other scholarly source it would be eminently acceptable as a source--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) NOTICE I have no conflict of interest. Rogerfgay 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MND has a mix of articles to be sure. Some of the articles are very well written and authoritative. To the extent that many of those articles are mine :) - I am maintaining a policy of limiting self-reference, as I've said above. I do however suggest (as strongly as I may) that there has been a lack of balance generally in dealing with issues that are of concern to fathers. MND exists because of the gap. It is one of the few sources that you will find on the www that can provide a significant balance. Rogerfgay 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of ACFC. My work has always been independent. My specialty work in the area of child support is not political (although I recognize the overly political nature of the issues just now and cannot avoid them completely). MND generally provides a balancing view, and some specific articles are quite authoritative. Rather than excluding all reference to MND, I think it reasonable to make exceptions. There are many articles that are written to Wikipedia standards re: the use of outside references in support of facts reported, etc., and authors who have great credibility as one thing or another. Particularly related to an article on fathers' rights, it would not make sense to exclude articles by those who provide a fathers' rights perspective. Rogerfgay 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating your ruling concerning MensNewsDaily. Does the same apply for Fathermag.Com? I am surprised about the ruling concerning Glenn Sacks's published article. As a "prominent leader" of the Fathers' Rights Movement, I suggest that Mr. Sacks speaks for more than just himself, unless he is publicly contradicted by other "prominent leaders." However, I will remove this citation. I will restore it only if the Reliable Sources board indicates that this source is acceptable or if I find an additional source. Michael H 34 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

re Fathermag.com: I think so judging by "The same can be said for www.fathermag.com." --Slp1 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that. Michael H 34 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

BLP/Categorisation/RS

The Nobel Prize for Economics has just been announced, and barely has the mike gone dead before various proud members of differing religions/ethnicities and nationalities are quarreling over whether various individuals are Jewish, Russian, Polish or American, or some suitable combination of those things and hyphens. (One of them is a fairly well-known atheist, but I don't see any atheists staking a claim here. No initiative.)

The reason I am posting here is simple: is this website a reliable source? It doesn't seem to meet any of the requirements, but I've already spent too much time on this question, and anti-semitism was implied at what must be record speed, so I'll be damned if I'm questioning it without backup. Relata refero 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say absolutely not, particularly for BLPs.--Slp1 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say, No, it is not reliable. The site gives no indication of who is behind jinfo.org. Do we know anything more about the orgainization that hosts the website? Is it a personal website? Is there any fact checking or editorial oversight? Without this info we can not call it a reliable source. This is not to say that the individuals lised are, or are not, Jewish... only that this website can not be used to support such a statement. Blueboar 14:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewishinfo is a web site that being activated by members in the Jewish community of USA (hence the .org). any way, where there is uncertainty about the Jewishness of some one-they mention it, but they dont deal with the self identification issue-only with the ethnical origin (except for special cases like those of scientists which convert to Judaism-and they mention it as well). More, if one is only Jewish by his paternal or maternal side-they make it clear. One of the main questions about JewInfo being a reliable source is: Can any body give even one example, out of at least hundreds of names in their site, when they mentioned some one who is absolutely not Jewish as a Jew? I don’t think so. However, they did mentioned several people which there is a disagreement about their Jewish origins as Jews but they are always add a note, about the sources from which they based the Jewishness of this kind of indeviduals and make it clear whether the Jewishness in this case is clear and standing on direct evidence or on indirect evidence and from those notes one can easily understand that there is disagreement about the Jewishness.--Gilisa 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally doubt that the website is a fair/reliable source for information, but that does not mean it is a reliable enough source for Wikipedia. The policies and procedures that determine reliability are in place here precisely to avoid using my subjective opinion as well as the impractical challenge (e.g. find me one that is wrong) you suggest. The issue of ethnicity vs religion is a topic for another page, and in any case the same question applies... why is religion/ethnicity an important characteristic about a person unless they choose to make it so in some way? But that too is a topic for another page. Slp1 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When is the DoD not a reliable source?

Another wikipedian has made some assertion about reliable sources that I am quite skeptical of.

Short version. The DoD has released approximately 1366 memos containinng allegations against Guantanamo captives, and 673 transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals and their annual Administrative Review Board hearings. These 2039 documents contain allegations that were leveled against the captives.

This other wikipedian asserts that reporting that the DoD has leveled these allegations against the captives is a violation of {{blp}}. He assert that these DoD documents cannot be considered reliable sources, If I understand his concerns, he believes that the allegations can't be covered in the wikipedia unless he is satisfied they are true -- even though the first line of WP:VER says it is concerned with verifiability, not truth.

This other wikipedian has even gone so far as to assert that merely referencing the DoD documents constitutes original research and a breach of WP:NPOV.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the US DoD (Department of Defense) is a reliable source with regard to the allegations leveled against the persons in question. To be fair though, the DoD has come under fire in terms of the accuracy or lack thereof regarding the allegations it has made. It has an incentive to make the allegations stick. I would suggest noting in the article something along the lines of "The United States Department of Defense has alleged that" blah blah, rather than a generic "Mr. XYZ has been accused of" blah blah or the even worse "Mr. XYZ is a" blah blah. Ngchen 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have phrased every reference to the allegations in a way similar to what you suggested. Geo Swan 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, they can't be viewed as a reliable source when they are not an independent source, and are the primary and only source. This is the core of WP:RS surely? From a personal and subjective viewpoint I'd never consider giving any government department a blanket reliability status. ---- WebHamster 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

official documents are sources for the material they contain. The DoD is a reliable source for the accusations it has issued. To what extent they are justified by the facts is of course another matter; I agree with Ngchen that clarifying the source will make this clear to any reader.

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is sometimes a matter of common sense. The situation of the captives at Guantanamo is a matter of legitimate world-wide public interest, and information about what actual accusation have been leveled against individuals there is legitimate content, and presenting it is not an example of blp. DGG (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reliability is that accusations have been made not that what has been stated is accurate/reliable. This still leaves the matter of independence. In this matter the DoD is very definitely not independent, in fact it is downright biased. This goes against everything that WP:RS stands for. Regardless of worldwide interest. These individuals have not chosen to be public figures and as such they should be accorded the rights of any private living individual with an article on WP. But this is beyond the purview of this noticeboard. The fact of the matter is that the title of the article categorically states that they are terrorists and the only source is the DoD documents which are issued by the very people making the accusations. This scenario wouldn't be countenanced in any other circumstance. Government documents can only be considered to be a reliable source when they are independent from the contents of those documents, unless reporting on themselves per some of the above statements e.g. vote results etc. ---- WebHamster 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what would you propose in the case of a bio on someone who's been accused, verifiably, by a government agency of any stripe, with reliable newspapers writing about the government charges? Ngchen 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A bio, being somewhat different from a list entry, should have secondary sources using further additional sources and not just reporting the primary source. Basically using the equivalent of peer reviewing. If there are no additional sources to use then simply don't use the accusation. Period. ---- WebHamster 10:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Your proposed standard would make it impossible de facto to include anything negative about anybody. Like it or not, if someone is charged with a crime, the person being charged legitmately makes the newspapers. For balance of course, if unusual circumstances surrounded the charging and/or the person gets acquitted, that information is to be added as well. It is unrealistic to expect multiple independent agencies to confirm every accusation against everyone. Ngchen 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Porn Stars

This one brings on many issues. But is IAFD.com a reliable source? Also, edits done by this Griffievjr "contributions" appear to lack reliable sourcing. I would like to think that a website that requires me to be 18 years or older is not a reliable source... nevertheless perhaps my logic is wrong on this one? I figured I should ask before I go proding and contesting every source this user:Griffievjr has added. Any suggestions? --CyclePat 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• IAFD is similar to IMDB in that it relies on user-contributed content. It can be considered reliable for non-controversial items such as who appears in what film. Beyond that, I wouldn't rely on it. Tabercil 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published articles on Roman historical personages

Resolved

I have a query about the validity of self-published articles on personal websites on Roman historical personages. I found and added two articles which I considered well-written as external links to an article on Scipio Africanus. These articles have now been challenged as sources or as external links, (after several months's existence within the Wikipedia article) as contrary to Wikipedia policy. After looking at several pages (not only the one cited by the editor concerned), I would agree that the articles are self-published. However, the policy does not state that self-published articles are completely unacceptable.

I was under the impression that external links were to be given for those wanting to learn more online about the subject of an article. [25]. The guide says "The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". (This article also suggests that if the online link is a source, that it be listed under that alone and not as Further Reading or External Links).

The websites I listed are well-written, cite the best-known and most well-regarded scholarly literature (even if they don't provide inline citations and footnotes for each fact). Those interested can go on to the scholarly literature, provided that they have access to good libraries. (I don't). In those aspects, they fulfill the criteria listed for "Citing sources - Further Reading"

An editor apparently feels otherwise. If online sources are not acceptable or are acceptable only in limited circumstances (as in websites of academic classical studies organizations), could this be clarified on the relevant pages? For example,

• Are personal websites run by academics on their pet topics or favorite personages reliable sources?
• What about sites such as Lacius Curtius which are works entered online by one person, or Diotima about whose authorship I know less?

Can we and should we cite them as online sources? If the author is not an academic but a person interested in that subject writing an essay based on his or her own reading, is that a valid external link? (For that matter, we do link internally to other Wikipedia articles which may have one contributor or many thousands of contributors).

If we obtain offline (printed) sources for the same facts, should we move the online sources to external links or remove them altogether? Should we integrate all information from a carefully written online website into an article without crediting said author of self-published article, and adding in the works cited as our primary sources without reading said sources? (This smacks of copyright violation to me, and it astonished me when the suggestion was made. I hope I didn't misunderstand something).

wikibiohistory 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an External Link, and a site that is used as a source to back a statement in an article. External Links are not held to the same standards of reliability as source links used as references or citations... WP:EL specifically states that "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" should be considered as possible external links. Thus, I would say that these personal websites are perfectly OK to add as external links for further information... just don't use them to back any statement in the article itself. Blueboar 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Bill Thayer, who maintains LacusCurtius, is not an tenured professor anywhere as far as I know, U of Chicago hosts his site, and he himself is regularly seen at classics symposia. Even if "self-published", as in, hosted on his own webspace at the university, I would think it extremely odd if information based on LC was being removed. Personal opinions of recognised authorities on self-published sites are RS. Relata refero 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your clarifications. I was worried, because I had a debate with someone more experienced about External Links. I wanted the external links to stay for people without access to good printed sources or subscription-only academic sources such as JSTOR. wikibiohistory 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Watt and Oxford University Press

Is the book Muhammad at Medina written by William Montgomery Watt and published by the Oxford University Press a reliable source?

W. M. Watt was the Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Also, the Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world.

Since WP:RS says "the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses", shouldn't publications of the Oxford University Press be considered reliable sources?

A user has said that the above mentioned publication (Muhammad at Medina) makes claims "contradicted by sources" and "not born out by the sources". The user also says that the book is "Islamophilic" and "vilifies the Banu Qurayza".

Thus the question is: should William Montgomery Watt's Muhammad at Medina published by the Oxford University Press be considered a reliable source?Bless sins 06:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. --Aminz 06:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the highest level of reliability you can get per WP:RS. → AA ^(talk) — 07:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, that does not make everything said in everything they have published true. Steve Dufour 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that whatever Watt says is not necessarily the truth. But WP:V says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."Bless sins 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Steve Dufour 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the only caveat might be if there were many scholarly reviews/opinions out there criticising the book for its poor research. It is quite a old book, (1956) which might meant for example that modern scholars do not consider a reliable source anymore, despite its publication history. But this would need to be proven by finding such reviews, commentaries in reliable publications. Otherwise the criticisms noted above appear to be personal opinion and original research.--Slp1 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the book is old. But Islamic history isn't exactly cutting edge research. The sources used by secular and Muslim scholars on Muhammad's life are discussed here: Muhammad#Sources_for_Muhammad.27s_life. Basically, not a single major historical source for Muhammad's life has emerged during the past 1,200 years.Bless sins 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done zero research on the dispute or Watt so am not passing judgment either way. However, IMHO even if the sources are the same, the understanding of historical context and interpretation may well have changed a great deal in the last 50 years. A book that was considered highly reliable 50 years ago may be seriously outdated today. But it would be up to those objecting to the citations to show that this is the case.Slp1 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) One factor to consider is exactly what the book is being used as a source for. For example, it sounds like the book would be a reliable source for facts: X did Y on date Z. On the other hand, judgmental passages that would have escaped close editorial scrutiny in 1956 probably wouldn't be published by the Oxford Press in 2007, and so it would be best if they were used only where an article is talking about English views of Arabs in the mid 1950s. 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source?

(moved here from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources)

See also: #FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

Would we consider www.frontpagemag.com to be a reliable source? I'm not particularly familiar with it, but it seems to be an extremely partisan outlet. It seems to be more of a group blog than anything else - I can't find any indication that it has "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight", as WP:RS#What is a reliable source? puts it. If it doesn't engage in fact checking or have editorial oversight I presume it would have to be classed as what WP:V calls a "questionable source". -- ChrisO 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider FrontPage Magazine to very rarely be a suitable reliable source as a primary source for anything. As a secondary source (making commentary on subjects reliably reported elsewhere) I would consider it reputable, though biased. Therefore, is someone wanted to cover a subject, FrontPage Magazine could be used to demonstrate notability as per WP:N, however, other contributions of coverage by other secondary sources would be desirable to satisfy WP:NPOV. --SmokeyJoe 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage Mag falls into that category of "pretend news" sites (along with CNS News and the now defunct and discredited Talon News). They try to lay out their website in a way that resembles news sites rather than blogs, and they assign titles such as "reporter" and "editor" to people involved, but that doesn't make it a news site. They are not held accountable for their articles, they don't follow journalistic practices, there is no structure of fact-checking and they don't even make the attempt to feign objectivity. They are opinion blogs, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with whether you agree with their opinions or not. There are an equal number of opinion sites on the left of the spectrum which should also not be used as primary sources for factual information. --Loonymonkey 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not just opinion blogs, it is slightly more. It’s a well-above-average blog site, as shown by the occasions when it itself is cited. Agreed, it is not a reliable primary source for factual information. --SmokeyJoe 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what about this: "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism", FrontPageMag.com. In this case the FrontPage is not adding any bias, but simply reporting the discussion as a primary source. Although FrontPage is not a reliable source on the Qur'an, Professor Khaleel Mohammed certainly is. The question here is whether this symposium took place and FrontPage is accurately reporting Professor Mohammed's words. Please note that WP:BLP would apply since we are attributing this to living persons.Bless sins 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tough question. If its at all contentious, I would suggest that it be avoided; given the site, there is no guarantee that Mohammed has not been misquoted. Tough because it is a better than normal example of their product: in particular, the arguments are quoted in full, which means that distortion due to the cherry-picking of quotes is eliminated. Relata refero 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because FrontPage is far right in its ideology, most thing it says can be considered contentious. BTW, I need a yes or no answer. Should I avoid using it as a source (I can't find any other source for the symposium)?Bless sins 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do you know of the symposium beyond this source? --Haemo 04:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And how important is it if you only have this one source? --Slp1 12:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing. I don't know of the symposium beyond FrontPage, and FrontPage is the only source for this symposium.Bless sins 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I wonder if undue weight comes into the equation as well. If only FrontPage reported it, how significant was it really? -- ChrisO 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(out dent) On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms). Short answer, don't use it as a reliable source. Longer answer find someone else who has published about this symposium, if it was important someone else will have written something somewhere. If you can find a reliable source talking about it in the same way frontpagemag.com does then a sentence giving frontpage's info might be okay--Cailil ^talk 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stop using it.Bless sins 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Soviet sources

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Nazi_and_Soviet_sources; comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

When you look up the newspaper artdaily.com in wikipedia there is a notice that says that the articke might be taken down because it is missing reliable or verifiable sources. Artdaily.com has been reviewd by Britannica.com and a series of other prestigious sources. How do I implement them in the wikipedia article so that the verifiable source message disappears?

I hope you don't mind that I cut the long list of citation stuff that you posted here, I only did so because it takes up so much space. We don't need it to answer your question. It isn't personal. Anyway... See: WP:Cite which goes into great detail on how to cite your sources. If you need time to figure out how things in Wikipedia should be done, ask an admin to help you move the existing article to your user space. It will not be deleted from your user space. Then you can work on the article at your leasure, adding info and sources and bringing it up to standard. When done, it can be moved back into the main space. Good luck. Blueboar 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hexayurt - the New York Times not a reliable source?

An article on the Hexayurt was deleted on the basis of WP:RS in spite of having having sources including the New York Times ("mainstream newspapers" are listed among the "most reliable publications" in WP:RS) and the book Design Like You Give A Damn by Cameron Sinclair.

Have I missed something? Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT most definitely is a reliable source as far as we're concerned. Some people may not like its politics, but that's not relevant for the purposes of deciding whether it's an RS or not. -- ChrisO 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem may have been that the article did not actually cite the NYT itself... but instead linked to a Hexayert site that quoted the the NYT. Its not quite the same thing. Blueboar 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be - but it would have been easier to fix it than to get it deleted. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the NYT article is behind a paywall. I think a PDF of the article was linked. My understanding is: a full citation of the NYT article is adequate, if there is no live link; and the PDF should not be linked due to copyright concerns. Correct me if I'm wrong - thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite several long arguments at RS talk, we were unable to reach a consensus on whether newspapers, in general, are reliable (and include this in main policy). My rule of thumb is that modern newspapers are reliable unless contradicted by more reliable (ex. academic) sources. Of course in controversial cases attribution is useful, and old newspapers are similar in unreliability and bias to 1911EB.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the AfD I'm puzzled by the commenters saying there were no reliable sources. Could they have meant that there was only a link to a copy of the original NYT article? However the actual article (which I did find at the NYT site) includes only about 120 words on the Hexayurt in a 2-page review of new disaster relief devices, which might be considered to be a passing mention. The article also has COI issues. The creator has the option of taking it to WP:DRV if he wishes. EdJohnston 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the passing mention thing a serious problem? It does establish the existence of the Hexayurt, and the basic facts. (Obviously a full article, or several articles would be preferred, but it does qualify as far as I can see).

I think easier for someone else to start the article again. Yes it was COI, though it was a GF mistake. I have slight COI issues as I'm an associate of the creator, at Appropedia, so I plan to ask a non-conflicted Wikipedian to create the article (probably by leaving a note at Talk:Emergency management. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the problem - there's plenty of nonsense in newspapers. Then again, there is in academic writings as well. Your rule of thumb sounds wise. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Is Robert Spencer a reliable source in the field of Islam? He is the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, amongst other books.

He is also the director of "Jihad watch" which is considered a hate and Islamophobic website. (Sources:[26], [27]).

I think he violates WP:RS#Extremist_sources, what do you guys think?Bless sins 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he would certainly seem to qualify as an extremist source (in the sense of being on the fringes). I would be very, very wary of using him as a source for anything much. -- ChrisO 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would agree... At best, he could be cited for a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Something along the lines of: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah" <citation>. This really depends on whether Mr. Spencer is considered an expert on Islam, and whether his opinions on Islam are notable or not. If he is simply a crank who wrote a book and runs a website, then his opinion does not rate mentioning per WP:UNDUE. Blueboar 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per ChrisO. I remember reading how he has very little in terms of scholarly publications. In addition, I doubt he is considered an expert on Christianity either, if he were trying to do a study on comparative religion.Ngchen 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, on looking into the subject a bit further... I'm not so sure about that... according to our article on him (see: Robert Spencer) he does have some credentials in the field (He has an MA in Early Christianity). He has authored six best selling books on Islam, and has been an op-ed contributer to several mainstreem newpapars. While his views are controversial, he does have notable supporters. So he is not a complete crank.

Extreme? Possibly... but even extreme views might still be considered notable and worthy of discussion in an article. Controversial? Definitely. I don't think we can simply write him off as unreliable, but I do agree that we should be very careful not to give his statements more weight than they deserve. I would definitely say that anything that is included about his views be carefully attributed as being his views, and not stated as absolute fact. It really depends on the article and how he is being used in that article. This one has to be taken on a case by case basis and argued out in the article talk page. I don't think we can make a blanket determination here. Blueboar 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have severe doubts on the context in which he is quotable. As an expert on Islam, for example, he has limited qualifications, and might be considered extreme. As a notable critic of Islam, I thought at first he could be considered quotable in relevant situations, except that he then serves as a primary source of criticism, and we should quote instead those who have analysed his work and those of others and can represent his views in reliable secondary sources. Relata refero 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you slightly misstate WP:PSTS here... while secondary sources are preferred in general terms, and certainly for any statement of fact, there is no rule in Wikipedia that says we can never cite a primary source. We simply need to do so with extreme care. In fact, when discussing a particular person's views it is better to cite the primary source directly rather than getting it second hand from a secondary source (who might take something the source says out of context). Once again, we have to ask whether we are talking about statements of fact (where we should cite reliable secondary sources) or statements of opinion (where we should attribute the opinion directly and cite the primary source). I really think this gets us far beyond WP:RS... we have to consider what our three core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) say. Please note that I am not arguing that the views of Mr. Spencer should be discussed in an article on Islam... I am simply pointing out that, under some cicumstances, it may be appropriate to do so... and in those circumstances, then we can and should cite him. I don't think we can simply exclude his views as "extremist", or declare his books unreliable by fiat under WP:RS. It depends on the context of what is said in the article. Blueboar 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source in any way on comparative religion in general. However, I strongly disagree with But I am more concerned with your belief that I have misinterpreted WP:PSTS.Where in PSTS does it indicate that for statements of opinion we should cite the primary source? It would be remarkable and inappropriate if it did so, because in our citing of PSes we are almost certain to fall into the trap of choosing those statements which are outrageous, or unrepresentative. In fact, PSTS says the direct opposite:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source", and a PS should not buttress "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." In any case, choosing 'representative' statements of opinion from a primary source is the same as saying "here, I argue that this is this source's main thrust", which is clearly original research (for an example, see the history of Max Mueller). I do not claim that this is necessary everywhere - obviously no one would intend it to apply to plot synopses, for example - but for anything even reasonably contentious or challenged, we need secondary sources. Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we include a statement such as: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah"<citation>, you have to cite exactly where he says this. In this case, it is best to cite the original work and not someone else quoting that work. Note that such wording does not contain any interpretation of the primary source. It simply quotes the source and attributes it to its author. Doing this is definitely not Original Research. Now, if the article contained any further comment on the quote... that would be OR. It would also be OR if we took the statement out of context. Thus the strong caution about using Primary Sources that is contained in WP:NOR... but it is a caution, not a ban. WP:NOR definitely does NOT say we can never use primary sources. There are times when doing so is appropriate, and citing a direct quote is one of them. Blueboar 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. In choosing a quote, we are choosing to represent the author's views. When the author himself is a primary source - "an individual very close to the subject of the article" - then we are, in effect, structuring an argument based on primary sources. In such occasions, we are required to use reliable secondary sources that discuss such arguments as far as possible; wikipedia users ourselves should not be given license to assume we can place all possible statements in the correct context. When Spencer is himself the subject of the article, or primary source, we can quote him directly only if that particular quote is considered relevant by secondary sources, which should also be cited. We should ideally say that "blah blah Islam is murderous blah blah according to notable critic Spencer", but source this to somebody who is an expert on Spencer. Can you seriously look at the second paragraph of this revision of the MM article, my earlier example, and tell me that this is not precisely the kind of OR that a lax approach you suggest to implementation of policy will allow?Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the example you raise, the statements being made are not given with direct attribution or quotes. The language used constitutes an editor's interpretation of what MM said. I would say that was OR. But that isn't what I am talking about here. I am talking about directly quoting the source (keeping the statement being quoted in context) and attributing that quote to the source. Doing so is not OR in any way shape or form. But to settle this... I will ask for the opinion of those editing at WP:NOR. Blueboar 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we should exclude his views as "extremist".--Aminz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is an Ad hominem attack against him. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think his views should be allowed to be presented only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles, and then, attributed to him with According to Robert Spencer... I do not believe he is an extremist in his views, but rather partisan. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Should the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be used as a resource on Jews? And the source provided by Aminz is a reliable and scholarly one.Bless sins 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar and others, here is a reasonable compromise. Spencer's views should be quoted whenever another reliable source quotes it. Thus, if CNN considers some of his views noteworthy, then we quote those views. This ensures that only the most notable of Spencer's views are quoted. Otherwie we shouldn't be quoting extremist views. This is how we treat other extremist sources (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).Bless sins 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My view was that he should be given space only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles not because of him being reliable in anyway but because he is a notable critic of Islam: The "criticism of Islam" article is supposed to record notable criticisms of Islam and these criticisms may come from every corner. But in practice we encountered a problem: Spencer is only a contemporary critic of Islam. Islam has been around for hundreds of years. It is thus recentism and undue weight to use him too much. Furthermore most of what is attributed to Spencer does not really belong to him. We should not credit Spencer with the criticisms that he has not himself proposed but is repeating those before him.

In my view we should have a section on "contemporary criticisms" and there we include the new criticisms coming from Spencer and people like him. Right now, the criticism article rely too heavily on Spencer. --Aminz 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.... although I would allow for quoting him directly. In any case, I certainly agree that his views should be limited to "criticism" sections and articles and should not be given undue weight. This is really more of a WP:NPOV issue than one of RS. Blueboar 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say in my reply above, his views are notable in relevant articles, but WP editors should not be given license to decide which of his views are. Experts on Spencer or on the criticism of Islam more generally should. Relata refero 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolulte rubbish... While we can debate whether it is appropriate to discuss Mr. Spencer and his views in any given article, if you are going to discuss his views you should quote him directly, and with proper citation so that editors can check to see that the quote is in context. I seriously doubt that there are "Experts on Spencer" to quote. Blueboar 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses. Why should we trust editors to check the context? Show me the policy that says that. And as for 'experts on Spencer', I meant, of course, experts on the criticism or political controversies surrounding Islam who discuss Spencer, of which there are many. Relata refero 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But again, that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that, as a noted critic of Islam, it might be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say. Once that discision has been made we have to deside how to use him. Now, given his biased (and possibly even extremist) views, I would not use him to support a bald statement of fact (ie "Islam is blah blah blah"), but instead we should use him only for a statement of opinion (ie "According to noted Anti-islamist Robert Spencer, 'Islam is blah blah blah'"). And if you do that, you should cite the quote to where Spencer says this. No more, no less. And while there is no rule that says editors have to check that sources are in context... I know plenty of editors who do check them. I know I do... Since I edit on some fairly controvercial topics, I frequently check the sources in criticims sections, and make sure that POV editors are not taking things out of context. I agree that, all to frequenlty, such quotes are used in ways that constitute OR. But (and this is a big "but") quoting someone directly is not automatically a form of OR. It can be done properly... As long as you keep the quote in context, and do not go beyond what the source is saying, it isn't OR. Blueboar 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this passage may be of relevance from WP:SPINOUT: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." Spencer wouldn't be reliable for content on Islam, Muhammad etc. - not even for criticism - except in the instance of a reliable source (i.e. book review in a reliable publication) covering the claims made by Spencer (that is, after all, how someone becomes noted for criticism). in theory, this restriction should extend to Criticism of X articles, to prevent them from becoming slanted. primary source usage in this instance has major drawbacks, as can be seen in a few such articles, where excessive attention is given to the every musing, argument and deduction emanating from him. he has plenty of books published - and thus, there is virtually no limit to the amount of content that can be added citing Spencer's works. i disagree with using a partisan source (just because it happens to be partisan) in an article which analyses partisan views as documented by reliable sources - or at least, that's what an article should be doing. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaquallah, in this case, there already is a well established Criticism of Islam article. And, in that article, it would be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say (he is, after all, a noted modern Critic of Islam). The key is not to give his views undue weight, and not to present his views as being fact, but only as his opinion. Also, according to the folks over at WP:NOR, he counts as a secondary source on Islam. Thus, the cautions about primary sources do not really apply. I would still use him sparingly and with caution, but the point is that he can be used. Blueboar 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definitions used in above discussions: Spencer is not a primary source on Islam. He's a secondary source. He may not be a good source, he may be a "one trick pony" who writes of nothing else, he may not be a source worthy of note, but he is a secondary source. Examples of primary source texts on Islam would be the Koran or Hadith texts. Neither primary sources nor secondary sources are totally unacceptable sources in every situation, so I think it would be more constructive to the dispute to focus on whether or not Spencer's views are worthy of note in a general encyclopedia. For example, where else in academia is he being cited? If the claims on the wp article about him are accurate, then his views appear notable but controversial. Where and when controversial sources can be used is the core issue here, and the "primary source" objection is just a misapplied technicality to excuse ruling out this particular source.Professor marginalia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this is how i see the issue (corrections welcomed): Spencer is a secondary source on Islam (albeit unreliable). he is, however, a primary source for his own views on Islam (meaning, he's a primary source for criticism). when the actual article subject is critical views, such as Criticism of Islam, then the critical sources are themselves primary sources for those critical views. the scope of the article (in this scenario) isn't Islam, it's what critics say about Islam. Blueboar, yes - it would be completely appropriate to discuss the views of Spencer in an article like criticism of Islam - but only to the extent that it's been covered in sources secondary to such criticism. as a noted critic of Islam, it's expected that at least his most significant or important claims will have been covered to a reasonable degree in books, newspapers, journals and so on. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, this works both ways as well. in an article on `Muhammad in Islamic piety` (as a theoretical example), those texts in the form of pious or devotional passages, or other texts reflecting Islamic views, would constitute primary sources in relation to the topic, while studies on such texts and ideas would be secondary sources. ITAQALLAH 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Confirming my agreement with Itaqallah, Spencer appears not to be a reliable secondary source to base the article on, but in terms of WP:NPOV his views may be notable enough to be represented as a minority view, subject to undue weight requirements. He's a primary source for that view, and if notable enough then there should be reliable sources about his view from a mainstream perspective, which should be used as the basis for the section. However, like all primary sources, he can be cited and, if appropriate, quoted for his views providing care is taken not to introduce original research in interpreting or citing quotes out of context. .. dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) There is a logical disconnect here... Can someone explain difference between Spencer discussing Islam (where you say he is a secondary source) and Spencer criticising Islam (where you say he would be a primary source)? Are you saying that if he is saying something positive about Islam he is secondary, but that he suddenly becomes primary when saying something negative? Blueboar 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It depends not on what he is saying, but what the subject of the article is. If we are considering quoting him about Islam, whether or not he is reliable, whether or not he is critical, he is a secondary source. If we need material for an article on Criticism of Islam, whether or not he is reliable, he is a primary source, as he is one of the most popular living critics of Islam, and as such is a major constituent of the subject of the article. Relata refero 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

that's not the implication here. speaking in very general terms (this includes Spencer and others) - a partisan (pro- or anti-) source discussing a subject is a secondary source when the article topic is about that subject ("X"). when the article topic itself is the very partisanship of the partisans ("positive/negative view of X") - the original partisan source is no longer secondary, it is primary. that's just how i believe the sources are classified, and why i think a secondary source on Criticism of X is a source which discusses critics and the views they express, not sources which themselves synthesise critiques (IMO primary). ITAQALLAH 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are RS and NPOV issues, and some PSTS disputes. I suggest focusing on RS, NPOV, and NOR as a whole, without obsessing over PSTS. Jacob Haller 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The PSTS issue emerges from OR. The question is who can correctly interpret Spencer's comments and ensure they are taken in context. One solution is that we only quote reliable sources quoting Spencer, making the assumption that reliable sources have done their homework.

Another issue is what to quote. Certainly some of Spencer's opinions are notable and certainly some aren't, and we should quote only notable opinions. One very reasonable way determining which opinion are notable, is that the notable opinion will have appeared in reliable sources, while non-notable opinion will be ignored by reliable sources.

Finally, saying that Spencer is unreliable, but still may be quoted is setting a dangerous precedent. If unreliable, yet popular sources, such as Spencer can be used, then what else? Can I use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, quite popular, to talk about the Jews? (Obviously not, nor should I be able to use Spencer).Bless sins 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite appalling that you compare Spencer to Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there really is no comparision. Spencer criticizes Islam (and maybe Muhammad), but doesn't specificly call muslims some of the names Protocols does. Yahel Guhan 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are unreliable sources, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Spencer specifically calls Islam as "the World's most Intolerant Religion". His writings are considered "bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice".[28] Anyways, I got a sufficient response out of this. Whether the Protocols are a reliable source (I beleive they aren't) is the topic of another notice.Bless sins 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You think your "resolved" tag is a funny joke, because I don't think it is funny; it really is disruptive, considering the discussion isn't resolved. Reguarding your arguement, Spencer calls "islam" intolerant. That is not bogotry. He doesn't say "all muslims are intolerant" which would be bigotry. That quote is one view, which you seem to be repeating throughout this argue. For criticism sections and articles, though, he is a reliable source, as he is a notable critic. Yahel Guhan 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that you have a point that Spencer needs to be covered in Criticism of Islam article, please note that as demonstrated above, he is not a reliable source in such articles, he is a primary source.Relata refero 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata, I disagree... Spencer is a secondary source (allbeit a biased one), even for criticism's of Islam, and from the comments at the WP:NOR Talk page, others agree with my view of the matter. But... even if he were a primary source, you are incorrect in saying that a primary source is automatically unreliable. You seem to equate reliability with "true" or "unbiased"... that is not the case. Your comparison with the Protocols is off base... what makes the Protocols unreliable is not the fact that it contains all sorts of unsubstantiated, hateful and biased allegations against jews... It is unreliable for a host of other reasons, the main ones being: The original was not reliably published. There is no accountability or editorial oversight... We do not know the author, so it is unattributable, even as a statement of opinion.... In Spencer's case, we do know who wrote it... We know who published it... And when we question the accuracy of what he says, we can phrase things as being Spencer's opinion. Blueboar 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I miswrote that: he is a reliable source, but a primary source, and thus to be used with accompanying care. Blueboar, the points you've made on NOR, while interesting, have all been satisfactorily answered, I believe.

I didn't mention the Protocols ( I wouldnt) and the comparison was made precisely because it was claimed that Spencer is a sufficiently extremist source: and, thus, we should avoid using it (though not by me, and I disagree with that.). Relata refero 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Social Science Research Network

Is the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/ a reliable source? It looks like self-published papers posted for discussion, but some papers are published. There doesn't seem to be any peer-review before posting on SSRN. --Foggy Morning 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it looks like a reputable academic website, though I cannot find evidence of any peer-review. Inndeed, judging by Social Science Research Network, posting there seems to be a step in obtaining informal peer review prior to submission for publication, for more formal evaluation. The most conservative approach might be to treat papers there as being self-published, meaning that they might be considered acceptable if written by an established expert in the field, as per WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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". I would expect that many articles distributed here might be written by previously published academics, and thus qualify. --Slp1 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SSRN merely serves as a repository for working papers and for versions of papers published elsewhere. As a look at, for example, the economics research archive shows, it links conveniently to various other locations for working papers. Note that working papers are generally not peer-reviewed, but to all intents and purposes meet RS, as they are frequently merely longer, unedited versions of papers published elsewhere. Frequently published papers cut down on tedious mathematics or extra statistical tables and refer one to the working paper. Relata refero 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So if there's no publication data for an article on SSRN, we shouldn't use it as a source, right? --Foggy Morning 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if the article is written by an established expert (with previous peer-reviewed journal articles/books in that academic area) then I think it would be okay use SSRN papers.Slp1 01:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How many peer-reviewed articles qualify a writer as an established expert in his or her field? I don't mean to be difficult about this, but I'm trying to figure out which unpublished materials can be used as good references from papers posted to SSRN. They get like 300,000 papers a month, like 4 million in the past year. They've got over 16 million papers on their database. As best I can tell, it's a structured academic discussion forum, with added notes if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm a bit lost here regarding what we can use or can't use in Wiki as sources.... --Foggy Morning 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the social sciences, graduate students typically produce one to four working papers over the course of their doctoral degree. More than four papers to a name indicate that the person in question is almost certainly employed at a university, or, at any rate, now does peer-reviewed research for a living. Relata refero 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you post the name of the article you are interested in? Someone with access to published journal databases (me for example) could do a search and let you know what the person has published in the past.--Slp1 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've done that right off. There are two external links listed in Weighted average cost of capital to SSRN. Those are the ones I'm not sure about right now. But I have come across other papers that are posted to SSRN and used as references in wiki articles, even if the papers are unpublished. In general I'd tend remove unpublished papers unless there's some explanation on the talk page justifying using it. Does that make sense? --Foggy Morning 00:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're both written by tenured professors. The first one, by the Columbia Business School prof, has been published elsewhere; the second, by the prof at Duke, is not yet published, but certainly seems useful. I would suggest that there's no major necessity to remove it, especially as both authors have published, according to the list at SSRN, papers in the Fulbright Teaching series and so seem quite respectable. This is an example of why a general rule about removing working papers may be avoidable. Relata refero 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that these are reliable as External Links. Their authors are well-published academics who qualify as "established experts". Since they are external links you might want to take a look at the guidelines there to see if they are appropriate in terms of content, if you haven't already, since there is useful information there about the purpose of EL and things to be considered.--Slp1 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to have enough content directly related to the topic to justify suggesting a reader go take a look at them. WP:EL says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." They're related to the topic in a roundabout way, but so are thousands of other articles. How about if I move them to the talk page and see if anyone can explain why they should be included as external links? Does that seem fair? --Foggy Morning 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "Cybercast News Service" (CNSnews)?

What is the consensus on using this as a primary (factual, rather than opinion) source? It doesn't seem very reliable at all to me, but I wanted to get other opinions. --Loonymonkey 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not, and has never been, a reliable, factual source. --Eleemosynary 08:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is: "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." CNS meets that measure. Kyaa the Catlord 09:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may think so, but you haven't explained why you think that. CNS is the broadcast arm of the "Media Research Center", a conservative think-tank funded by various rich industrialists. Would you also accept citing CounterSpin, the radio show produced by FAIR, for factual information? On CNS's own website, their founder and president bills himself as "one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today." He is also "Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC)." This is your reliable third party!? <eleland/talkedits> 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

www.constitution.org

I notice that about eighty six hundred times[29], that the source www.constitution.org is used as a reference in Wikipedia. I am curious about the opinion of other editors about whether this source meets the reliable source policy. While at first glance the website appears to be scholarly and impressive, when you look deeper it appears largely anonymous and without reliable publication process. Also, there are indications that lead me to guess it is a blog of user Jon Roland and to some extent this also may be a policy question of WP:COI. What is the consensus opinion of editors on the question of the reliability of this source? SaltyBoatr 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you would need to evaluate the usage on a link-by-link basis. If a link is citing apparent original research hosted on constitution.org, that reference should likely be removed. If the link is instead citing a copy of a document on constitution.org that does not consist of original research, and that document passes appropriate notability tests, I would think it is fine. To clarify what I mean, the website has a large collection of national constitutions here. I see citing one of these constitutions as fine. I would see linking to an article giving Jon Roland's opinion of the meaning of one of these constitutions as original research. The key distinction to me is to differentiate between the material itself, and the website hosting the material. Regarding the WP:COI guideline, that seems to be a question independent of RS. - Hoplon 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see that a collection of primary documents, like that collection of national constitutions, could be convenient for original research about those documents. But, use of primary documents is limited by Wikipedia policy. See WP:PSTS. So, setting aside the primary documents which are of limited use on Wikipedia, what remains appears to be mostly personal commentary by Jon Roland, and a few other people. Also, the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' guideline test found in WP:RS appears to be obscure or lacking. SaltyBoatr 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think primary sources can be very useful and appropriate as external links and such like, but personally given the up-front point-of-view of the website, I would actually prefer to avoid it even for the primary sources. There is no evidence that he is "an established expert" who has published in third party publications, so I would say also his self-published commentaries are unreliable for WP purposes.--Slp1 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at these approximately 80 600 links and they are typically to a 'source document' that has been copied verbatim from public domain sources (often Google books or project Gutenberg). It is not for me to judge intent, but the hosting of copied public domain text in this way serves (at least unintentionally) as a type of Google bomb raising the web traffic to that site. This in itself is not bad, except that I question this relative to the WP:WPSPAM phenomena. SaltyBoatr 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the documents on the site were not copied from other sites, but are often copied to other sites. For more important additions we have a page http://www.constitution.org/whatsnew.htm which has the dates the items were added, and while it is often difficult to find out when files are added to other sites, most of the documents originated on this site. One of the reasons we ask for those who copy them to link back to our site is because we try to always have the most accurate versions of everything. Even things like our copies of Supreme Court decisions are often more accurate than the versions published on other sites like http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ , http://www.findlaw.com or http://supreme.justia.com/us/ because we often find errors they didn't, and it is much easier to get errors corrected on our site than those others (try it sometime). Jon Roland 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to mischaracterize what anybody has written, but I do think I see a rough consensus among the admittedly few who have commented here. I see that consensus as being that personal commentary found on this site is not citable, that primary sources found on this site are citable (within conventional WP boundaries), but that a site perceived to have less vested interest would be preferred for those primary sources. Do the others who have commented here agree that this roughly expresses consensus? - Hoplon 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon Roland has done an enormous amount of work to scan and OCR and put in html a lot of constitution-related documents. He had these sources online well before google started--at least 5 years and probably longer in some cases. Politically he is a well-known libertarian somewhere to the right of Justice Scalia, but thus far I have not seen one single change or major error in any of his documents (apart from routine typos, which are infrequent.) So his resource is very solid and is widely used. They are much easier to use than the google scans (because he did the OCR and html markup), Wiki articles often refer to these documents and having a good online edition is valuable to users. His commentaries, on the other hand, are not what is at issue. Most scholars have "vested opinions" (that is strong opinions) on these matters.Rjensen 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I must object to being described as being "somewhere to the right of Justice Scalia". Such labeling is inapropriate in general, and in particular for characterizing people on a simplistic one-dimensional spectrum, and especially on non-distribution issues. Keep in mind that the original meaning of the "left-right" paradigm was based on division within the French Assembly at a time when the main issues were how to divide wealth between the rich and the poor. As any libertarian or constitutionalist will tell you, libertarianism and constitutionalist are not on a left-right spectrum, but about issues that have nothing to do with distribution (or redistribution). Wikipedia editors, when they see terms like "left" or "right" in this context should reach for their editing erasers (did you think I was about to say "reach for their guns"? :) Jon Roland 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, his website is unambiguously a self published source. WP:SPS says: "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." And, after checking about twenty instances I found the public domain primary documents to be easily available elsewhere on a website which is not self published. Convenience is relative, and caution is the policy.

The convenience that Hoplon mentions is that the constitution.org links are found at the top of a Google search page. The same texts, non-self published, are available with few more clicks elsewhere. I see that the 600 links from Wikipedia to Constitition.org help give Jon Roland a high rank Google score. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to serve to increase Jon Roland Google rank score for his (partially political, partially source document repository) blog? SaltyBoatr 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Portions of his website are would be WP:SPS, those where he (or coauthors) are writing for themselves. But much of his website is non-SPS, particularly where he is providing source material for reference. There are many websites or companies that operate in this "SPS/Non-SPS" mode. Google, for example, would be SPS at [30], but not-SPS at [31]. They are self-publishing their blog, but they are not the publisher of the scanned books they provide. - Hoplon 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the analogy. For instance this diff[32], pointing to this constitution.org article[33]. At, constitution.org, the actual book (if any) is not scanned verbatim. Also, it is mixed with Roland's editorial and political commentary. Roland's selective scanning and editorial commentary obscures the distinction between fiction and fact. We see Jon Roland's opinion that the 1884 book was biographical, but there is a valid question as to whether the book was actually fictional. Was that Davy Crockett speech real, or fiction? Jon Roland presents it as biographical fact, not fiction, with apparent political intent. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not cite the actual books and documents themselves?... skip the link to constitution.org entirely. Granted, doing so has to be done with caution (see the cautions about using primary sources at WP:NOR) but in this case it amounts to the same thing. Blueboar 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this article[34], just created by Jon Roland makes use of reference links to his self published website. See also [35] for a discussion of the book publisher. SaltyBoatr 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the following clarification on Talk:Verifiability:

It is acceptable for an editor to cite to a reliable source not authored by him, previously published by a reliable publisher elsewhere, a copy of which also appears on a website for which he is the webmaster, without having to omit the link, especially if there is no link available to a reliable site to which he is not a contributor.

I submit that if a source cited is itself reliable and verifiable it should not be necessary for an editor who happens to also be the webmaster to remove a link to the site he administers.

Jon Roland 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Laurent Dailliez

Requesting comment on the reliability of a book by the French historian Laurent Dailliez. I have another editor who is including information from Dailliez's book at Franco-Mongol alliance, but I have checked the book (Les Templiers) myself and:

• It has no sources, no footnotes, no bibliography
• The information that is being cited from the book (that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols in the 13th century) is not confirmed by any other source that I can find, and I've reviewed literally dozens of other books about the Crusades.

I've brought up the issue at the article talkpage, but so far the only two people participating are myself, and the individual who added the information (who has been adding a great deal of other info from questionable sources or primary sources from the medieval period), so we have a stalemate. I would appreciate further opinions about this and other questionable sources, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez. Thanks. --Elonka 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, its published by Tempus. I have a dozen books by Tempus that have similar formatting - no sources etc. - which I have picked up over time, especially at National Trust locations in England. They used to do a lot of local history, and I've used them extensively in articles on stately homes and smaller villages; they are quite commonly used among local history people and have a fairly decent reputation for fact-checking.

This particular occurrence is a little more difficult. If there are no other sources of a fairly major claim like this, use the extraordinary claims - extraordinary sources criterion, even if the book itsel seems OK. Relata refero 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE comes into play here too. This is a fairly unique claim that goes against the vast majority of reliable scholarship. It doesn't quite rise to the level of being Fringe... but it comes close. Blueboar 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Email lists

Are emails posted on publicly accessbile email lists reliable sources for the comments of the writers? IIRC we do not consider Usenet postings to be reliable because of the ease of spoofing addresses. This is probably less of a concern with established email lists. The issue came up in regard to Essjay controversy, and it was pointed out that our article on Citizendium makes extensive use of email postings as sources. Obviously, even if reliable emails would be considered primary sources and would have to be treated with the usual caution. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with an author who wrote a book, I also helped him in several roles of advocacy. In behind his book he included communication which occured between himself and some university proffesors, musicologist, etc. These emails, for this example, are published within a reliable source. --CyclePat 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a different circumstance. I agree that emails, or anything else, that's published in a proper book could be used as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Army investigation WP:RS for member of miliary?

There is an effort to classify Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy with various "hoax" categories. Because this is effectively WP:BLP, we clearly need to be careful. So far, the only source put forward on the matter is the leaked Army investigation into the matter that pretty much states that Beauchamp made it all up. While I have no reason to doubt the report, I'm concerned that the report of the investigation doesn't meet the definition of independent since, IMHO, the Army is an involved party. Any input would be appreciated. Ronnotel 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of things. The authenticity of the documents is not in doubt, confimed by both The New Republic [36] & by a source in CENTCOM [37]. What we are talking about specifically is the Cross memo:

• 
  Cross memo (1)
• 
  Cross memo (2)
• 
  Cross memo (3)
• 
  Cross memo (4)
• 
  Cross memo (5)

The Cross memo summarizes the findings of the Army's investigation in to the allegations. I would submit that the Army's investigation is the outside source since the subject is stories Beauchamp submitted as true to TNR and now their non-fiction status is in question. This is matter between Beauchamp and TNR not between Beauchamp and the US Army. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above by Steven Andrew Miller asks us to accept an Army Investigation Memo as the final finding of fact in a dispute between the Army and one of its soldiers, after the soldier published an account of atrocities during the Iraq War. There has been heavy reporting on this by several reliable news sources. To put in plainly, the soldier, Beauchamp, and The New Republic, who published him, stand by his reporting. The Army disputes the events ever took place. Since when, in the United States, do Army memoranda trump the free press?

I encourage all interested editors to visit the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Talk page and weigh in. --Eleemosynary 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you keep framing this as The New Republic vs. the United States Army. The issue is TNR vs. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The Army is the outside agency that investigated the claims, and frankly has no dog in the fight. The issue is about TNR's reputation, not the Army's. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You're the one attempting to frame this, in a way backed up by... wait for it... no reliable source. --Eleemosynary 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Posts on the Free Republic

The subject I'm concerned with is an American Spectator op-ed (originally published in the Jerusalem Post) that is to be cited for the criticism made therein. Its claims aren't taken to be the truth of the matter, only proof that this criticism has been made. The article is not freely accessible at the American Spectator or JPost websites, but I have found it posted at the Free Republic. The question is simply whether linking directly to this post of the article should be considered unreliable. Thanks. JrFace 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, articles posted on Free Republic usually don't text added or changed. However the posters often delete material unrelated to their point, and they almost always truncate the article to avoid copyright infringement. Plus they are accompanied by strident POV material. However, it's fine for editors to use an FR-posted version as a starting point to for their own research. Sometimes research costs money. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Will's remarks are exactly right, and that concern about convenience links has, I think, been written into policy somewhere. If you haven't read the whole text in the original source, someone who chooses to challenge the link on the grounds that the full reference does not support the statement included in the article is on a pretty good wicket. Relata refero 08:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing forum for criticism on Steam (content delivery)

We've got a discussion going on over on the Steam page. One user referenced two forum threads (edit; sources 1, 2) as a way of backing up the statement "Free Weekends are criticized by existing players for flooding a game’s servers with newbies, and allowing cheaters free reign." I reverted the edit on the grounds of WP:RSEX, but the editor brought up a question of how we should cite public opinion. I'm not really sure how to proceed from here, as I can understand his viewpoint. The conversation is here; what do you guys think? Is quoting the forum acceptable, or does RSEX prevail? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a baaad idea to cite forum threads in this manner. It is impossible to judge public opinion — the public is very large — from forum threads which represent the views of one or two or twenty people. If reliable secondary sources say something like, "fan reaction on internet forums was very negative" then cite the secondary source. Otherwise, it's no better than another "some argue, critics say, others respond, however critics point out" section of the kind which plagues fan-edited articles. <eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Eleland. Also, trying to deduce public opinion based on the forum violates WP:OR.Ngchen 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How old can a reference be?

I'm using google to find book sources for articles, but what happens is that the only ones I'm really able to access are the ones in the public domain, which means that they are frequently 100 years old, or older. Would they still be considered reliable sources? Is there some kind of guideline on how old a source can be? I've looked through and haven't really found anything. Hires an editor 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the age of a source doesn't affect its reliability. The only thing to consider is whether knowledge in the area has significantly changed from the time the source was published. If so, then of course newer sourced would be preferable. Ngchen 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, assertions supported by ancient historical sources, unless you have a modern source interpreting them in the context of other historical documents, need to be stated e.g. in the form, "[Historical author] says _______" because ancient historians are notoriously unreliable and in disagreement with each other. Publicola 07:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Industry references and external links for superfruit article

User Ronz is concerned that sources used to support background for the superfruit article are without substance or present biased points of view. S/he has listed them on the talk page, and the history shows our slight disagreement. Your assistance is appreciated. --Paul144 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ITFacts.biz

Could I please get a second opinion on ITFacts.biz. I know nothing of the site...Thanks! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me, but I wasn't able to find any hint of an "About Us" or similar page. Publicola 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Nature Review

I have been unable to determine whether Human Nature Review meets the reliable source criteria. It is not listed in Index Medicus and it's web site does not list any editors.

The particulars are whether this is a reliable source for Capture bonding:

Henson, K. (23 August 2001) "Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects," The Human Nature Review. 2: 343-355

Thanks. Publicola 07:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)