Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Harvard Political Review RS for economics book review?

Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:

• At Walter Block, editor removed at this diff, this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine, Harvard Political Review, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats" but noted that the book was "likely to elicit mixed responses." (Ref:Harvard Political Review, Volumes 4-7, 1976, p. 46.)

Edit summary reads: rmv review from undergraduate publication. (Harvard students are better than most, but they still have no degree apart from H.S. diploma, and are not qualified to review econ book)

• At Block's book in question article, Defending the Undefendable, at this diff], this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine the Harvard Political Review, the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats"." (Ref: Harvard Political Review, Volumes 4-7, 1976, p. 46 - same as above)

Edit summary reads: rmv article from undergraduate magazine. Undergraduates, whose maximal educational attainment is a high school diploma, are not qualified to review an economics book. (even if they are among the best undergraduates in U.S., as H enrollement would indicate)

Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If this book is worth mentioning as a work of economics or political theory, there must be some mention, review, or citations in RS references. An undergraduate magazine and a cable news pundit don't seem commensurate with discussion of a book of presumably encyclopedic noteworthiness. If RS discussion about the book cannot be found, I suggest creating a separate article for the book and listing it with a wikilink in the publications list of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An undergraduate magazine is not RS for economics, no matter how prestigious the university. (As a college student, Al Gore founded and was the chief editor of HPR; is/was he an RS for economic?) Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned the only reason I put it in was because I frequently have seen reports, book reviews and even opinion pieces from less prestigious universities' student newspapers used in articles. And now I just remembered (duh) this has been discussed at WP:RSN with the reliability of the specific publication being the decisive factor. See 2012Harvard Crimson discussion; 2010 discussion, [2009] general discussion, 2008 discussion (re: Daily Bruin); another 2008 general discussion. Did I forget to mention that Harvard Political Review is the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics? (Created as a memorial to JFK, one may remember.) It seems like a one sentence book review on a popular book on economics is well within their capability and the opposition to them are just as baseless as the opposition to inclusion of the Hayek material below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, the article on the Review says it's "official", the article on the Institute says it's "home to and publishes" the Review. Those two claims aren't synonymous ("home to" is a good meaningless Wikipedia phrase). Maybe we should cite a source for the Review's exact relationship to the Institute. Anyway, it's still a student magazine, edited by students. I wouldn't consider its articles notable unless that particular article has been cited by reliable sources, or, possibly, if that particular writer has become notable later. Otherwise, if not notable, not worth quoting as an opinion on a book. That's my view. Andrew Dalby 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're using book reviews from the Crimson. The Crimson and HPR might be reliable sources for the intellectual and social goings-on of Harvard U. But they are not RS for economics. Their authors may be Harvard students, but they are also teenagers and barely-twenties whose highest educational attainment is a HS diploma. Not even close to RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If one bothers to do a Wikipedia search for theharvardcrimson.com one finds at least 500 uses of it as a reference. Of course, it's not the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics as is 'Harvard Political Review. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the Harvard Crimson is off-topic for the current discussion. If you disagree, please explain how you think it relates to the issue we are discussing here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that past WP:RSN discussions are relevant and above I note that as one of several examples of student publications being RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: How does the fact that a different student publication has been considered RS for other content relate to the current issue? Are there specific similarities which support a comparison or equivalence in this case? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek info RS for same two articles?

@Gamaliel: 's question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner Freidrich Hayek's comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here.

• SPECIFICO's Removal of Hayek's positive quote here because it might be against BLP and with his recommendation I take it to RSN. A better reference is the "Commentary by F.A. Hayek" p 24 in the 2012 edition of Defending the Undefendable published by Laissez-Faire Books.
• In John Gray's, Hayek on Liberty (Ed 3, Taylor & Francis, 2002), Gray writes in a discussion of “Hayek’s conception of the natural selection of competing social rules” the following: In some areas, recognition of the vital functions of these scapegoat occupations and practices may prompt demands for the revision of law and of customary morality so as to accord them a greater measure of legitimacy and social approval. It is in this spirit that Mandeville himself wrote, and in which Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded.” (Note: the google page is no longer available but full context still searchable in an earlier version at Amazon.com)

SPECIFICO objected at this diff that we can't write about "Hayek's state of mind"?!?

So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's view is clearly notable and it would be weird to leave it out. John Gray likewise, with the adjective Mandevillean and the description of the book's content, even if he is only noting Hayek's opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, both views are notable and worth including. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the source of the Commentary? -- never mind that it's attributed to Hayek. Is it well-sourced and the context clear? It's an undated unsourced insertion of what appears to be promotional content. Was it a collegial letter to Block's publisher? A deathbed confession? SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be RS to me. I don't think it is particularly notable or clear, however. The meaning of "endorse" is vague; does he endorse Block's economics? His ethics? His writing style? There may also be verification issues. All in all, this doesnt' belong on RSN. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

To address only the RS issue, Gray uses as his ref for "endorsed" an undated Fleet Press' version of the book; Fleet press was the original publisher and can be assumed to have fact checked that Hayek wrote the letter. This description of the 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute edition of the book does note that Hayek had written "the author". All of this can be added to the references if necessary. It also lists a number of other quotes of Praise including by Robert Nozick and Tom G. Palmer; the original sources of some of them surely can be tracked down. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?" SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. If they were, anyone could create a Wikipedia page for herself if she compiled enough friendly or flattering emails, Facebook messages or chat room flirtations, from prominent academics. Doc. Block was a young buck back then; maybe Hayek was just trying to be friendly or supportive, in what he thought was private personal correspondence? Also, since the book was published in 1976, TGP (whose wiki says he was born in 1956) was presumably a *teenager* (or barely 20), without a college degree, when he wrote that review. Steeletrap (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of the above comments by Specifico and Steeletrap were worth making, but the majority of them are infantile. Gray's book is a reliable source. The fact that Gray cites Hayek is, in itself, sufficient for us, but it's better to be able to add a quote from the primary source, which is the text of Block's book, including the full Hayek endorsement, as published originally by Fleet Press and reprinted by Laissez-Faire. The status of these publishers has nothing to do with it. The material is notable, and Gray, as RS, makes it usable. So let's use it. Andrew Dalby 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

[Added later:] Unless I missed something, neither at Walter Block nor at Defending the Undefendable do we have any quotations from people who criticized this book. We surely need that too. I've just found the review by D. J. Enright, Times Literary Supplement, July 02, 1976, p. 817. Some good quotes there. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have said the Gray source is RS. I have not said that the reviews from Mises.org -- which includes Hayek's personal letter to Block -- are RS. We can say something like: "Gray notes Hayek endorsed Block's book." We cannot quote the excerpt from the alleged personal letter posted on Mises.org. Steeletrap (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: I've only made two comments above in this thread. If you would please indicate which one(s) you're calling "infantile" and why, I'd be pleased to respond to your concern. Otherwise, why bother with pointless denigration? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Specifico, I heard the ping. I'll reply on your talk page. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we have a reliable secondary source for Hayek's opinion (Gray), there is no reason why we cannot expand on on it by using the primary source (Hayek's letter.) Private letters become acceptable sources once they are published, at least for the opinions expressed in them and a secondary source has commented on them. TFD (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good evening, TFD. I have argued that we can use the Gray source. The problem is that the Gray source only briefly mentions Hayek's view of Block's book, saying he "endorsed" it. The personal correspondence is published on Mises.org, on a promotional page for the book. That is what is being cited, not the Gray book; and that is what I'm calling unreliable. Steeletrap (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's "endorsement" is not on "a promotional page for the book" but is part of the book published by Fleet Publishing Corporation, on p. xii. (That has already been pointed out above.) TFD (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree that it's not a good idea to use the Mises Institute page, but, since Gray, as RS, mentions this material, it's quite OK to quote it as it appears in the published editions of the Block book. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD my old friend, you misunderstand me. The "endorsed" thing is in Gray's book, and can be used. (anything from that book clearly can.)) However, what was previously being cited was not the Gray book, but a personal correspondence not cited therein, which appears on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore). That was my sole objection. Steeletrap (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I think I misunderstood you also. Sorry. This stuff isn't easy. Andrew Dalby 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

To answer a few points: New ref welcome. Using positive quotes about Austrian economists is not verboten on Wikipedia. Note that SPECIFICO wanted to know origin of Hayek's comments and I gave it to him, writing "All of this can be added to the references if necessary." I meant to prove where comments came from and am indifferent as to whether that is mentioned in the article. However, both the Gray comment and the Hayek quote belong. Feel free to search if anyone else has commented on what Hayek wrote. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, we still do not know the origin of the Hayek text on the Mises website, but consensus appears to be not to use that source. If you are saying that you have RS documentation as to the origin of the Hayek text, please provide it. While I don't see anybody objecting to the Gray statement, I also do not see anybody other than yourself advocating the use of the Mises Institute/Hayek. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see four editors saying the quote itself is useable. If you don't believe Mises.org that it was a letter from Hayek, fine, we don't have to use that claim as a source. But if a fabricated quote from Hayek was used in the foreward to the Fleet Street editions of the book, I'm sure Gray or others would have discovered that fact by now. (Feel free to search for any such evidence.) And Gray does use the Fleet Street book as his source for Hayek's statement. Please stop denying what other editors can see obviously is true. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: No more personal remarks, please. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: No more personal remarks, please. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: No more personal remarks, please. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's comments are shown on p. xii of the Fleet Press original edition of the book. Presumably Hayek read the book before it was published. Fleet Press was a reputable publisher of non-fiction that was later absorbed into Macmillan, which is a reputable publisher of non-fiction. Therefore the comments are reliably sourced. Gray used the comments on p. xii as a source. He references the Fleet edition of the book, although he does not mention the page number. Gray's book is also rs, and was published by Routledge, an academic publisher. The fact that Hayek's comments also appear "on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore", or the fact that the LvMI republished the book, does not mean that the comments published in the Fleet Press edition are no longer rs. TFD (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I'm curious how one traces the history of these defunct small presses. The best I could locate was this web page. Is there a source which you've generally found helpful in vetting prospective references? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant question (though I, too, would be happy to know the answer!), because Gray's reference to it makes the material usable to us. Andrew Dalby 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I typed "fleet press corporation" into Google books search.[1] It shows that the books published appear to be reasonable non-fiction, and that they have been cited in thousands of other books, most of which also appear to be reasonable non-fiction. Some of the cites have "The Macmillan Company" in brackets. Macmillan of course is a major reputable publisher of non-fiction. Also, the fact that Gray cites Hayek's remarks provides evidence that they are genuine. TFD (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that Hayek's view is notable and that it should be brought to the Block biography. The Gray book is reliable as it is from a respected imprint. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the consensus, provided that the article states no more than what Gray stated in the RS reference. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is clear. We can and should use Gray, but nothing else. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that Gray's book is reliable secondary source for what Hayek said. Most editors think that we can also use the page in Block's book, published by Fleet Press Corporation and used as a source in Gray's book, as a primary source for what Hayek wrote. TFD (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrew Dalby 11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. So I can put in the following:

John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. Hayek wrote in an introductory commentary in the book that looking through it "made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."

Then we can spend the next six months deciding what to actually quote from Hayek's commentary... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, Carol, I don't think you can, not at that length. This appears to me to be a self-standing text by Hayek, subject to copyright, very short, and you can't go beyond fair use. I'd say about a third of the number of words you are currently quoting, possibly paraphrasing some of the rest. If others think I'm wrong here, I'm sure they'll say so! Andrew Dalby 22:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe Mr. Dalby is correct. We can write: "John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book." Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Specifico. But indeed we can additionally footnote Hayek's text via Google Books -- obviously a help to our readers, since we have found the text, and Hayek is (as this and other discussions have shown) notable and of keen interest -- and we can quote it; but briefly. I think I'd go as far as this (shortened from Carol's text above), just for example:

John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. In this prefatory comment Hayek observes that looking through the book made him feel that he was again "exposed to the shock therapy by which ... the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it," explaining that an understanding of economics requires the rejection of illusions and prejudices, and that it was a real service to have demonstrated "the falsity of these stereotypes".'

Any use? Andrew Dalby 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I assumed it would be cut somehow. I was just providing the full quote that originally had been in text so people could decide what wanted to use - or could look to the original for other quotes. As long as the main thrust is preserved, I'm happy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that only first sentence should be in the article, without the scare quotes. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

But why? Hayek's notable, as you yourself have done so much to show, Specifico. Why not quote a bit of the opinion that Gray referred to? It's good stuff, too, whether one agrees or not. "Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it!" Worth a few seconds of our readers' time. Give it to them! Andrew Dalby 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's an alternative suggestion: The article could state, "Philosopher John N. Gray noted that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book, Defending the Undefendable, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded." That gives a bit more substance to the Gray's mention of Block's book without drawing on speculation or OR characterization of the Hayek text. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Where's the speculation? Where's the OR characterisation? And why squeeze out Hayek? You surely agree he's a more notable figure than Gray! Let's have his words! Andrew Dalby 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not read Gray's book. Does he identify that promotional text we've seen from Hayek as being the basis for the sentence we're discussing? The more interesting and informative content actually would be that Gray calls Block's book "Mandevillean". SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's good too, though (I would hazard) more obscure to more readers than the Hayek sentence I quoted :) But, fine. Let's take both.

Yes, for Hayek's endorsement Gray cites the Fleet Press edition of the Block book. That's all set out above (but a long, long way above). Andrew Dalby 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see not reason to mention Gray in the text. That makes it read Gray said that Hayek said. Why not just say what Hayek said. TFD (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I see exactly what you mean, TFD. But this thing has a tendency to go round in circles, and the first circle began with doubts that Hayek's comment is RS. It is in any case a primary source (for Hayek's opinion). Gray, being undoubtedly RS, gives us the lead to quote the primary source that he interprets for us. That's the way I see it, anyway. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Using secondary and primary sources to reinforce each other is standard. Let's not find an excuse to knock how Hayek quote 3 weeks after this thread gets archived or whatever. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that Gray mentions Hayek's endorsement is actually more significant than the "endorsement" itself. In the endorsement, which appears to be a solicited promotional statement, Hayek does not even say that he has read the book. He did however choose to lend his name to the promotion of it so I think that Gray's text and his characterization of Block's book as Mandevillean are good WP content. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words leave out any evidence of praise and write Gray so it sounds like criticism of Block as fringe. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico herself hasn't said that she's read the thread above -- a clue, surely, that she doesn't intend her last comment to be taken seriously :)

But I agree with Specifico that we want the the Gray mention, and that in using the Hayek endorsement we need to be selective: just quote a short passage that is a straight response to the book, in clear and trenchant words. Easy to do. Andrew Dalby 19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm lost here. Hayek wrote admiringly of Mandeville in other contexts. Gray presumably knew that. Any comparison of Block, a living and little-known author, to the enduring legacy of Mandeville would seem to be a significant homage to Block's work. Thus for a scholar of Gray's credentials to mention Block and Mandeville in the same breath seems like a substantial validation of Block's efforts. Hayek's endorsement on the other hand, other than the fact that he was willing to associate his name with Blocks, seems pro-forma and of dubious substance. And Hayek does not appear (to my reading) to have read the book, but just to have noted its content. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, now that it's agreed both sources are RS, at this point proposals for wording should be made at Defending the Undefendable article and then some version inserted into Block as warranted.

Also, is SPECIFICO now calling "herself" a "her"? I see that as of today SPECIFICO's User page still sports {{User:UBX/pronoun:comfort}} so I'll go by that until the User page changes. (Don't want another brouhaha about use of pronouns regarding editors who haven't been real clear on their user pages making it hard to keep track of what's official and what's mere speculation.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec to SPECIFICO)If you "know" whether someone has read a book, "you are a better man than I am ..." Collect (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did I say that? Since neither of us knows whether he read it, we should focus on what we do know, namely, that he endorsed Block's book. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, the bold pronoun was mine.

...yes, endorsed it, and spoke of his reactions on looking through it. But can you seriously claim, Specifico, after all that's been said above, that Hayek's words are "pro-forma and of dubious substance"? Pure mashed potatoes. I suggest that you re-read the discussion above, beginning "Then we can spend the next six months ..." and ending (if you can bear to stop) "... a long, long way above." Then you'll be able to explain how it is you now disagree with those hard-won conclusions and why, precisely, you think those words of Hayek's are "pro-forma and of dubious substance". They're better than anything you or I or Carol has written in this whole thread! No wonder he got a Nobel Prize and we (so far as I know) haven't yet. Andrew Dalby 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lion vs Tiger Consenses =Reliable sources

Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bigcat82 is constantly removing refferences and sources to the lion vs tiger subject and "claiming" that they are --un-reliable--, have no sources, are fictional ect...

I am here to show the proof that they are reliable and not what he insinuated"

This is not a fictional book, but a consenses by a Historian with a masters degree:

Master's degree In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University Ken spiro comments, "The Romans went all over the empire to find wild, exotic beast to astonish the crowds. Next, the Arena was lowered to feature combat between them, Romans cheered as Lions tore apart Tigers, tigers went up against Bears, Leopards against Wolves. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights"

- Maters degree info: http://www.kenspiro.com - Direct link to the quota: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Romans+cheered+as+lions+tore+apart+tigers&btnG= - Year: 2002 - Author: Ken spiro - Book title: WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization - isbn: 978-0-415-10453-1

The source is relating the spectacle of the event, not the merits of one animal against another per se. I don't see how this can be regarded as a reliable source in this context. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, his sources are the ones that are not reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion

His refferences main source comes from a Zoo keeper, not a historian with a degree in history: http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg

Random people who are not qualified (no scholar knowledge) specifically in history via knowledgable to historical records and are basing it off hear say, should not be replacing things that have Masters degrees.

Also:

"Another mosaic in the house of the Faun, now badly damaged, showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger."

- Direct link to the quota: http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA - Year: 1986 - Author: Jerome Jordon Pollitt - Book title: Art in the Hellenistic Age - isbn: 9780521276726

As the original refferences was subjectively used without mentioning the lion standing over a prostrate tiger.

So I await a consenses in removing things that is unreliable and placing a block on Bigcat82's on his subjective, cherrying picking and constant erasing of reliable content for the Lion vs Tiger subject as he has repeatively undid a more reliable vision numerous times: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160

As I just showed its proof of reliability. Golden Prime (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A Master's degree isn't very high on the academic reputation scale. The problem with the sources which you are challenging is that they are many, variate, written by people regarded as authorities (e.g. published by Cambridge University Press or upon the websites of other reputable universities). Even if some of them would be unreliable, this cannot hold for all of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And that guy isn't an animal keeper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And on and on the fairess wheel goes, first I put Clyde beatty in, a person who had directly observed them fighting as stated in his book observation upon 40 years experince (as I provided) and has worked with 1,000 tigers and lions, has accumilated atleast 25 tigers that were killed his lions documented by over 10 credible sources, of news paper and book archives, who he is the Guiness records book holders working with both lion and tiger simultaneously (note I say simultaneously) none of whats in place have any verification working with both and specifically seen them fight, (or else prove it, prove those sources have seen fights, not just assuming) backed by via news articles and books, yet it gets removed in conjunction by a absolutely no credentials (History) level of science, then when I put in a scholar masters degree authority, the zoo keeper who is less credible and reliable then both of the contradictive exclusions, its then dis-regarded yet again, just because a person owns a dog, doesnt mean he knows the history, origin, import/export, leinage, blood-line ect....the same way a zoo keeper doesnt know the history nor cites any specifics of the romans, there were over 50 emperors, in over 5 centurys, where are the records then to support the zoo keeper? There should be thousands if you make a claim such as large as an empire, not just 1, yet I have over 10 Historians, Theologians, Archaeologist that all supports the lion was the usual victor in rome, along with 8 historical artifacts of origination of rome/italy...its non-challangeable when you only have one staged account and one opinion from a nobody (No credentials or tangible proof).

So what exactly are you trying to say? That he (Bigcat82) can post whatever he wants and I and anyone to oppse it will have the data removed? All the revisions are being undone to his bias subjective vision, yet no clarification is being emited, up-held or even verified, the bottom line is, why is Bigcat82 removing things off thats just as reliable and acedemcially even more so then his, and...only...keeping his? Dont you think then both should be heard, used, provided and or be known to the public?

His revision is so bias its ridiculous, whats next, you are gonna tell me that there are only 2 sub-speices of tigers as Bigcat82 has as current? lol

I'm not chllangeing anything, I pointing out the facts, published? What are you talking about, 10 people quoting one incident (Martials Poem/epigram), doesent make many, its still counts as only one, just because 100 newspaper stations publish muhamid ali kocked out george foremen, doesnt mean ali knockd out foreman 100 times, again, there is only one credible and reliable source of the romans/rome/italy historical basis that mentions a tiger defeating a lion, which is Martial even the people who studyed that epigram stated it was un-clear f it was staged, since in that same event awoman killed a lion too, really? A average lady killed a 500lb killing machine...lol, thats it...on the other hand from ancient to modern records we have:

• Historian Ken Spiro (M.A In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University)
• Historian Margaret George (University with a B.A. and Stanford University with an M.A)
• Historian and Archaeologist Martin seyers (Ph.D of Classical Archaeology, Egyptologym at Vienna University)
• Professor Thomas Gray (Historian at Cambridge University.)
• Professor Adolph Hausrath theologian (Privatdozent P.D German universities)
• Theologian Edward beecher (Graduated in Yale college in 1822)
• Charles Scribner's Sons (American writing company dates back to 1821)
• Museums and Their Development (Psychology Press, 1656)
• Native to the holy roman empire, Johan Wenzel Peter (Painting/Root artifact)
• Native to the holy roman empire Cicero Epigram/remnent
• Native to the holy roman empire, Carl Borromäus Andreas Ruthart (Painting/Root artifact)
• Native to rome Pietro Aquila (Royal Emperyium engraving/Root artifact)
• Visitor to rome Théodore Géricaul: (Painting/Root artifact)
• Visitor to rome HECHT Joezef Polish: (Painting/root artifact)
• Visitor to rome Richard westall: (Engraving/root artifact)
• Roman Royal Athena (Belt buckle/Root artifact)
• Mosiac in the house of faun (Pompeii A.D)
• Mosaic in the house of Caecilius Jucundus (Pompei A.D)
• Two Marbel stone peices (Circa 1700 & the other 1920)
• Greek statue (Artifact)
• Phaedrus
• Plato's dialogues
• Latin writer/historian Aesop
• Eye Witness: Mr. Bolton (veorna 1834)
• Eye witness: Trainer Kose (Turin italy)
• Eye witness: Rudolf kludsky to several occaisons (Turin italy)

All solid proof of anecdoctal records the same as martials poem showing lions usually won, to actual artifacts depicting lions the victor via mosaics, engravings, etches, antiques, ect ect, historians and thelogian consenses all with Ph.d and Masters degrees, actual staged accounts in other amphitheaters by eye witnesses where the lion won, just so happens all the books, newspaper articles ect all quote the same man as their refference, Marcus Valerius Martialis, and it is widely accepted as the epigram is merely just a poem, there are literaly hundreds of poems written of lions defeating tigers...so lets not go there.

Thats only records in rome/italy, their are (on hand) records from India, Germany, British, chinese, japanese, persians, ect ect, all suporting the lion was the usual winner.

The historic value trumps anything that supports the theory tigers won basically 30x fold, this is consistant with modern experts via animal trainers who observed them fighting, it is in consistantcy with science professions such as Biologist, Ecologist and Natralits, all the credible data indicates the lion is the superior animal in combat, all nationalitys and cultures has the lion the superior animal either in healdry or actual accounts, the same way the on record the lion has killed the tiger more than vice versa.

This subject with out the life experinces and memoirs of Clyde beatty, Bert nelson, terrell Jacobs, Dave hoover and more has no value, no substance, and without those authoritys this subject should be classified as medicore and un-educated, in fact ignorant.

So I say again, I am not against things that support the tiger, I just want both sides as truthful as possible and both sides to be heard, not erasing things because someone is incredibily subjective and bias... is that so much to ask? Golden Prime (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Golden Prime (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Prime (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is frankly ridiculous to cite Ken Spiro for a claim regarding the relative merits of lions and tigers in a fight - he is describing a Roman spectacle, not making an assessment regarding the fighting abilities of the animals. We don't cherry-pick random phrases from publications on entirely different subjects to use as source. Spiro may very well be qualified to write on 'The Jewish Impact on Civilization', but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that he is an expert on lions and tigers - or that he makes the slightest claim to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Ohh, you don't say...and what about everythig else I have mentioned, just grabage too then eh? This topic is so fragile, it needs consistant "hints" that all lead to the same conclusions, not just living in a life of denial obscuring single/individual refferences, so what you are saying is, all the things I have mentioned will be remained hidden from the world because some subjective bias people dont want anyone disagreeing with their own un-educated opinions on subject? lol Maybe you should read up on some of the basics on this subject before you go calling BS to a person who has a Masters degree, while in vice versa you have zero knowledge:

(Last Post on the page) http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=6

Oh, wow...all that info, yet not one according to the bias necessities of wiki=goers, finds it reliable...XD WOW! Yeah and cherry picking 2 sub-species of the largest tigers to hide the fact lions on average (as a species) are heavier, taller, larger and bigger in size compared to tigers...what happened to the Sumatran tiger, The Indo-chinese, Javan, south-china, caspian, bali and malayian tiger...ohhh, Oblivious and re-written out of history just because they stand little to no chance to even the smaller sub-species of asiatic lions leo persica, and specifically to your comment, he does not have to know current biology 101 of tigers and lions of today, thats not the catagorie/profession he is in, if you even looked into the subject, Ken spiro was in the HISTORY CATAGORIE, as historians study things that are pre-recorded via remnents, archaeology and written documentation that is passed on from the past, so I dont know even why you commented on that, the other catagorie of EXPERTS OPINIONS would then be able to clarify their profession, as in observation, hypothetises, actual studys of live individuals, which yet again is what I brought via Terrell jacobs and Clyde beatty...probably the highest on hand observers intwined with on the field observers and zoologist such as Dave salmoni and Kailash sankhalka...and yet consistantly on a hour to hour basis has to have the same bias revisioner safe guard it by erasing anything that supports the lion. lol Golden Prime (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Such comments are doing your case no favours. This is the reliable source noticeboard, where we discuss the merits of sources presented here - which is what I was doing. If you prefer, we could discuss the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where your apparent inability to discuss the subject without resorting to insults will no doubt come under scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It woulden't matter to me, since someone would be to blame, it has been un-checked via over 5 years, I've conducted a scan of how many sites have cited and refferenced wiki on this subject, an its almost in the thousands with a ripple effect of viewers in the hudred millions, with incredibly mis-informed people all being propelled by a bias revisioner...so if anyone is to blame, it should be wikipedias moderators and admins, as I have only seen nothing but negativity be promoted out of what wiki was allowed to be spewed out, propaganda, ignorance, lies, fakes and more...for shame.Golden Prime (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The only person to blame for your behaviour is yourself - and getting permanently blocked will do nothing for your case. I suggest that rather than continuing with this discussion, which is unlikely to achieve anything concrete, you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research, and then look for material which both complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and supports your position. And if you have specific issues regarding the sourcing and/or neutrality of the article as it stands which directly relate to Wikipedia policy, and can demonstrate them without resorting to personal attacks on other contributors, you could consider raising them in the appropriate places - here for questions regarding sources, at WP:NORN for issues pertaining to original research, and at WP:NPOVN for issues regarding neutrality. You should be aware however that your own editing will be subject to scrutiny too - and that any repeat of the sort of attacks you have indulged in here is certain to lead to sanctions against you. The choice is yours - you can work with us, our way, or you can expect to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One other thing - please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to. [2] It can make understanding a discussion next to impossible, and in consequence is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My behavior? Whats wrong with it...so basically the rightous, the person who wants to be fair, truthful ect has to be victimized by some uneducated people on subject who basically just pointed out in a small time frame 1/100th Bigcat82 was abusing the ethics of this website, and all I did was point out some mistakes, faults, exploits reliability/credability factors, and exposer of un-phantomed subjectivity unchecked biasness, and yet the very person who was frequent (Bigcat82) for years on this subject slipped passed abusing wiki as a propelling device to get out his own bias wants to pollute the world, cloaked unseen for about half a decade pushing out his own selfish needs without one, just one person interveening and having it adressed, moderated, reviewed, corrected, assest properly...and yet he goes un-corrected, un-challanged and unpunished...in fact aided/helped...Huh!

So what you're saying is, Bias intentions(Bigcat82)>>>>>>>Fair assement(Golden Prime)???? Okay, I'm done, I'll take it else where then. No biggie, since absolutely no one gave reasons and was able to prove the accounts of lions killing tigers were un-reliable...just people living in denial, purposely lying for a false cause... you can stay in a demented, delusional world of bias subjective B.S, I won't Golden Prime (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One more last thing, I request a user Block on Bigcat82, since he isint and can't give any tangible proof that whats in place now as my last undo, is unreliable, as all are accounted for via newspaper acrhives, heres of an example...

This is a Newspaper archive with all its credentials:

The Times 2 September 1936 › Page 12 Clyde beattys lion named boss tweed, kills 3 tigers in one fight http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E474f4BFJh8J:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/38953345/+clyde+beatty++lion+tiger++killed+++site:www.newspapers.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&strip=1

Thats how it would look like in through the archive, you can go to its main site and purchase a Pdf copy of the article to view it your self, heres another account and how a snap shot peice of the article would look like:

lion kills three tiger’s Source: Altoona Mirror, September 27. 1928 http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Leofwin/lionvstigeraccount4.jpg

So since Bigcat82 has no reason of removing what I posted of lions killing tigers accounts via reliable sources, it is in terms vandalizing, so I would like a mod to place a block on his account if he persist in removing credible and reliable occaisons to have a bias subjective and pro-data topic.Golden Prime (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you wish for a contributor to be blocked, this isn't the place to propose it - WP:ANI would probably be a better place, if you had a good case, based on relevant evidence and a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy. Since you appear to have neither, I would however suggest that doing so based on what you have written here would be a total waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I would also suggest that it might not be in your best interests to raise the matter at WP:ANI, given that you have clearly failed to take previous warnings regarding your behaviour into account - adding material with a patently-false edit summary as you did here [3] is unlikely to be seen in a positive light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You see what I mean, I don't like wasting my time like that...you just called them false...how, wheres your tangibe proof they are false, just saying it is dosent make them false, they are all directed straight to its root source, tell me exactly how is his (Bigcat82) a good case and mine isint? You dident even check for any of his verifications, so stop lying, there are even previous people who undid his revision since they actually read its content, answer one question andy...just one...are there only two sub-speices of tigers?

NO! There are NINE! So how is whats in place already a good case? You shouldent even be replying if you arnt interested in improving anything on this subject, I don't even know why you're here, you say you want reliability, and yet you make up lies and subjective remarks and hide behind wiki rules of abusing authoritys where its not needed. Golden Prime (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work of consensus. If you are putting forward sources that other's deem as unreliable (and they are clearly giving you reasons, btw), then you haven't achieved consensus. You can't revert and insult just to get your way - so either find a way to work with other editors or cut your losses and move on. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a thread concerning User:Golden Prime at WP:ANI. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

lol you have nothing on me and are making up lies after lie andy, go report me, who cares, we both know you have nothing that was true...I'm waiting andy, it states here WIKIPEDIA'S OWN SOURCE! Tiger there are NINE SUBSPEICES OF TIGERS! I previously added a revision even before the one you undid as ignorant and faslely proclaimed as you were, you offered no proof, and yet the former revision I had mentioned had 2 BIOLOGIST (you can check my other contribs) state all the tiger averages, and the lion on average is heavier and taller, I'm trying to be as historically as accurate as possible, what are you doing? Being subjective, bias and hiding the truth and twisting facts?

You, are CONTRADICITING wikipedias own sources, there are more than 2 sub-species of tigers, yet you and flat out reverted to less reliable content...jesus christ talk about hypocrites, good case? You have NO CASE, you cant even exept the basic cases let alone you ignorantly trying to dis-prove of scholar/masters level'd people who you dident even know the concept between history and biology was supposed to be comprehended...yet again, making up things and being bias and subjective...why are you even here, to be a spaming bot?

For the 100th time I reverted you for edit warring, but I would be interested in you pointing out where in Tiger versus lion it states there are 2 sub-species of tiger because I can't see it. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is you dident state why you revereted it to a less reliable one and yet all the accounts, everysingle one of them had a source, and you still reverted it out lolGolden Prime (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted - and blocked - for edit warring. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the Moors Article

I have a problem with a few sources on the current Moors article as they're currently being misquoted (possibly libeled), one from an Afrocentrist author known for pseudohistory, and one by some obscure author that has no validity.

The sources are the following: Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, by, Pieris, P. E. 1874-1959, The Story of the Moors in Spain By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman, and The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima.

These sources are currently being used in the Moors article as I aforesaid.

• The problem with the content is the fact that the source that involved Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, is by some obscure author with no validity, is improperly linked, and has no quotation or page reference. Here it is: [5] Even if it did have all those things correct, it still doesn't change the fact the main problem with the source is that it's some self-published source with no validity and has never been vetted by anyone.

• The next source "The Story of the Moors in Spain" By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman is a book created by an orientalist and orientalism can indeed distort differences between different cultures, not only that but Stanley Lane-Poole has not much scholarship, but the main problem is that the citation is currently being falsely quoted and possibly libeled. Here is what the citation on the page says: [6] as you can see it says "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes." and is quoting/claiming Stanley wrote that, but he did not. Here is the book and you can check, he did not write that material, at all.

• The next source is one by Ivan Van Sertima and here it is: [7] as you can see a "better source needed" claim is already there. The citation is substantiating the following material "West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty." That material comes from a self-published source by well known Afrocentrist for extremist views who has been chastised for pseudohistory and this is the epitome of OR.

In my opinion these sources should be replaced by reliable sources that support the material, and if that cannot be done, then the material should go with the source. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In order - the American Ceylon Mission Press was not a self-publishing operation, it was (as you can see at that article) part of a highly influential and respectable organisation. Pieris wrote at least a dozen books on Ceylon and related topics which were not self-published, many of which have been felt important enough to see 21st century reprints from a variety of publishers (cf [8], where you will also discover he spoke on the subject at Kings College, London in 1937). Moors is not the only page he is cited on. You'd do better to put some of this excess energy into writing a Wikipedia page about him.

There is not the book, merely its front cover; and I seriously doubt we should have concerns about a libel suit from authors who were writing in the 1880s; they might be a bit old for legal action by now. [9] is a non-machine-readable copy, but since User:Inayity has a copy perhaps they will be so kind as to provide a page reference and save some effort.

Furthermore, all that source is actually cited for is that the Moors were medieval and Muslim. I'm not actually sure that is in serious doubt!

Without going further into Ivan Van Sertima, but "The Golden Age of the Moor" was published by Transaction Publishers, who are not a vanity publisher. However, the idea that the Almoravids married Africans into the dynasty is hardly remarkable (frex their article cites Lange, Dierk (1996), "The Almoravid expansion and the downfall of Ghana", Der Islam 73, pp. 122-59.)

Furthermore, that source was tagged by User:Inayity - perhaps if you stopped trying to crowbar changes in and appealing to meatpuppets, they'd have a bit more time to look for something better? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pieris is a complete nobody and just because it was published by a book publishing organization does not mean the book is still not self-published and by "self-published" I mean created by himself, anybody can write a book and get it published by a company, it's not too hard. I really don't even like using books as sources unless they have been vetted quite well. Also, yes [10] here is the book in its entirety. Do you not know how to scroll down the page with your mouse or use the search bar to the left? The book states no such thing and libeling doesn't just involve legal action, that may be a deeper process if the libelous is that serious to whoever the copyright goes to finds it that offensive. Damaging someones reputation by publishing false information under his name is a part of libeling, that misquote can fall under that. If the West Africans entering the Almoravid dynasty is such a common fact, why is that I looked for other sources that state such a thing yet fine none of validity to replace Ivan? Either way, it's not gonna change the fact Ivan is an Afrocentrist known for distorting history and has been chastised for his beliefs and the source is currently making the material OR and is garbage. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by Self-published source. I just need that clarified. Also being Afrocentric (like Molefi Asante) does not mean we throw it out. The actual statement which uses Ivan is actually not a pseudo historical claim. And hence why we left it in and allow people to seek better sources WP:NODEADLINE and this nit picking with some agenda behind it which remains unclear to me (at least) is not helping us to push on and make this article A grade. Give it a rest at some stage and fix something else. It is exhausting going on about Poole. --Inayity (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When I follow that Google link, the page I get explicitly states "No eBook available".

However, there is a full text of the book here https://archive.org/details/storymoorsinspa02gilmgoog (it might be a different edition, I neglected to check) and, assuming the search function is reliable, that indeed does not appear to contain the sentence you refer to beginning In ancient times. Barnabypage (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What was actually going on with that is that User:Inayity had quoted a section from the introduction which has now been correctly attributed after I found a machine-searchable text.Pinkbeast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Snap, I just figured that out too. :) If anyone is still interested, the quote in question comes from the introduction to the 1990 edition by John G. Jackson (writer). The text of this introduction can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Story-Moors-Spain-Illustrated-ebook/dp/B00EKR1VK2/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1380653060&sr=1-2&keywords=moors+in+spain. Barnabypage (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Created by himself"? Every book is created by its author, so I really have no idea what on earth you mean by that. (What "self-published" actually means is that the author paid for publication; that the printer just printed, with no concern as to the commercial viability or quality of the work. Pieris's books were not self-published.) And do you have any evidence for these assertions about Pieris or the publisher? "Anyone can get a book published" - well, I'm sure that will be a relief to various would-be authors, but can anyone also get their work repeatedly reprinted decades after their death?

I don't know if this is an artifact of geolocation, but there is no search bar anywhere on that page, no indication that the text of the book is anywhere present; and please remember that it's your previous persona, 70.126.13.113, who was needlessly offensive: I can use a Web browser.

The idea that whoever now holds the copyright on a book published in 1886 (and we've already got one impossibility there) can be libelled because the book was misquoted is utterly absurd.

The source does not make the material OR; see WP:OR. Only if Van Sertima were to edit the article himself based on his own conclusions would it be OR, and since he is dead that seems unlikely.

I suspect this is increasingly far removed from the business of RSN, so I'm leaving it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the original book by Stanley: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Story_of_the_Moors_in_Spain.html?id=OMYCAAAAYAAJ the same link I gave you earlier, hopefully it works now to those having trouble. You then click on the front cover of the book and can scroll down through it all, or use the search bar on the left. I just elucidated what I meant by self-published in the post above, referring to all books, whether they be published from a company or not. Stanley's original book says no such thing, but apparently a version by an Afrocentrist does (not surprising). So that excerpt is not by Stanley himself. Also it can possibly fall under the definition of libel Pinkbeast. Yes it can be WP:OR because this is what OR is "Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" that is not reliable, but also questionable due to the extremist views expressed in that literature. If Ivan's view is so common, why do I see no reliable source that expresses the same sentiments? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Colonial era books like Stanley and Pieris are likely to contain nationalistic or racist assumptions and are thus not reliable unless we have recent sources that say that they are still regarded as definitive. Sertima is not reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely concur about your sentiments on Pieris and Stanley, not to mention Stanley is an orientalist, they are well known for distortion of culture and differences between groups. The funny thing is Stanley did not even jot such words in his original book, but a republished version by an Afrocentrist writer is who those words belong to. Obviously self-published Afrocentrist writers like Sertima with extremist views are in no way reliable. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone care to share their opinions on the source regarding the Moors which is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher Black Classic Press of Stanley's original work by the Afrocentrist writer John G. Jackson (writer)? Stanley's original version has been deemed as unreliable, so I don't see how a republished version by a publisher that lacks scholarship with some Afrocentric additions are reliable. You can take a look at some of the book here and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see the extremist questionable views and the dates are not correct. It does not seem reliable in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the extremist questionable views don't jump out of the page at me. Whatever, this isn't reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get away from the sources used now, and try to construct an accurate sentence with better ones. "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes" is oddly put (part 3), and not really right. I would have said using "Ethiopians" for sub-Saharan Africans was medieval, while "Moors" were often all Arabic-speaking Muslims, whether from Iraq or Spain. But of course the medieval concepts of distant races were vague and variable, often difficult to interpret from sources, and very difficult to accurately generalize about. To the Arabic-speaking world, all Europeans were usually "Franks" (ie French). Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Or indeed rūm, "Romans". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this website a suitable reliable source?

Seeking advice on the suitability of http://www.racingsportscars.com as a source, as used in the Vittorugo Mallucci article. The website is registered to a named individual, rather than an organisation, and I suspect the content is self-published and lacking any editorial oversight. Jaggee (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On the about page its say " contributions from friends and sports car enthusiasts" ....this would be a red flag in my opinion. BUT....its used all over Wikipedia (thus some must think its ok) ....so we should get others to look at this closely - External links search. I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing to comment since this could affect many articles and they need to be aware of what people think of the site as a whole.-- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree more, when the car websites are based on news. Than just historicity(you prefer books instead). Noteswork (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably does not qualify as a reliable source, per se, but almost all the information on it is copies of race results, making it a useful resource as a guide for someone building an article, but should not be the sole source of information. Obviously race results and data from official sources is preferred, but some series are defunct and no longer exist, making finding race results near impossible, so sometimes racesportscars is the sole source of information available in that regard. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion I see is that the site is not reliable, but is nevertheless widely used. I guess if it is the only source of something, then that something isn't all that notable - and can be removed. If it just the only online source, of content that could be sourced elsewhere in paper publications, then we need to dig out those paper sources. Either way, is there any policy-compliant reason to allow this site to be kept as a source cited in any article? Jaggee (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

IMDB reliable source for awards?

Are the awards portion of IMDB[11] part of the curated content that is considered reliable or is that part of the user generated stuff? that we do not use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that any part was curated? Surely there is an official BAFTE site that could be used tho? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are parts of IMDB that are reviewed, however as Gaijin suggest there must be better sources for all of these awards. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what is being implied here is why IMDB isn't usually considered useful for information like this. Insofar as the award is itself worth mentioning (BAFTA, Oscars, Golden Globes, major film festival awards, etc.) there exists other more reliable sources. Insofar as there is no other source than IMDB, the award isn't probably worth mentioning. Therefore, IMDB shouldn't be used for this purpose. --Jayron32 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the awards section of IMDb is curated. They ask for sources of awards data that are submitted and reject submissions of awards reports that contain information that is contradicted by other sources that they regard as more reliable.[12][13] I don't know how long they have had the current procedures in place for verification of awards; it's not inconceivable that some entries for lower-profile awards that were added to their database years ago may be incorrect. For high-profile awards (Oscars, BAFTAs, Palmes d'Or) generally, and for recent lower-profile awards, IMDb awards listings should be considered reliable. Info from IMDb's "trivia", "goofs", "quotes", and biography sections are not reliable. Dezastru (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but for higher profile awards, is there a conceivable reason why one would discard a more reliable source in favor of IMDb? --Jayron32 05:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The question was not whether other sources should be discarded in favor of IMDb. It was whether IMDb is reliable as a source for reports of awards. By analogy: Suppose a source is needed for something said during a speech delivered by US President Obama. One source might be the transcript of the remarks prepared by the president's staff and uploaded to the whitehouse.gov website. Another source might be a transcript published by the Washington Post. Another source might be a paraphrased summary from a news blurb broadcast by the BBC. Another might be a video of the speech at cspan's website. Deciding which source is most suitable is a different matter than deciding whether an individual source should be regarded as reliable. One conceivable reason IMDb might be offered as a source is that the IMDb awards page offers a convenient listing of other, related information that is usually not available from the awarding organization. (For instance, the IMDb awards page for Marlon Brando shows that not only did Brando win a best actor Oscar in 1973 for The Godfather, but he also won a best actor Golden Globe that year for the same role, was nominated for the role for a BAFTA, and won 2nd place awards for the role from the NY Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. You wouldn't see any of that at the AMPAS website. As a reader, I find that kind of access to additional information very useful.) Dezastru (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the sources in your example are equally reliable, and that's not what's happening here. I don't see that IMDb is equally as reliable as the awards organization itself or a dedicated news agency. The Marlon Brando page has an external link for IMDb, so it's not a matter of "liking" the site, it's just not a good site to rely on for verifiable sourcing with clearly understood editorial oversight. In-line citations are primarily intended to show verifiability above all, not to point to interesting sites (even though some sites cited are interesting, of course). "External links" or "Further reading" are where we can put links to sites based on their other charms. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources in my example are not equally reliable. The video recording, assuming the audio portion is clear, is the most reliable. A verbatim transcript prepared by the president's staff after the speech has been given should be next (although this point might be open to debate). A transcript published by a major news media outlet next. And a paraphrased summary from a major news organization last. (You might be interested in this: [14] [15].) Despite the discrepancy in reliability in the example, the usual practice on Wikipedia is to cite news agency articles. I suspect a couple of major reasons for that is that they are easier to find (higher search engine indexing) and there is the general preference for using secondary sources. But, getting back to IMDb, the question, again, wasn't whether IMDb awards content is the most reliable of possible sources. Nobody has argued that IMDb is more reliable than the awarding organization itself. I provided an explanation as to why an IMDb citation might be of benefit in some situations, as opposed to an AMPAS citation, in response to Jayron23's question about conceivable reasons why anyone would ever cite IMDb. Readers who require a source that carries the smallest risk of error can follow the IMDb link to the AMPAS website, in those cases in which IMDb has been cited rather than AMPAS.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem to be taking the position that IMDb should never be cited as a source for film awards. But consider Deepa Mehta's film Fire. The film won Silver Hugo awards at the Chicago Film Festival and won awards at LA Outfest (an LGBT film festival). IMDb shows some of those awards that the film won. Good luck finding that same information at the websites for the Chicago Film Festival or LA Outfest. The Chicago Film Festival's website's archive page shows that Fire was screened at the festival in 1996,[16] but the website doesn't list it among the award winners.[17] Yet a contemporaneous news report shows that the film had indeed been an award winner.[18] So apart from the issue of whether IMDb should or should not be used for reports of high-profile awards like Oscars, taking the position that IMDb should never be cited as a source for any film awards would be detrimental to the encyclopedia's mission. Dezastru (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Being right about some information is not the same as being reliable enough for verification purposes for citations. From their own FAQ it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile. Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published. There's no indication what is meant by higher profile so the information is still mostly based on user submission for an unknown amount of awards. Also, Wikipedia is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes. The fact that it sometimes takes user submissions for an unknown amount of its list makes it unreliable for verification by itself. It's a great resource for seeing if someone said it was awarded a prize, but it's not reliable enough to repeat it as a known thing in the article. IMDb is suggested as a link for further reading on all of the pages you mention (which is higher profile than being in a citation) but the article is supposed to be for those things found especially notable and verifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"From their own FAQ it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile. Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published." I don't think that is what that statement says. As I read it, it says that they require confirmation to post an award report. For higher-profile awards, they require that the confirmation be from an official source (which I take to mean the organization making the award).

"Wikipedia is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes." No one disputes this. We are discussing whether IMDb reports can be sufficient for citing awards; we are not discussing whether awards that have been noted only by IMDb merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dezastru (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that best practice is to use the awarding institution itself. From time to time we get an argument that such sources are primary, but I don't see any problem at all. If an organisation makes an award then it isn't going to lie about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Amiannoying - reliable?

Amiannoying is pretty well edited and comfortably less misleading compared to NNDB, but still what you think about it? Because I have found some errors in Amiannoying as well.

Thanks Noteswork (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not remotely a reliable source. See [19] for where they say they get their information from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So they basically get every information through some secondary source? Thanks Noteswork (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

TheDrum.com

An editor pointed out on my talk page[20] about using http://www.thedrum.com/ for citations. I am not sure about the reliability of the site. Kindly, let us know. Thank you,--Bisswajit 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a business magazine focusing on marketing out of Glasgow. It looks like it has some editorial oversight, but it seems self-promoted only. It received an award from Professional Publishers Association but that article has also some pretty odd, self-promoting sourcing itself and that award might not mean anything. I'm not seeing any third-party endorsements of this magazine. I would be very hesitant to use this source for much of anything, without more evidence of credibility. (Maybe not relevant to editorial oversight, but I don't see that their articles attract any comments at all). This looks inconclusively iffy to me, unless someone can find something more conclusive.. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

they are a marketing firm, not a news organizaiton.[21] [22] [23] they are clearly first and foremost concerned with promotion and not fact checking and accuracy. Potentially usable, but with great caution. Almost everything that would be acceptably sourced to the Drum would probably have a more reliable source available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Drum is a publication with a team of editorial staff and reporters generating content - i.e. primary sources of information[24]. Labelling them as a marketing firm is untrue. The items you linked were 1 - a peer to peer networking "group" they run (I believe it's like a private LinkedIN), paid event coverage (advertising) and a business directory. They exist just as spin-offs from the main magazine, i.e. advertising Jamesfx3 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I refer you to [25]. My point is that the content they produce appears on Google News. Google News demands the following standards from any publications it accepts [26] - they have a high requirement for original and reputable content. I appreciate this is not "inheritable". But please remember that syndication by Google News is not given to everyone nor non-news sources before you decide this issue. Jamesfx3 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

gnews does not guarantee reliability as gnews also carries [27] as the examiner dot com which is blacklisted on wikipedia .

The site does not claim nor is there any evidence of any firewall between their publication arm and their marketing wings. in fact they claim the opposite "On one level The Drum Network helps get its members on the radar, by giving them access to The Drum's channels; which include the UK's largest marketing website " and "Are you planning a major event? The Drum can help you build its profile through our Media Partnership programme. It could give you access to: • 750,000 unique monthly online users • 80,000 Twitter followers • 16,000 email newsletter subscribers • And the pages of the PPA Magazine of the Year" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Examiner.com blacklisted?

I've seen sites that were blacklisted before (like Exclaim! which I tried to use when it was blacklisted) become acceptable over time, so I don't doubt it could happen here. Nothing about this particular website strikes me as odd, and I wonder why it is not allowed.

Here's the link I want to use (nowiki because I will be prevented from posting if I allow it to link):

http://www.examiner.com/review/earthless-and-joy-bring-a-taste-of-san-diego-psych-rock-to-the-pacific-northwest

For the record, I hope to use it in Earthless discography (I had added a statement to the lead paragraph that I reverted because I was hoping to install a citation for it using this link later in the article). I was trying to point out how the band's live concert performances differ from their studio recordings (they don't play discrete songs, they melt songs into one another so that the concert as a whole is just one long song made of several and they don't stop playing until they've finished their set).

Before you ask: I believe this is relevant to the discussion of the reliability of sources because it appears that has had something to do with the site being blacklisted. I want to make sure this particular link is OK to use before I take it back to the spam whitelist and ask that this one be granted immunity to the overall embargo on the site itself. Does anyone see any reason why this link is not to be trusted? Can I use it to cite factual information? LazyBastardGuy 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. For the reason look at their "about" page and their ONTopic Custom Content page and "Write for us" pages. The reason they have "100,000 contributors" is Examiner.com takes money from companies to pay writers to write flattering stories and also let's people write about things when they have clear COI. It's not journalism or independent writing. Here's a testimony promoted by the company itself about how small business owners can "position themselves as experts" (on themselves) and skip the hassle of getting attention from third-party writers. There's nothing stopping anybody in any scene or business from writing a bunch of fluff pieces and getting them published on this site as "expert news and opinion". __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@LazyBastardGuy: The answer to your question can be found by reading this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. LazyBastardGuy 18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sky Valley Chronicle

Wikpedia is allowing an online blog named the Sky Valley Chronicle who refuses post who it's writers are. The Sky Valley Chroncile was also connected with an attack piece and threats made to my life via Facebook and Wikipedia attack piece ( Anne Block) which Wikipedia removed citing it as an attack piece.

Sky Valley Chronicle does look like a generally weak source, but it depends what it's being used to support. It's a little bothersome that they call themselves a paper when they're admittedly online only. I can only find them being cited in two articles: Frank Colacurcio and KING-TV. They don't look especially notable and seem overly tabloidy in approach, but I don't see where there's anything at issue right now about them, as they're not currently being used to support any claims. I'd probably accept them as a reliable source for local Ace Hardware Store news but not much else, and specifically not for anything considered controversial. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

r4rating.com

Hey all, I'd like to get some community opinions about the following site: r4rating.com. I first noticed some edits at the movie Drishyam, where an editor attempted twice to include reviews from r4rating here and here. I reverted both of those contributions because the movie article already presents a number of glowing reviews, and two more from a questionable source didn't seem to improve the article.

The contributing editor has also penned a declined AfC of the site here and based on their edit history, they seem to be here to promote r4rating.com by inserting links and reviews into articles. A rough look at the site suggests that the oddly branded "4 rating for you R RATING" (or R4 rating by you RATING ???) might be attempting to aggregate viewer response, akin to RottenTomatoes audience ratings or IMDb's viewer ratings. Curious if the community has any thoughts about this site's suitability for inclusion in movie articles, since I don't notice a lot of consideration for the audience's feelings in objective articles. I attempted to communicate with the contributor, but they ignored me and re-inserted their content into the Drishyam article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I look into it this morning, it appears that the site uses content from Wikipedia (without attribution, I might add), for example here, which is also problematic, because that link is used as a reference here. So basically, they've taken content from Wikipedia, then used that content as a reference in the Wikipedia article. Circular! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The r4rating.com circular reference is pretty blatant; it's obviously a verbatim rip from the text of the article, and then added as a "source" after the fact. This unattributed plagirism on the r4rating.com website would suggest to me that it is not reliable as a source, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Athul noble does seem to be adding a huge number of reviews from r4rating.com to as many articles as possible, and this user was also the one who added the r4rating.com circular reference citing the copy-pasted page. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

ARGNet

Can the alternate reality game site ARGNet be considered a reliable source? I found a couple of articles online that I might want to use in an article, but I am not sure about the reliability of the site? SciGal (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the site I can't find any sign of editorial oversight. The articles therefore are in the category of blogs or at any rate, self published material. They not reliable, except under very limited circumstances as per WP:SPS and WP:USERG. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AllicinFacts.com

Source: www.allicinfacts.com

Article: Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization

Content: "Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European diseases weakening them further."

Copyright information says: Natural Health Publications Limited.

Terms of use: [28]

--Langus (t) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone even think that we should use a website for "selected information about garlic" to source a statement about the effects of smallpox on the Inca? It is an utterly ridiculous source to use - and there is no lack of proper academic material on the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Specific page in question, for completeness. Clearly not reliable for Incan history. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Did someone really think this would fly as a source? Really? Collect (talk)