Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

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

Pamela Geller blog

Yay, another ridiculous question I'm forced to ask! Is anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller's blog, atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com, sufficiently reliable that it can be included in any article? While one would presume that it verifiably represents her own personal feelings, I argue that it falls so far short of WP:RS that it should not be used in articles on other subjects on which Ms. Geller might happen to express an opinion - for instance, Srebrenica massacre, where it is currently being inserted in spite of talkpage consensus not to include it. I have asked that users interested in including her opinion produce reliable sources to show that it belongs in the article, but no luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant question regarding reliable sources, Pamela Geller and the Srebrenica Massacre article is this: "Can a person's blog be used to show what that person's opinion is?". The answer is yes. Fairview360

Absolutely not reliable for anything other than her opinion. And only third party coverage of her opinion would indicate that her opinion might be worthy of inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current usage for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If her opinion is notable enough WP:RS should cite her on those matters.Her blog should be used only as primary source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with TheRedPenOfDoom and Shrike. Geller's blog opinions should only be used on Wikipedia as far as they are mentioned in reliable third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not really a matter of whether or not its "reliable" - its a matter of WP:UNDUE space being given to a fringe viewpoint by bringing it up at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source for facts, or as a convenience link for sources she copies. Can be used to cite her own opinions, where editorial consensus is they are notable. Churn and change (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<-I guess its use in Ron Coleman (legal scholar) to support the statement "Other reported blogger clients include Pamela Geller"[1] is probably a BLP violation and needs replacing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

removed until we have third party or reciprical sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller is certainly Notable, but strictly an opinion writer. She does not have a history of even-handed treatment of facts, but certainly often includes facts not reported on widely in other sources. Is her blog GENERALLY a WP:RS? Obviously no. Can it be referred to in appropriate ways in Articles as opinion? Obviously yes. As to whether any INDIVIDUAL (that is the sticking point for me in responding) inclusion passes WP:RS or WP:UNDUE is a separate issue, and needs separate posting, as per WP:RS Noticeboard guidelines. Looking over your reversions, I would generally agree they are individually justified, but am not going to endorse a blanket ban on Geller references, though they should only be used with extreme caution. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are very few blanket bans on sources. Even the current community consensus that Huffington Post is not reliable for facts is slowly changing as the publication changes. But I would dispute her being "notable" for our definition on Wikipedia. She is certainly controversial, but does that make her blog notable enough to ignore the current polciy against blog sites being used? Anyone can write a blog. Anyone can create an internet site. But we simple don't use self published blogs of this nature WP:BLOGS.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what wikipedia envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly approved. What is going on here? Fairview360

Quoting Geller at Srebrenica massacre is undue emphasis on a minor viewpoint. If Geller's viewpoint was important, another commentator in a reliable source would have discussed it. If you want to bring Geller's opinion into the article you should use third party comments, not Geller's blog. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source, The Guardian, HAS discussed Geller's viewpoint on Serbian war crimes. Perhaps Binksternet could read the reliable sources in question and then offer his opinion. Fairview360

Geller's status as a historian or political analyst or pretty much anything is WAY on the fringe. The only time her opinions should even be considered for inclusion on any article would be if there were significant third party commentary on Geller's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While editors such as Fairview360 and The Red Pen of Doom both agree that Geller's views are WAY on the fringe and perhaps both Fairvew and The Red Pen wish we lived in a world where people with such views were not given mainstream credibility and notability, with Geller, that is not the case. Reliable sources have stated that she is notable. In fact, the Guardian specifically refers to how counter-intuitive that may be: This strange performance might suggest that Geller is a figure consigned to the margins of the widening and increasingly heated debate about the role of Muslims in America. Far from it. The flamboyant New Yorker, who appears on her own website pictured in a tight fitting Superman uniform, has emerged as a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america The fact is reliable sources are stating that Pamela Geller is notable. Hence, wikieditors and administrators need to acknowledge that. Fairview360

In the Srebrenica Massacre article and the talkpage, two reliable sources have been provided showing that Pamela Geller is notable, including an article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america where she is described as having "aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals." The Southern Poverty Law Center states "Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller Meanwhile the Daily News New York http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-25/local/28647400_1_islamic-center-anti-islamic-pamela-geller considers both the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pamela Geller are notable. Hence, significant third party commentary has been provided by The Guardian, The Daily News New York and the Southern Poverty Law Center. So, on what grounds, does Roscelese continue to post on wikipedia that there are no reliable sources demonstrating that Pamela Geller is notable. Roscelese knows of these sources. He has been presented with them repeatedly. Still he ignores them, ignores the actual response of the editors here, and posts on the Srebrenica Massacre article that there is consensus supporting his position that Geller is not notable and that her blog can never be used not even to show her own opinions. There is no consensus supporting Roscelese and yet he succeeds in claiming that all the editors here agree with his position thereby getting the administrator Ckatz to lock the article into deleting the reference to Pamela Geller. There remains the question why Roscelese would put so much effort into getting an example of opposition to the description of genocide deleted from a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. (?) Does it not make sense that wikieditors would contribute examples of opposition to the description of genocide by notable people to a section titled Opposition to the description genocide?Fairview360

No, those independent sources do not say anything about Geller's blog posts about Srebrenica. You cannot use them to synthesize a position that Geller's opinion on Srebrenica has been noticed. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, half of the examples given in the said section of the Srebrenica Massacre article would need be deleted. If understood correctly, Binksternet is affirming that a) Geller is a notable person, b) she does oppose the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, c) her opinion does provide an example of a notable person opposing the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, but it does not belong in the section. If one visits the genocide denial article, one will see multiple examples given of genocide denial by notable people. In the writing on gencodie denial in general, several opinions are offered from notable people. But there is no reliable source stating that that specific opinion is notable. How can wikieditors refer to the opinions of notable people if they can do so only when a reliable source states that that particular opinion is notable to that particular topic? If wikipedia were to hold to such a standard, the opinions of George Orwell writing about the mechanism of denial would be deleted from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial because no third party stated that Orwell's specific opinion given was notable in relation to the specific topic. Fairview360

George Orwell's viewpoint on nationalism and atrocities has been widely discussed in biographies and scholarly works. Your example falls down on that point. Geller's viewpoint has not been discussed. Sorry, but pointing to other parts of the article will not help Geller be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the New York Times also considers Pamela Geller to be notable: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Fairview360

But not on Srebrenica massacre--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What have we learned here? If the New York Times article says nothing about the article topic then it cannot be used. Stop trying to prop up a synthesis of several sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do all editors agree that a) a person's blog can be used as a reliable reference to show that person's opinion (and for that purpose only) and b) that Geller is a notable person? Then we can move onto the question of synthesis. Fairview360

Gellar meets minimum notability requirements for an article about her in the encyclopedia. That does not mean her opinion on any topic that she happens to discuss on her self published blog is notable for inclusion in that particular topic's article. Seems like a fairly open and shut case. Is there anyone here supporting Fairview's position other than Fairview? Dlv999 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article specifically refers to Geller "aligning herself with Serbian war criminals", specifically refers to her having "vigorously defended Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died while on trial at The Hague for war crimes." Those war crimes include the Srebrenica Massacre, the topic of the article in question. It is as if a reliable source says that someone's opinion on Nazi war crimes is notable but because the source does not explicitly mention Auschwitz, it can not be included in an article about Auschwitz. This kind of overly legalistic hairsplitting is a disservice to wikipedia. It benefits the reader to see the various contemporary sources of opposition to describing the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide. Reliable sources have shown that Pamela Geller is a notable person. Reliable sources have asserted that her opinions relevant to this article are notable. Her own blog leaves no doubt that what The Guardian considers notable -- her support of Serbian war criminals, her defense of Slobodan Milosevic and denial of Serbian war crimes -- includes denying the Srebrenica Massacre. In an article with 23,627 words, Pamela Geller's opinions were described for less than one half of one percent of the article and yet the stewards of wikipedia insist that the entry should be deleted, that it is not relevant, that it is not noteworthy, that it was being given undue weight. Fairview360

• Point of order It is clear that discussion is no longer related to the ORIGINAL filing, which was a request for GENERAL guidelines on using Geller material. While unusual for WP:RS noticeboard filings, it nevertheless generated good GENERAL comments.(and no, it is not necessary to inform other editors; WP:RS is to get outside opinions) SPECIFIC determination if a specific Geller column can be in a specific article should be restated, if that is what Roscelese wanted, together with diffs and narrative on the individual case. Fairview might note that WP:UNDUE concerns might not be addressed in a WP:RS discussion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairview360 agrees that the original question here was whether reliable sources were being used appropriately at the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 agrees that the only question here should be related to WP:RSN, not WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, just WP:RSN. Fairview360 agrees that the editors here should give a clear up or down indication whether reliable sources are being used appropriately and move all other commentary/discussion to the appropriate forum. Lastly, yes, the effort here is geared towards outside opinions. Meanwhile, it helps if those outside opinions can be based on relevant material which often comes from those most familiar with the content in question. Fairview360

Uh, NO. The original question was whether a Pam Geller blog entry could be GENERALLY used on WP. If you want to change the discussion to a specific instance, I would highly encourage you to start a SPECIFIC WP:RS post. However, though the original post did not include difs and specific points, entirely reasonable due to its general nature, a post on a SPECIFIC question needs to restrict itself to well-sourced, well-laid-out and objective evidence that it either IS or IS NOT a WP:RS in the context that it is being used, and that context needs to be explained in specific. Just FYI, in case you decide to go forward; you may want to change the style of argument you use, particularly being more succinct and using fewer colorful analogies; the WP:RS page lends itself more to factual debate. (PS - completely unrelated to anything, it would help other editors if you signed posts by using four tildes, instead of pasting your user address directly. It is hard to tell what order posts are in, and the standard signing process always puts a time stamp on the post, even multiple posts within a single edit). Good luck whichever you decide. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Re: four tildes: It had been some time since I last edited on wikipedia before this latest round. In the past, there was a button that automatically added the four tildes. Now I do not see it and I do not know how to produce tildes with this Bosnian keyboard. So how can I insert the tildes or find that button that once upon a time appeared below this text box? Fairview360 )

Perhaps a helpful cue to what your arguments need, to convince editors that the specific Geller blog entries are WP:RS in the specific case you cite. The NYT article you cite (as Shrike correctly states) proves that people know who Geller is, but has no mention of her opinions on Srebrenica. I don't think anyone is arguing that Geller is completely obscure, neither are movie stars, but they also are not WP:RS in this case. The other articles you cite (Guardian, SPLC, etc.) actually DO help your case, as they do MENTION that she has opinions, arguably relevant; they just don't discuss those opinions or even really say what those opinions are. A newspaper or other third-party source discussing the Geller opinions themselves, or even publishing an attributed quote on the subject of denial of the genocide is really what editors are looking for.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In general. No. Personal blogs cannot be used as RS. I think we might include a blog entry together with the news-item of a RS (like the Guardian) that is covering that blog entry. That can show that the RS is not quoting the blog out of context. But in the Srebrenica Massacre-case, I believe that other Wikipedians already pointed out that Geller's opinion was given undue weight in that article. So unless Geller was fighting alongside Mladic in '95 (quod non), I'd recommend to keep the Geller-part out of the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think if you check the discussion at he Srebrenica article, you'll see that Fairview360 has carefully shown how Geller's views are not given undue weight in the article. They're not given undue weight even in the subsection in which they're included. Opbeith (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

...And I think not. The discussion there and the discussion here involves several editors pointing out the critical issue of the shallowness of the coverage of Geller's opinion specifically about Srebrenica. None of the sources describes the specifics of Geller's blog entries on Srebrenica. It is too much weight for the article to bring her opinion to bear if her opinion is not part of the media discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

First have to note that WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are very different criteria, before saying that in the context of that article, Opibeith has a point, and WP:UNDUE would not be valid, but only if there were an argument that Geller's blogs were WP:RS, and could be included in the first place. The article itself is extremely long, and the section is clearly labeled a collection of minority views, and even though appropriate to that article, it is still a substantial section. WP:UNDUE always relates to how extensive treatment of other aspects of a subject are. It of course, does not matter, until you breach the WP:RS hurdle. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner

I am hoping, and yes, IF, only if it happens, may I please use this source as a record for the article 2012, about this Felix Baumgartner diving into the earth with his own suit to break the sound barrier, an example source here from the Huffington Post, and here if possible whenever he does the performance, I hope to report this stunt for the record hopefully notably if requested.--GoShow (............................) 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it goes ahead it will be notable enough to include. It will be reported in all the major news media. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now this is just sensationalist reporting, and should not be included, unless there are established newspapers reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been reported everywhere, as a possible event. And not in always in a sensationalist way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. If there are established newspapers reporting it, we should cite those sources. On WP we should use the best-quality sources available, and, in this case, I see the New York Times reporting it. The example source, Huffington Post, should not be used. Churn and change (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant other sources Drmies such as a Daily Newspaper or a book of records though, administrator.--GoShow (............................) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RS for Filler (animal food)

1. I came directly here without first posting on the Filler (animal food) talk page, because that page seems inactive. Is 1800Petmeds an RS for the article? Specifically, the following paragraph from this website: "Various ingredients that provide little to no nutritional value, but are added in for dietary fiber. Common fillers found in pet food include corn bran, rice bran, oat hulls, cereal by-products, feathers, soybean hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, rice hulls, wheat mill run, citrus pulp, modified corn starch, weeds, and straw. Many foods also have corn, corn gluten, brewers rice, wheat gluten, soybean meal and rice protein. These ingredients are often used as plant-based sources of protein–cheaper sources of protein when compared to meat or fish. They are often given the name "filler" because they are used by pet food companies (instead of meat or fish) to "fill" up the bag of food with cheaper protein. The term filler is a misnomer, however, if filler is defined as a non-nutritive fiber source, because some of them do provide value. It is usually best to look for a pet food that is free of any fillers or cheaper sources of protein."

2. More generally, I'm having a hard time finding RS for the article. I tried (a) the website of the American Veterinary Association, (b) a general Google search, and (c) a search on Google Scholar, all without success. Admittedly I spent only about one hour in total on this and I may have found reliable sources if I would have spent more time, but I was hoping somebody here (a Veterinarian perhaps?) might have suggestions that may save me time. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And there may not actually be good sources for this content, so merger or deletion would be the only option. Articles on pet food should cover the contents of pet food. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Their website says: "Expert Ratings are created by a panel of experienced veterinarians, including renowned, board-certified Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialists." The one bio on their site is credible. The company is legit, though may not meet NPOV per what I see on the site. If you had invested in them in early 2000, your money would have gone up ten-fold by now. So, despite that large "Controversies" section in the Wikipedia article, they do have credibility; stock investors bolt at even a whiff of quackery. I realize Wikipedia guidelines say nothing of checking the stock market to vet a company but it nonetheless works well. As to the quoted material, seems straightforward and noncontroversial; is there a concrete objection to its accuracy? Again, no such objection is needed to object to the RS status itself, but still asking . . . Churn and change (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Judith, it seems merger and deletion were discussed on the article talk page and apparently the decision was to keep, among other reasons because this is an article on all animals and not only pets. (However, that discussion is more than 5 years old.) And thank you Churn for the feedback. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion went stale a long time ago, and the article's problems haven't been solved since then. My concern with this source is that a manufacturer has a vested interest in presenting a particular view of what to put in pet food. And the result is a mess. The reader has no way of deciding whether vegetable elements in pet food are useless and cynically added bulk, or necessary fibre. It must surely be very different for cat food and dog food, yet the article does not even go into that. Why do we think that this is a notable topic in its own right, separate from the content of pet food in general? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking the same question. It's a bit like having an article on Inert ingredients. You'll find lots of mentions, but very few sources treating the subject comprehensively. Furthermore, the line between "supplements" and "fillers" is very murky. Plus I agree that the source is not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to visit my local public library sometime next week in an attempt to find further information in books on Veterinary Medicine. Judging by the comments here, it seems this may be an even more complex issue than I originally anticipated. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

trowelandsword.org.au

Is this source [2] reliable for this contested statement "The ACL states it has three main functions: Supporting politicians who uphold Christian values, lobbying and thirdly informing, educating and activating Christians." on the article, Australian Christian Lobby. The source has been contested several times by a user, recently on the grounds that the source is biased and too promotional (as you can see, at the bottom of the article is says **For more information on the Australian Christian Lobby, or to become a supporter, head to ..." Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S appears to be much more of a "newsletter of puff piece opinions and promotions " without any fact checking and not "journalism" or peer review of any kind. But is there any reason to doubt that the T&S is misquoting the ACL's purposes? Why wouldnt you use the ACL's own website as a source for their functions? Are there other sources that describe the functions of the ACL differently? If so the article should present them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S certainly wouldn't be my first choice of reference for anything, but I have no reason to believe they are misquoting the ACL, so I was just going to let it slide. A third editor is the only one that has a problem with it. They have now removed it at least four times, firstly giving no reason at all, then citing NPOV (without being any more specific than that), and now by saying the reference shouldn't be used because the source is biased and promotional. It's getting a bit frustrating, hence getting another opinion here. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson at John Harvard statue

I created the page John Harvard statue yesterday and over night another editor deleted over a third of the article including sources because they do not believe the sources are fully fact checking the material. This mostly revolves around The Harvard Crimson articles stating that traditions associated with the statue (the entire section was removed). Is the Harvard Crimson a reliable source in this instance? I have included the now deleted section below that is a large part of the material that the other editor feels is not cited well enough below:

"The John Harvard Statue has two main traditions, one for tourists and one for students. Tourists, when touring the university and taking pictures with the statue, touch John Harvard's left foot for good luck. Students, on the other hand, have developed a tradition of urinating on the statue late at night. When asked about this tradition by The Harvard Crimson, a senior who lived in the Quincy House dormitory confessed, "Well, I peed on him last weekend." In 2002, Harvard chemistry tutor Stephen J. Haggarty, FM, took swabs of the statue and incubated them. He found that despite the statue's use as a pissoir, the bacteria living on it are benign and "are the kinds of species you might find on the metal railings outside University Hall".

The John Harvard statue is also a magnet for vandalism. According to Harvard's Manager of Administrative Operations the statue is vandalized roughly once a week, even more during football season." --Found5dollar (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Woops! the refs did not show up here. here is a dif of the deleted section. [3] --Found5dollar (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, is reliable, but what they report isn't necessarily encyclopedic. This seems a classic case of what not to include from a student-run newspaper of a major university. That last sentence should probably be it. I notice the objections on the talk page to the edits aren't to the source but to their being campus legends; I would also add notability to the list. Also, the official newspaper of the University is the Harvard Gazette. Churn and change (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the Gazette and the Crimson can be regarded as WP:RS on events at Harvard, though care must be exercised due to the sometimes spotty editorial supervision to be expected at any student newspaper. Would not necessarily agree that spore testing of the statue is WP:NOTABLE or WP:UNDUE, though student traditions reported in the Crimson could be included. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich

Can someone with JSTOR (or other) access to Slavic Review, check what should be the main source of that article, specifically JSTOR 2501227? The wiki article is very short, but my impression is that a lot of misrepresentation went in. Some of the weird stuff was removed already, but some vague and misleading statements persist. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Link sent. Next time, ask at WP:RX. Churn and change (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh article

Source - http://www.desiblitz.com/content/special-tribute-to-jagjit-singh

Article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagjit_Singh

Content -

Jagjit Singh an eminent Indian Ghazal Singer, lyricist and musician sadly passed away on 10th October 2011, aged 70.

.

I would like to use this link within the wiki for Jagjit Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Rama (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)

See also User talk:Jeff G.#Jagjit_Singh.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried a search on google.co.in for Jagjit Singh Ghazal and found a bunch of references and obituaries from last year, on online versions of print newspapers. Why do you need to use this source? Churn and change (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has a video interview included within it and was probably the last interview that Jagjit Singh ever did before he passed away, it also includes references to his life and childhood and is a whole lot more professional than some of the other links that are being used as references on his wiki page.

from their "about us" page "providing you with a unique experience of News, Gossip and Gupshup all with a Desi twist" - a source that boasts about providing gossip is probably not one that we want to use.

"ATV China's mystery files" and other sources at Hidden character stone

I've already removed text sourced to two travel guides. Quite a bit of this is sourced to a tv series called ATV China's mystery files but I can't find much about it. There is also a fringe web site [4] which is used quite a bit. This[]http://www.dongtaiwang.com/dm/UGgC/o5.FRPeRgPuVaN.pBz/arjf/11/05/03/402546.html[ seems to be a news aggregator and I'm pretty sure is copyvio. I can't find out who the author "Kim Zhishen" is or what the original source (the "New Aspect Times") is. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are loads of Chinese-language reports about this—way more than what you raised above—but none of the sources are sound enough to establish a credible archeological explanation for this phenomenon. Lots of Chinese government sites claim that a bunch of nationally recognized archeologists and geologists have investigated and found no evidence of human involvement[5]. I can't find information on any independent investigations (that is, from parties with no possible political or commercial motivation).

The real story here is not that these are these anomalous writings. It's the fight over their meaning. Whatever their origin, these characters do exist in a park in Guizhou, and there is a heavily politicized battle around them. The officially sanctioned story is that the stone has five characters endorsing the Communist Party, and the dissident version is that it's six characters foretelling the party's demise (pretty clear from all the video footage and images—even the ones on government sites—that the dissidents have it right). This is becoming a holy site for Communist Party members to make pilgrimages and restore their oaths[6]. For dissidents, it's proof that the party lacks the mandate of heaven (or something). That's what the article should focus on. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, but I think it needs someone who can read the Chinese sources to do it. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a time frame in mind? Google translate is pretty good, and maybe I could try helping sometime. The editor below me also seems to have it right. I'm surprise no one has commented on the irony of a supernatural communist shrine, especially given the CCP's dogmatic obsession with science!TheBlueCanoe (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources (aside from citation 11) are either dissident political pundits or government controlled news websites, yet the article topic is about a supposed natural/archaeological formation. IMO you can't really find more unreliable sources than that. Citation 11 contains no information about the hidden stone, yet it is invoked as WP:SYN to make one side's POV stronger. My suggestion is just erase the entire article into a stub about a popular Communist shrine and hope somebody can find an actual archaeological/geological research source that can prove that this is a real natural/archaeological site in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

House of Commons formal/long-form title

This edit cites a blogpost that mentions a long-form name for the House of Lords and this broken link as evidence for the inclusion of the long-form name "The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled" as the heading for the infobox for the UK House of Commons. Are either reliable sources for the claim that this is an implicitly official long-form name that we should include in this way? N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The blog posting is not a reliable source for the issue... the blogger does appear to be a professional historian (I think it is this David Silbey, but I don't think his specialty is the British Parliament. Does the broken link refer to (this page? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can also create an article on "Baronness Finlay of Llandaff" and "the lack-of-a-cat problem in the Lords Spiritual," all topics with significant coverage in this reliable secondary source. Churn and change (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks x2. The blogger is an academic but, as noted, UK parliamentary nomenclature is not, AFAIK, his field. Also, his use of the phrase on that blog post says or explains nothing about the status of the phrase. I think the truncated link was to this, which is merely an example of a petition to parliament. The page linked above - which I myself linked to originally on the talk page, and which has not been cited by the person trying to include this info - is more explicit and explanatory in terms of describing the use of the formulation, but still does not assert that this is the definitive formal name, which we should use at the head of our infobox. It describes it as a form of address for petitions - which also requires the use of the words "sheweth" and "wherefore" - and says anyway that there is an equally valid modern alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That particular posting of his is a joke. Kind of like an April Fool's day thing. He is satirizing the pomp and vanity of the House of Lords. If the House had a longer name, you can be sure there will be any number of established sources reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pathologist's reports

Would it be possible to clarify the status of pathologist's reports, as per the recent discussion here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "status" of primary sources (such as a pathologist's report) depends on the context in which you are using them. Could you give us more details... what article? What section? What sentence? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked the discussion? The point at contention seems to be whether the second shot was to the back of Codling's head or was (as the police report currently suggests) to his face. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a NPOV dispute than a reliability dispute... a typical case of two sources saying different things... We usually resolve such disputes by the disagreement (without saying which is "correct"). Something like: "According to the pathologists report the second shot was to the back of Codling's head, while according to the police report the shot was to his face." Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a big problem. But the pathologist's report is not in the public domain and so cannot be supported with a ref. That's why I came here to ask. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If the pathologist's report hasn't been published, it cannot be used as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Some participants in the discussion seem to be confusing "public domain" - which is a copyright status, and "published" - reproduced in some or other form and made available to the public. Roger (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of those participants is me. The informant, who says she is a family member, has access to the report, but says that it has not been published. I was hoping to ascertian whether such reports were ever published. Perhaps we could then move on to the question of copyright status. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, it can't be cited as a source (as for whether pathologist's reports are ever published, I don't know).. Copyright status is irrelevant - we'd be citing it, not reproducing it. 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the basis for our conclusion, that a pathologist's reports are not published, or at least that this one has not been, is the Talk Page contribution of the anon ip who claims to be related to the victim. Again, this is why I raised the question here. I had a suspicion that someone else might have already faced this question with another article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We have dealt with similar questions before... Sounds like someone needs to do some research, and find out whether the report has been published, or not. (Published in this case means: "made available to the public". If it is on file somewhere, and a member of the public can either view the original or obtain a copy - regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape it takes to view or obtain it - then it qualifies as being "published". If it is in a sealed file, and members of the public can not access it, then it has not been "published"). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be no other way. Good luck to any editor who volunteers to research this matter "regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape" is involved... although a quick email to the office of the local (or perhaps this particular) pathologist might save some effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Clear this cannot be used. I cast no aspersions on the word of Codling's daughter that the Pathology report said what she says it said, but unless other WP editors can verify, it cannot be used. If published, it would have to be used with caution as a primary source. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. But what do you mean by "other WP editors verifying"? That just sounds a bit like WP:OR to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP gives great deference to fact, at least in theory. WP:OR is not allowed on Article space, but fact checking on Talk space IS allowed, my problem is that there is nothing to fact check. That is what I meant by "other editors" being able to verify. Still no WP:RS secondary source, but if you are going to make the case that an exception needs to be made, or that a secondary source not usually allowed should be used, based on clear evidence in primary sources, other editors need access to the primary sources. Let me be clear. You would need BOTH a borderline secondary source, and uncontestable primary sources that the secondary source is correct--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be clear. So - is the pathologist report an "uncontestable primary source"? If not, then what is exactly? Surely, if the GMP changes its website account, that's just a single secondary source (the one we currently use), but we'd just update the article to go along with that!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if unclear. Pathologist report is a Primary Source. "Uncontestable" refers to whether a reasonable person could possibly read the report in a different way, and can be a high bar.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

if there was discrepancy between the pathologists report and the police report, reliable sources would be talking about it and we could quote them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there almost certainly is a discrepancy. I cannot imagine that Katherine Codling could have any other motivation coming here than to highlight this. And I see no reasom why such a discrepancy would ever come to light unless deliberately investigated by someone. It really does not affect the tragic outcome, after all. With all due respect to GMP, even though a coroner's report seems to be unusable here, I would certainly see it as inherently more reliable than an account on the GMP website. But, as noted on the article Talk Page, it seems that Katherine is now taking the matter up directly with the GMP. So we'll see what happens, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

no matter what the motivation Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to bring such information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to show information that we know is incorrect. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a primary source?

I requested a paper at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#JSTOR paper, namely JSTOR 3614249. I used it as a source for the statement regarding the prime 3511 that "another proof of it being a Wieferich prime was published in 1965 by Guy" (see Wieferich prime#History and search status). Another user at Resource Exchange said the paper were a primary source. I am a bit confused. I guess the paper received a peer-review and I thought this would make it a non-primary source. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people have the mistaken idea that we are not allowed to use primary sources. This is not true. We can use them... we just have to use them appropriately.

I don't think it matters whether it is primary or not... Because even if it is primary, you are using it appropriately. You are making a descriptive statement about the source (that it contains a proof). In that exact context, not only is the source reliable, it is the most reliable source possible (for a statement about what is said in a document, you can not get more reliable than the document itself). Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I often formulate statements that way because that makes clear that I took a statement from a source and the article simply repeats what the source states, without claiming that the statement is correct or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am being consistent with Blueboar, but adding to it, by saying that whether academic peer reviewed articles are primary is not always clear in each case. In many cases they are a bit primary and a bit secondary. Unfortunately the world of publications does not always sit in nice categories for us on this point. In 99% of cases I think it is easier to discuss articles in terms of other reliability factors than primary/secondary/tertiary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't good for the encyclopaedia. Of what encyclopaedic value is, "Robert Conquest says the NKVD organised a special network in the population (Great Purge, Pelican rev ed 1971, 381) or "Janos Kendai says a plumbers little sister could be admitted to a better school (Do it yourself, 1981)"? The value to secondary sources is that they make reliable contextualised analytical, evaluative and normative claims about encyclopaedic objects. Conquest doesn't just tell us what the NKVD did, he tells us why it was important and what that meant. Kendai doesn't just tell us about plumber's sisters, but about a network of social corruption in late socialist Hungary replacing the formal market of labour and goods. Please do read more secondary sources, it'll make you encyclopaedic work of a greater value—you'll be able to make encyclopaedic claims that things are correct or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there becomes a concern that by stringing primary sources together in particular ways, or placing them in particular contexts, editors are creating WP:SYN problems by implying connections, conclusions etc that have not specifically been been made by reliable sources. Yes that primary source establishes "published in 1965 by Guy" - but how and why Guy's 65 publication is important (or not) would need be made through and because some other source had talked about Guy's proof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go against the grain and say that this source could be absolutely fine if the statement is non-controversial. However, per Fifelfoo and others, it tells you that a proof was produced; it gives you no indication about what significance finding the proof had. Make sure that what you write is consistent with what historians of mathematics are saying, and then you can use the primary sources to supplement the secondary ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You are misquoting me, the "another user who said ..." Here is my original statement: "There is a proof for 3511 but that is not useable here; pure primary source." I said the proof cannot be used. Papers aren't primary sources or secondary sources; what you cite from them may be primary or secondary sourced. You can say "another proof was published by . . ." and source that to the paper, but WP:UNDUE is an issue. This is a proof for one particular number: 3511. To be notable, one has to show the proof generalizes. Somebody who is an expert can figure that out; others cannot. Being peer-reviewed is not what makes a source secondary. Peer review makes a source reliable, however it doesn't address the issues of incomprehensibility to the non-expert, cutting-edge research being not necessarily mainstream opinion (not an issue in this case), lack of notability from proof being very specific, and cherry picking. Churn and change (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with the case at hand at all. A proof published in a peer-reviewed paper (what I believe Guy's proof of 3511 is) is not a minority viewpoint, as the publication in a journal means other experts have seen the proof and that it survived peer-review suggests to me that the proof was accepted by the mathematical community. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:UNDUE talks of the prominence of each viewpoint. Is this a prominent proof? If it is a specific proof for just a single number, it is probably not prominent; if it is a general proof extendable to more numbers, it probably is. Difficult for non-experts to make out, highlighting one of the problems with primary sources. Also, in the future, please quote me directly, without paraphrasing. Churn and change (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. I agree that if there were like 50 proofs for 3511, then we definitely shouldn't mention them all in the article. However, in the case of 3511, there are only two proofs I am aware of, that of Beeger and that of Guy. Since I believe there are no others (at least none that have been published), I think it is okay to mention both. As it stands, there are now two mentioned proofs for 1093 and two for 3511, which I think is a comprehensive (probably complete) overview of the existing proofs. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sound like acceptable practice to me. Citing peer reviewed papers for their notable results happens a lot on WP, and is widely accepted for many types of information. And this is not just blind tradition but something often argued about carefully by experienced editors thinking carefully about the aims of WP. The basic problem is that to do otherwise would mean a more minimalist WP, which is simply not what we are doing at this time. (And every attempt to make a stricter encyclopedia has failed.) Anyway, I do not think the secondary/primary distinction is always helpful for such cases, and people insisting that we have to think this way are not dealing with reality. It does apply to things like birth certificates (another subject which comes up here often).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to give a bit more explanation: In many scientific fields, if we must prefer "obvious" secondary sources this means things like textbooks, and these are poor sources, not good sources. You can sometimes go 10 years back and find very little in the way of articles (let along books) that are purely reviews. The problem is that not every field bothers with writing lots of reviews, in the special format of a review. Instead, what the authors in some faster moving fields tend to do is publish articles which combine secondary and primary traits. With a bit of new data, they also offer a new review of the field. And that these are often considered to have a reputation for reliability is something we can check because these reviews are cited by others. So, in conclusion, if we try too unrealistically hard to stick to the standards of Fifelfoo's preferred fields, where the academics tend to have a different format of career and publication, we would definitely make WP worse in many areas. There are many important fields such as genetics where we would almost have to consider making policies to forbid trying to report them at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction part of papers in fields like psychology often give an overview of prior results, and can be used as a secondary source. Everything after that—method, results and the like—would be primary sources, except for meta analyses and review papers. Primary sources are indeed bad in fields like genetics because they can be cherry-picked, can be interpreted wrongly by lay people, may be statistical flukes, or may contain implicit assumptions known only to those in the field. Churn and change (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable corrective to my field specific interests Andrew, I agree with your concern that some fields confirm the importance or meaning of primary findings in one way, and others in another. If anyone had been unduly influenced by my comments (or reads this in the archive) I draw their attention to my support of Andrew's discussion of articles in fields that combine primary and secondary traits, and the importance of reading the difference where it matters. My concern was with "X says, "Y"" type encyclopaedic writing which can be unduly encouraged by only reading "primary" sources. However, I do agree with your instinct about citing notable papers for their findings, but I would suggest that we remember to establish notability of the finding separately, for instance as Churn and change notes by notice in the literatures; in some fields this could be citation counts, but in other fields this could be literature review sections of primary papers, or specific reviews. Obviously I agree that we should avoid poor quality secondary sources regarding notability—undergraduate textbooks are not the best works for seating findings in their scholarly context. I mainly responded as an editor with excellent instincts seemed to be advocating "X says, "Y"" writing instead of the far superior "Y is true" cited against X a source of unimpeachable quality for the claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive

I am ready to use the primary and secondary sources as it is shown on current events of Wikipedia, as well, on my sandbox edits, to use on the 2012 article archives as it is shown WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources. The new source.

• Felix Baumgartner breaks the world human ascent by balloon record before space diving out of the Red Bull Stratos helium-filled balloon over Roswell, New Mexico. (CNN)
• NYDaily News:Red Bull Stratos
• "Felix Baumgartner's jump from space's edge watched by millions". The Associated Press. 15 October 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2012.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Please sign your posts. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• The NY Times has reported this; the BBC has reported this; so has the Washington Post, Forbes, The London Times . . . Those are the RSes you should use; please don't pick up the first few results from a Google search. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is an introduction to the Black Book of Communism a reliable source for the estimates of Communist mass killings?

In his introduction to the Black Book of Communism, Courtous presents the following "rough approximation" of the toll of Communism:

U. S. S. R.: 20 million deaths

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power:

about 10,000 deaths.

Ronald Aronson it his article "Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus" (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245.) expresses the following opinion on that:

"But most of these problems (problems with the BB proper -PS) pale in significance compared with the book's opening and closing chapters, which caused enormous controversy and even occasioned a break among The Black Book's authors.

Commenting on the above figures, Aronson continues:

Courtois's figures for the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Latin America go far beyond the estimates of the authors themselves, as does Courtois's final body count."

In connection to that, my question is:

Can the introduction to the Black Book be used as the source for facts about the death toll of Communism?

Concretely, is the introduction to the BB a reliable source for this general claim:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, Courtois' introduction is not reliable since the authors of the book condemned him for misrepresenting the numbers in the book. This is succinctly summarized in Jon Wiener's How We Forgot the Cold War, published this month:

  Of course the book received both praise and criticism. Notable among the critics were two important contributors to the volume who publicly rejected its thesis: Nicolas Werth, who wrote the key chapter on the Soviet Union, and Jean-Louis Margolin, who wrote the other key chapter, on China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. After seeing the introduction, the two "consulted a lawyer to see if they could withdraw their respective contributions from the book. They were advised they could not."

  So Werth and Margolin took their criticism to Le Monde, writing that Courtois was obsessed with reaching a total of one hundred million victims despite the best evidence showing a lower total. Werth also insisted Nazism and communism were qualitatively different. . . . The book was especially controversial in France because it was published during the 1997 trial of Nazi collaborator Maurice Papon for crimes against humanity for his role in the deportation of Jews from Bourdeaux to Hitler's death camps. Papon's lawyers introduced the book as evidence for the defense. (Wiener, Jon. How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America. University of California Press. pp. 37-38)

  Wiener also notes that J. Arch Getty rejected the attribution of famine deaths to mass killing, and still other reviewers "objected to the way The Black Book lumped together vastly different societies on the grounds that their leaders claimed to be Marxists-Leninists" (p. 38). On p. 39, Wiener says that "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted (p. 39; see also p. 37). Wiener's next paragraph mentions that the book "nonetheless received an enthusiastic reception in the United States," but the fact that at least two of the co-authors publicly denounced Courtois and his introduction, and sought to legally distance themselves from the book is most salient feature of the uproar. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBoC has been discussed here before - it is published by a major university press, and has been used in many other references as a source itself. The query really at hand is whether the estimates given as a range, and which are curently inthe body of an article appropriately referenced, should be presented as estimates in the lede of the article, or whether the estimate should be described as "tens of millions" or just as "millions" per some editors prior edits. A fair reading of multiple sources indicates that the numbers do, indeed, range as estimates from a low of about 60 million to a high of well over 100 million. Consensus in the past reached the "65 to 100 million" as a valid compromise, and the validity of the BBoC was not the issue, just the validity of individual numbers. Aronson's book review, is, moreover a book review. Not an article on death tolls. The "Holocaust denial" subtext injected above is not valid in discussions on this noticeboard IMO, and at best muddies the waters utterly. See reviews from Canadian Journal of History [7], other reviews at [8], [9], [10]. All strikingly positive in their reviews. The BBoC was written by former Communists and left-wing intellectuals, who would not be expected to over criticise the communist regimes mentioned, but who still came up with large numbers of deaths. Try on the order of a hundred positive references per Highbeam. Of course we could use The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective By: Robert Gellately; Ben Kieman; Cambridge University Press 2003. The Soviet persecutionof kulaks inthe 1930s took millions of lives etc. the exceptional and paroxysmal nature of Ezhovshina: executed during these two years (1937–38) were more than 85 percent of all people sentenced to the “supreme measure of punishment” by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000. which is just a small fraction of the deaths noted in the 2003 book. China Under Communism by Alan Lawrance, Routledge, 1998: Less publicized at the time was the fact that in certain regions there was famine, now reckoned to have accounted for 20 million deaths, leading to sporadic outbursts of cannibalism during a single 3 year period (the "Great Leap Forward" etc. Others, for example Jacques Guillermaz, diplomat and historian, suggest five million in 1949 a single year. The Lesser Evil: Moral Approaches to Genocide Practices By: Helmut Dubiel; Gabriel Motzkin, publisher Frank Cass, 2003, has The phenomenon is partly connected to China's huge population (around 700 million at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1966). Taking 58 million unnatural deaths as an average estimate would put the death toll over three decades, from 1946 to 1978, at 8 per cent of the total Chinese population. This figure is not much different from the one recently established for the three decades of the Lenin-Stalin period. (Margolin). So the real issue is not the BBoC as a reliable source - it is. It is whether we ought to minimize estimates below the lowest reliably sourced estimates of deaths. I fear that is not the topic for this noticeboard, however. Collect (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you provide sources for things like "supreme measure of punishment" by extrajudicial organs between the end of the civil war (1921) and Stalin's death (1953)–at least 682,000 out of a total of 800,000" – we're dealing with the question of whether the introduction by Courtois is a reliable source for 100 million victims. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The number isn't used as a fact but as an upper estimate. While Courtois may have his critics, he is not alone. Benjamin Valentino cites other authors like Matthew White estimating 81 million and Todd Culberston estimating 100 million. Valentino concludes that these estimates be considered at the high end of the plausible range of deaths attributable to communist regimes[11], and that is the way it is used in the article. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• We should not use the estimate of one author and claim that that is the generally accepted range. We need a secondary source that explains the ranges used by various authors and how widely accepted the various ranges are. Adding up Courtois' numbers btw I get 95,360,000, not 100 million (20+65+1+2+2+1+0.15+1.7+1.5+0.01=95.36). TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A reason to say "65 to 95 million" then. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this book certainly qualify as RS. According to WP:RS, there are three components to consider: (a) the creator of the work, (b) the publisher, and (c) the piece of work itself. Speaking about (a), this is written by mainstream researchers. For example, Stéphane Courtois, who contributed a couple of chapters of the book and introduction, is a French historian, expert in communism history and research director at French National Centre for Scientific Research, (according to page about him), not a fringe writer. Speaking about (b), it was published by Harvard University Press. Speaking about (c), I suggest to actually read the book, and not only the introduction, but at least some chapters from the book. After reading the book and being familiar with the subject, I think this is actually the best secondary source on the general subject of communist repression. There are better sources on specific countries like Russia, but not on the communist repression in general. If there are better books on this general subject, please tell what they are, and I would like to look at them. Every notable book on political subjects has a lot of critics and supporters, but this does not invalidate the source.

As about the numbers of victims, no one knows them exactly for many reasons, as explained in this and other books. There are only rough estimates, such as this one. But discussion about the numbers belongs to talk page of the article, not here. P.S. Speaking about numbers for the Soviet Union, 20-25 million of "killed" (including people killed by man-made hunger) is an estimate provided, for example, by the Soviet Politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev in his book "Sumerki" ("Twilight"), and I saw much higher numbers in other books. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, following your logic, Courtois' introduction is reliable because it was published in Harvard. However, the major contributor of this book is Nicolas Werth, whose chapter on the USSR was highly commended. This chapter is arguably the major factor that forced us to treat the BB with due respect (and, probably, the main reason for re-publishing the BB by Harvard). And this author publicly disagreed with Courtois' dishonest play with figures, and with his attempt to equate Communism and Nazism. In connection to that, I do not understand why did you decide that the opinion of Courtois has greater weight than that of Werth. By the way, Aronson's opinion was published by Wesleyan University, and it by no means has lower weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Werth's review is specifically titled Review Article and cpvers four separate and distinct books. Thus it is a "book review" as the term is generally used. Book reviews are not "peer reviewed" and generally are, indeed, given "lower weight" as a result of them being "book reviews." Werth, in fact, devotes only a very small part to criticising Courtois, and that only for the numbers (specifically Werth has no problem with 65 million Chinese deaths) - he mainly has praise for the BBoC, even though Werth says that, as a devoted Communist himself, hoping for a "Soviet Solidarity movement" as late as 1987. If we were to use Werth as the "source", we would still have a "lower bound" of 65 million! His major criticism is on Le Siecle des Communismes actually being the exact opposite of the BBoC - to the extent that it sought to excuse the problems rather than admitting them. Weth ens by questioning whether the vast number of deaths under Stalin and Mao were related to communism or to the "brutal tyrant"s in his words. The WP article at hand simply ascribes the killings to the time of the regimes in power, avoiding that issue. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Review Articles" in history, they are normally peer reviewed. "Reviews" or "Notes" or "Short Reviews" are normally not peer reviewed. The things to check are if it is a multiple work or field review with citation of its claims and of a similar length to articles in that journal. Review Articles are normally highly esteemed for analysing the current (or then current) state of research in a field. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you probably meant Aronson, not Werth.

Secondly, as an author of many peer-reviewed articles, including reviews, let me assure you that the reviews are peer-reviewed. Moreover, as a rule, an invitation to write a review is being usually send to highly reputable authors. In addition, in contrast to research articles, which may be sometimes seen as primary sources, the reviews are pure secondary sources. In any event, since the BB didn't pass peer-reviewing procedure, your argument is totally insatisfactory.

Re "Werth, in fact, devotes only a very small part to criticising Courtois, and that only for the numbers (specifically Werth has no problem with 65 million Chinese deaths) - he mainly has praise for the BBoC" What do you mean? Werth is a major contributor of the BB. How can he praise his own work?! Re China, Werth is a specialist in Russian history, and he simply leave China beyond the scope.

Regarding the rest, I simply do not understand you. Which source are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul says "as an author of many peer-reviewed articles, including reviews, let me assure you that the reviews are peer-reviewed.", while various libraries state:"Peer-reviewed journals also contain items such as editorials and book reviews, and these are not subjected to the same level of critique"[12]. "book reviews are usually not peer-reviewed even when they appear in peer-reviewed journals."[13]. --Nug (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just would like to notice that "Black Book" is not a collection of unrelated chapters. The chapters are related and book includes "Introduction" and "Conclusion" by Courtois, which summarize content of the book, after an explicit approval by all other authors of the book including Werth. The publisher always make sure that all authors read and approved the book prior to the publication (an they usually even sign a form about it). There was no disagreement at the time of publication. Of course, there could be disagreements later. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably. However, Hiroaki Kuromiya (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201) called it a "collection of research essays" and noted that two major contributors "'publicly dissociated themselves' from the conclusions drawn in the book by Stephane Courtois,". Later disagreements simply reflected the fact that the introduction directly contradicted to Werth's and Margolin's chapters.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The estimates in The Black Book of Communism are more or less accurate under some sort of "You broke it; you bought it" theory which ascribes responsibility for all disasters which befall a communist state to its rulers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point. Which estimates? Courtois or Werths?

In addition, "You broke - you bought" does not work for Civil war and devastation it caused, or for the WWII and its consequences. Moreover, "to be responsible for mass death" and "to be engaged in mass killings" are two different things. For example, what do you think about situation when all victims of Angolian civil war of war in Vietnam?

Application of your logic would mean that we must attribute all WWII deaths to Nazism (btw, this argument was used by Werth of some other author).

It's not my logic, it's simply the logic of that method which is to ascribe the consequences of whatever happens to the ruling ideology rather than to actual causes. For example in China, there would have been disasters regardless of who ruled. Frantic struggles to escape traps produce their own casualties, as they did in the Soviet Union. As to the Nazis, well, yes tens of millions of deaths resulted from the decision to attempt conquest of Europe; without German nationalism 20th century history would have been a dull thing; Czarist Russia would still be stumbling along in endless squalor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One more quote on the BB:

"Yet one should not assume, at least in the case of the Soviet Union, and probably in other cases, that the figures represent actual executions."

"At least in the Soviet case, the scale of terror presented in The Black Book seems to be deliberately inflated. 'Indirect' deaths are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings."(Hiroaki Kuromiya. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

Therefore, we must choose, either we speak about the victims of political repressions, and call it "mass killings", or we discuss the total death toll (which usually includes, for example, tens of millions of unborn infants), and use different terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who actually read the book, I did not see any serious contradictions between Werth and Courtois. In particular, Werth counted in his chapter ~8-9 million killed civilians (including by man-made hunger) in the Soviet Union only between 1933 and 1941. Obviously a lot more civilians were persecuted before (Civil War, Red Terror, rebellions, "Great Break") and after (repression during in the aftermath of WWII including Victims of Yalta, "Doctor's Plot", and so on). Now, speaking about the Introduction, it was intention of Courtois to count the number of victims in exactly same manner as would be counted Holocaust victims. Hence the numbers only include direct executions, deaths in labor/concentration camps, and man-made hunger. The latter is different from Holocaust, but it was included because what had happen was forcefully taking all resources of food from the people and then preventing their movement from the affected areas by NKVD troops. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Aljazeera regarding Syria Civil War RS

Under Talk:Syrian civil war#Aljazeera Neutrality there are a debate over the neutrality of the news channel on the Syrian Civil War context. Several sources, including Bloomberg,CBS andThe Guardian compromises the credibility towards the Qatar Emir influence over the channel. The Director-general is Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani which is a member of the Qatari royal family with no background in journalism. Jewish News One As for the reason(if needed), the $10 billions Iran-Iraq-Syria “pipelineistan” is a competitor of the Qatari-proposed “pipelineistan”.321 Energy"Asian Times" Furthermore, on the Telaviv Notes Volume 6, Number 17 September 10, 2012, present the news channel as a tool of the Qatar government which is ruled by Qatar foreign policy.Telaviv Notes The matter I am bringing is not a question if Al Jazeera is a trustful source in its whole entity, however, Al Jazeera fail under Qatar influence, which publicly declares support for the opposition.

Al Jazeera is a mainstream news source and normally highly reliable. Please come back if you have a specific enquiry, giving us the reference and statement it is meant to support. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page history and it's unclear what article the original poster is referring to. There's not any reason to blanket distrust AJ's reporting any more than we would distrust the WSJ's reporting simply based on who owns it. Absent any specific concern there's not much we can do here. a13ean (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera's coverage of Syria has been criticized by a number of outlets for being abjectly partisan (eg foreignpolicy.com). A former Beirut based correspondent resigned over what he called its biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria ([14]). That alone doesnt disqualify the source, but in my view al-Jazeera (at least the Arabic outlet, and to a lesser extent AJE), in its coverage of both Syria and Bahrain, has come very close to being an arm of the Qatari Foreign Ministry and not much better than a propaganda outlet. The same is true, to an even greater extent, of al-Arabiya. And I say this as somebody who, personally, opposes the al-Assad regime. But on Wikipedia, I suppose it remains a nominally reliable source. nableezy - 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Only Al ajzeera Arabic has a slant towards pro Qatari positions because they are in fact Qataris themselves. Al Jazeera English however just reports on whatever CNN or the AFP would report on if they were in Al jazeera's position. Keep in mind that Al jazeera is supposed to be an Arab news channel, so its going to seem like an "arm of qatar" no matter what because Qatar is an arab country. So I would be carefully when using the Pro-assad nasserist Al akbar, which almost always sides with Hezabollah's opinions.Sopher99 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not using al-Akhbar as a source for anything other than one of al-Jazeera's reporters having resigned due to what he called their biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria. Being an Arab(ic) news channel does not mean that it is required to parrot whatever its host state's foreign policy establishment would like to be the "news". Or at least, it shouldnt mean that, though I admit the record for Arab(ic) news organizations is a bit weak in that regard. nableezy - 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not defending AJ here, but the correspondent who said that is former Hezbollah run al-Manar TV journalist whose new channel almayadeen is hardly any better. Still, I´d differ between AJA and AJE. AJA is hardly neutral, AJE so far manages to do at least good reports from their correspondents on the ground and in their discussion studios also invites Damascus university pro-Assad officials/professors etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All that is critique of the Al ajzeera Arabic channel, not English. Furthermore the thoughts of the owner doesn't decide reliability, its the conduct and checking of the new reporters and writers that counts. Sopher99 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In the 2000s, the network was praised by the Index on Censorship for circumventing censorship and contributing to the free exchange of information in the Arab world, and by the Webby Awards, who nominated it as one of the five best news web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic and The Smoking Gun. It was also voted by brandchannel.com readers as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. In 2011 Salon.com noted Al Jazeera's coverage of the 2011 Egyptian protests as superior to that of the American news media, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also opined that the network's news coverage was more informative, and less opinion-driven than American journalism Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And since you love extensively quoting sources <extended quote from copyrighted source removed> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/10/10/60minutes/main314278.shtml

Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment The guidelines of WP:RS are not the same as saying a news source is completely without bias. There may be a slant in some of the networks' coverage, in fact, I am almost sure of it, HOWEVER, it, like Fox or NBC or the Daily Mail or ...... still clearly is what WP considers Notable and WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, please be specific in what are concerned that it might not be an RS for... a13ean (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sopher and Dafranca, please familiarize yourself with WP:COPYVIO and then remove the excessively long quotes from copyrighted sources. But Sopher, reports from a decade ago arent really going to change my mind on the network and its coverage of Syria today. But please see the last sentence of my first reply here, the one that says al-Jazeera is a nominally reliable source. nableezy - 00:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Follows below:

• On article description: "and soldiers were ordered to open fire on civilians"[15]
• On Revolt and escalating protests: "On 16 March, some 200 people gathered in front of the Interior Ministry, calling for the release of political prisoners. Thousands of protesters gathered in al-Hasakah, Daraa, Deir ez-Zor, and Hama. There were some clashes with security, according to reports from dissident groups. In Damascus, a smaller group of 200 men grew spontaneously to about 1,500 men. Damascus has not seen such uprising since the 1980s"[16][17]
• On Defections: "However, in response to the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters, many soldiers and low-level officers began to desert from the Syrian Army. Many soldiers who refused to open fire against civilians were summarily executed by the army" and "The number of defections would increase during the following months, as army deserters began to group together to form fighting units".[18] Dafranca (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your post with 4 " ~ "s. I see nothing wrong with those two paragraphs. Sopher99 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of that can be sourced to a number of other sources. So for these, I dont see any issue. Not exactly the best writing, but not a problem using these sources for that content that I can see. nableezy - 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A defector's claim to be used in Biography of a political figure

Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A defector to the current Iranian regime claimed the supreme leader of Iran likes vulgar jokes as a means to cure his depression and this claim has been reflected in Huffington post and the telegraph. The question is whether mentioning it in the biography of the leader is against WP:BLP.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huff Post is sourcing it to the Telegraph, who in turn describe it all as 'claims' by an unnamed defector - not really a way to inspire confidence. We certainly shouldn't assert any of it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, don't include. And not just because of the dubious nature of the claim, but because it serves no purpose. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source is dubious. Churn and change (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Steiner as an authority on presidential religion

For a long time the article which is now Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States relied upon a pamphlet by one Franklin Steiner titled The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents: From Washington to F.D.R.. Steiner was apparently a secular humanist of some sort (biographical detail is largely lacking), and there's a strong cast of deprecating presidential religion in his work. He also didn't seem to have much of a grasp of the shift in American religion brought about by the Second Great Awakening.

I have tended to prefer the reports of the Miller Center at the University of Virginia where they discuss religion; it is also now the case that there have been several new studies of presidential religion, perhaps due to the way attacks upon Obama's affiliation have brought the matter to the fore. The foreword to one of these cites Steiner as one of the "armchair historians, political ideologues, and extremist pro-Christian and pro-separationist advocates have until just recently written much of the literature on the topic." (Espinosa, Gaston, ed. (2009). Religion and the American Presidency: George Washington to George W. Bush with Commentary and Primary Sources. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 18, 43.) Steiner is used as an authority in a couple of other articles, mostly having to do with the Gano baptism legend as well as on George Washington and religion; we don't need to rely on him for these articles.

I would like to suppress use of Steiner as a source, but I thought this should be put before others before we went down this road. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Replacing an amateurish source with scholarly ones should be uncontroversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

TV episode reviews by the website Assignment X for critical reception material

Is this website, Assignment X, reliable for material on Critical reception in articles of South Park episodes? Nightscream (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The About page shows an editorial staff. But: it's not associated with a larger news organization, and I can't find news, magazine, or book articles about the site, or any citations of the magazine, except in non-notable blogs. The claim "From the co-creator of IF magazine" about Editor-in-chief Anthony C. Ferrante appears to be true. Ferrante has written or co-written several films, and done makeup and creature effects. Ferrante's page (archive) is oddly now a dead link - wtf? The webmag is a bit promotional of Ferrante projects. The website was created, according to trektoday.com "from the rubble of fandom", a merging of four different small-scale sci-fi publications and fan groups. I'd say "AX" is not proven to be a reliable source per WP:RS, but further research could reverse this. But I wouldn't delete an AssignmentX review from a small == External links == section. --Lexein (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The New American usable as a RS?

I'm in the midst of an AfD that's slightly heated at times, with the author having told several of his followers to come in and weigh in on the debate. This wouldn't automatically be bad, except that the vast majority have no idea how notability on Wikipedia works and are using arguments along the lines of "I like it" and are giving random sources from various websites that are dubious in notability. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse. The source in question is a review on the New American, but it looks to be the sort of site where anyone can sort of contribute and the review isn't done by a staff member or any of the people on the contributor page. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Here's the source: [19] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• In general, could I have some help with explaining reliable sources on this AfD? I've gone into detail about why the sources given are unusable for showing notability, but in their mind I'm the "Big Bad Editor" that deletes articles for fun and they're not listening to me. (sighs)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The author of the review doesn't show up on TMA's masthead at all, either as staff or as a contributor. Googling for him returns an ELCA bishop (not at all likely, and certainly out his area of expertise) and a lawyer; but it's a pretty common name. Given the content on TMA I would tend to the view that they would routinely review a book such as this. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• But would it be considered a reliable source, though? Even if it is the type of thing they talk about, would that make this a reliable source? I'm kind of leaning towards no since it looks to be reviewed by a random site member.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty overtly an affiliate of the John Birch Society, so at minimum it should be seen as POV (Christian and Republican in nature). Handle with care. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

per RS#Questionable sources "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist,.... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." The JBS' views are frequently seen as "extremist". And specifically related to this use, the in the case of a book reviews, neither the JBS nor The New American is widely regarded as having any expertise in that area. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Top 100 List (Japanese)

I have been in a content dispute with another user, particularly on this article Bow Wow for a long time over the inclusion of a Rolling Stone Top 100 list into the article. A quick summary, the other user is inputting the following type of sentence into at least 100 or more articles, "Rolling Stone ranked this band in their top 100 list" using a 3rd party website as a reference for the magazine. To begin with I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia as it is not an award, achievement or anything of notable merit (the other user claims it is a notable achievement) and it also doesn't provide any information about the topic, it is fancruft nonsense. However I decided to check out the reference myself, and according to Rolling Stone Magazine who made the list, it is arbitrary and biased and they even made special note of that on the cover of the issue which can be seen here. http://www.amazon.co.jp/Rolling-Stone-ローリング・ストーン-2007年-09月号/dp/B000UCGUXY/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt

On the cover, above where it says Best 100, in the green writing it says the following sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ which means "selected arbitrarily and with bias". The magazine is making it perfectly clear (even before you buy the thing) that the article is not written with serious intent and that it was not written by a noted music critic, it is just a random top 100 list by a journalist. Now a content dispute went unsuccessful because no one else contributed and so it was closed. However given the above information I have provided, I believe the reference itself is not reliable (as it is biased and random in nature) and therefore it is not acceptable to be on the wikipedia.27.33.143.93 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics

The aim of the journal is to be a channel of communication for researchers from around the world working on biomimetics and a variety of studies involving nature and its significance to design in engineering. The editorial board consists of respectable scientists and engineers (including a noble prize winner) from over 15 nations and 40 institutions including world leading Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Duke University and The University of Bristol etc...

I came across a problem with editing this article on a wiki-page about the bombardier beetle. Whilst the editor agreed with the inclusion of the link, he felt we could not refer to it as a "scientific journal" or even a "journal" because he considered it unreliable. However, I bring this up here with a view that other might want to reference articles for other pages.

The following claims are made against journal’s reliability:

1. An article on the web which provides evidence that the review process for one of WIT's conferences in 1995 was not good. (WIT is the publisher of the journal)
2. The journal has published a couple of papers which are sympathetic towards [ID] (intelligent design)

I agree that the review process for this conference, which WIT was directly responsible for, was unsatisfactory. WIT ran the conference and chose the reviewers. This shouldn’t affect the reliability of the journal, however, as the content of a journal is decided by its editorial board and not its publishers. It is the editorial board who decide what content gets published, who reviewers are and the addition of any further editors to the board. The publisher takes care of the printing and distribution not the content. As the editors (see above) are respected scientists, I have no issue for including this journal as [WP:R].

The ID argument isn't by itself a good argument because there is no direct evidence that these journal editors themselves are friendly to ID. The journal itself actually carries an editorial comment before these papers saying that the editorial board does not agree with *all* the conclusions of these papers. However, it has published them because the editors believe they present scientific problems of our current understanding of some aspects of evolution.

In fact, the scientific community takes the publications in this journal seriously. For example, Bejan, who is no friend of ID, publishes in this journal and refers to it on his webpage

See contents page of journal for more examples.

Refs:

WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The journal is carried by the institutional subscription of a major university, so it is not total junk. However if you go to this site, you can see a bunch of citation metrics for the journal. If you combine that with the rankings for journals in the environmental sciences here, you can see this one is ranked 200th or so. With other metrics it may rank better, but clearly it is low quality. Note that, at least in psychology, credible journals do publish papers on things like parapsychology (supporting, not opposing). The problem is credible researchers at times find statistical flukes supporting such stuff and journals then accept the paper, sticking to the letter of their criterion for acceptance. Churn and change (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• First, you're being a bit disingenuous about what brought you here. Although there's plenty of editor conflict over at bombardier beetle regarding the creationists' stance, this reference hasn't been inserted there, and you haven't edited that article. Rather, what's going on is a sort of slow-motion edit war over the section title of a list of articles published by intelligent design advocate Andrew McIntosh. Are they "journal articles"? "Scientific articles"? Just plain "articles"? I note that IRWolfie- has already attempted to solve this problem by formatting the publication listings somewhat differently. An alternative, and what I would recommend, is to simply strike the list of papers and patents entirely; while consensus tends to include lists of published books for academics, there is rarely an onus to include full lists of articles ("journal" or otherwise). Wikipedia is not, after all, an full index of published research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation score comparison at this stage isn't completely fair as the journal is relatively new (5 years old). It takes time for articles to be referenced. Remember, the peer-review process can take from months to even years. The fact of the matter is that the journal is a peer-reviewed journal by a high quality scientific community. Squeamish Ossifrage, your comments are unfair - I stated above that the reasons for bringing it here wasn't about the article you mentioned but because of references and possible future references elsewhere. I'm not asking for a recommendation on the paged entiled Andrew McIntosh, I'm asking whether we can regard the journal as WP:R. As the scientific community do, I struggle to see why we can't. Please provide evidence. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See page header. We need to know the precise source you are thinking of using, and the statement you want to source from it. We don't do the kind of general yes/no you seem to be looking for. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue at stake here isn't whether the content of the article or the journal is accurate. The issue isn't even whether the journal can be regarded as 'scientific'. The issue is whether or not it can be regarded as a 'journal'. If it's carried by a major university then surely it has that right? Whether or not I agree with the premises and conclusions of the papers published in it is irrelevant. Saying that, the way that the page is laid out currently looks like a reasonable compromise to me. --PalavaNet (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I notice that the subject of the article tried to add a referenced statement regarding another paper from the same journal (see discussion page of article). Was that really unacceptable? WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To add clarity. The following comment was added under the dawkins statement: "The issue at stake is that the second law of thermodynamics concerns entropy increasing in an isolated system. The proponents of evolution insist that because the earth is in an open system (where heat and mass transfer are allowed through the boundary) that entropy could readily decrease in such a system since outside there will be a compensatory overall increase, and that this could lead to the development of the necessary sophistication for living systems. Those scientists arguing against this hypothesis maintain that even in an open system, random energy input will not produce complex and mutually dependent systems required for life without there being an existing or embryonic system there to begin with. A full discussion is in the paper Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?[7]".

The comment was reverted because this journal was considered unreliable. Is this really reasonable? WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When and where was this? Diff please, as your contributions going back to April 2007 don't appear to include Bombardier beetle. . dave souza, talk 11:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It was another users contribution. This is a separate issue from the Bombardier beetle. Diff Here WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is reliable for describing what stances McIntosh has taken. It's a primary source, but this is a valid use of a primary source. On no account must we endorse any of the article's arguments in Wikipedia's voice. This particular article is fringe science although other articles in the journal might not be. Write it up as "In an article of (date) McIntosh wrote that...". By the way, the section headed Biography contains little biography. Most of the material should be in a section Views. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this a way forward and will edit article accordingly. Have you read the paper and come to the conclusion that the individual paper is a fringe science? I've personally read the paper and its a bit more tricky than to simply state its a fringe science. The majority would disagree with the conclusion of the paper but the main article itself presents a very valid problem with the current understanding of evolution. I think it is a valuable contribution to the field and so do the editors of the journal. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"The majority would disagree with the conclusion" = fringe science of some kind. It doesn't really matter what kind. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should restate that. "The majority would disagree with some conclusions". Yes a sentence or two in the conclusion could be considered as "fringe science". However, the rest of the article isn't fringe science and would be acceptable to most scientists. Indeed, this is the reason for the notice on the paper but at the same time, letting the article be published. I hope my edits are acceptable. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked the edit to avoid giving undue weight to McIntosh's fringe view equating thermal physics with "the necessary sophistication for living systems", a common creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Ok as a primary source, but not to be given undue weight. . dave souza, talk 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we can close this discussion. Thank you for everyones contributions. Will copy this over to the talk page of the article in due course WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

World Gazetteer

I would like to know if the gazetteer World Gazetter is a reliable source for the city population parameter; specifically, on the "Largest cities" wikipedia templates. The WG website indicates that it uses official data sources. Where unavailable, secondary sources such as yearbooks, encyclopedias, atlases etc. are used [20]. It's also a resource used by the US government (c.f. [21]), and seems to be featured throughout Wikipedia for this purpose (e.g. Template:Largest cities of Pakistan). Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Midday, thanks for bringing this here. I would like to specify the question (as far as I am concerned at least): is it a reliable source if the underlying information is not given or verifiable... For those, who want more background information, see Template_talk:Largest_cities_of_Somalia... L.tak (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - not a reliable source:

"What are the data sources of the World Gazetteer?

If possible, official data sources are used. In many cases however no official figures are available. In that case, secondary sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. are used. I have also received data from other stats lovers". [22]

AndyTheGrump (talk)

World Gazetteer does actually use official data sources according to Princeton University, which recommends it [23]. WG is apparently owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), a US government agency now known as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA):

"The World Gazetteer's Web site is owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency which maintains a database of foreign geographic feature names. It also gets information from the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (US BGN). This database is updated regularly as new information is received. However, there are many countries with old information. The date of the latest data update is given against the country name. In order to check the accuracy of the data, the author checked information gathered from this Web site with printed material sources put out by the same agency. The Web site was found to be very accurate. This Web site is user-friendly except when the user tries the query about the various features options; that selection is a bit complex. The site has hyperlink user manual options after every selection, and also provides the option of sending feedback to the Webmaster. All the hyperlinks are well placed and logically arranged. Because of this, the site is easy to use. This Web site is graphically well-designed. There is no doubt that this Web site is the best source on the Internet for getting location information of any place in the world. It can be grouped as a "very good" Web site."

Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to specify: a personal webpage of a Princeton-employee last updated in 1998 (!) recommends it.... Hardly an in-depth evaluation (and no indication about the specific case we are talking about) L.tak (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the website you link to self-evidently isn't "owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency" - this is nothing more than an example of two different websites using the same name to describe themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that since the US Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that NIMA is the originator of World Gazetteer on its Gazetteer Quick Reference [24]. World Gazetteer also indicates that it uses official data with regard to population specifically [25]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this helps (gazetteer-info):

My name is Stefan Helders and I am webmaster, site owner and content manager/owner of the World Gazetteer, so this project is currently a 'one-man show'. I was born in 1970 and live in Leverkusen, Germany, a suburb of Cologne. I am married to an Indonesian lady and have three children born in 1996, 1998 and 2000.

I don't think that establishes that it is part of a government.... L.tak (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Princeton University site is that of the GIS librarian there and is credible. However the World Gazetter it talks of is a site owned by NIMA, and the link there is dead. That site is obviously reliable if you can locate it. As to the World Gazetter site you found, if you click on "info/help" at the top, then "general" and then "Who's responsible for the project" you see this is a site maintained by a single non-expert hobbyist (I see L.tak has already posted on this). It is not a reliable source for citing; it looks useful for research. Some information on the NIMA World Gazetter is here. Churn and change (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What about the GeoNames geographical database? It's widely used on Wikipedia for these templates and cited by some governmental agencies like the USGS (e.g. [26]). It also apparently has a global team of ambassadors that gathers its data, including some academics (c.f. [27]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

They have a core database and a wiki where they let registered users edit things. If the information you are citing is based on the core database looks like it should be considered reliable, based on the mentions I am seeing in the foremost scientific journal out there and by USGS. They actually don't have the qualifications of their ambassadors listed, nor exactly which sources they use for various countries, but the sources referring to them, implicitly lending them credibility, are top notch. Anything that includes the wiki part would be user-generated content and not reliable for our purposes. I don't know whether they keep the two parts separate. Churn and change (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Geonames actually does give info on the underlying data. I guess we can trust them to copy-paste data well; but for the reliability, we ll have to evaluate on a case by case base based on these sources (e.g. the World Gazetteer s sources discussed here were the basis for the Somalia info...) L.tak (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They seem to use World Gazetteer for population data. I guess we should be able to find other sources for population data of regions. Note that data are not unreliable just because it is from the World Gazetteer (which looks a good-quality site, though not an RS); if Geonames is vetting the data, cross-checking against other sources and accepting only validated information, then even data from the Gazetteer they include should be usable. The USGS and Nature mentions seem to indicate they are doing credible vetting (federal bureaucracies do not easily implicitly endorse an outside entity; Nature is not just a top journal, it is the top journal). As to giving the source, do they "cite" the parts of the data people download, telling them which part is from where? Churn and change (talk)

Churn, I think we agree. The fact that the data are from World Gazetteer, does not make them bad; and they seem to be a good data repository. This kind of info (here for Canada) should help decide on a case by case (country by country basis. It is not a great way to cite, but clearly indicates where the data come from (in the case of Canada: the 2011 census, which is ok)... L.tak (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Political Graveyard

Another user is removing Political Graveyard as a reference. He is allowing the facts garnered from PG to remain but removing PG as a source. Is there any evidence that PG is unreliable, other than typos that exist in every reference work? If it is an unreliable source we should remove them globally and not ad hoc. Here are examples of the removal: Frederick Skene where the deleter says: "Political Graveyard is not a reliable source" and John A. Bensel where the deleter says "political graveyard is full of mistakes, and generally unreliable". Here again Frank M. Williams where the deleter writes: "political graveyard is not a reliable source, as the double entry clearly shows". The double entry the deleter refers to, are two entries, one for each term in office. The facts match what is in the obituaries. Here again at Wheeler H. Bristol where he says: "not a reliable source".

I would like a decision. I can either restore the entries if we agree PG is reliable. If we decide it is unreliable then it should be blacklisted and every reference in Wikipedia should be deleted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability doesn't work that way Richard. Each fact, article, source, author and publisher come together in a moment of reliability. Could you please supply the specific fact, the specific source within the compiled work in relation to articles. Asking people to click three or four steps deep does not enamour them of answering complex reliability questions. Kestenbaum may have an appropriate degree to qualify for a an EXPERT exemption, but our biography of him does not describe at what level his study in "historic preservation" was. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the WP source for Kestenbaum's Cornell education is this. I don't think he obtained a PhD from Cornell (never heard of politicians hiding their degrees). Even if he did, that still won't be enough; we will need faculty position in a major university or publications in the field. His official site lists largely positions in minor universities, and that too as adjunct faculty and staff. Seems to have a user page here. Churn and change (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He's an officeholder (actual working politician). However: he does accept some information from the subjects of the listings (no, you don't have to be dead; I'm in there). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, county clerk. Even aside from policy and guideline, I don't see how just one person could possibly guarantee reliability of such a huge database; there isn't any formal (or even informal, as far I can see) editorial supervision. Editing mistakes, uploading mistakes, synthesizing mistakes . . . Churn and change (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

PG is used in over 5,000 articles as a source. I stopped counting after 10 pages of 500. No source is 100% reliable that is why when we find contradictory information we explain what the two sources say and explain why one is more reliable than another. We do this when birth dates disagree or when spellings of names differ in sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But if two sources disagree, and one of them is just plain unreliable, we simply discard the source that is unreliable. And how often Wikipedians use a source is irrelevant. Just as repeating a falsehood many times doesn't make it true, using a source a lot doesn't make it reliable. If you can show that outside sources, sources whose reliability is not in dispute, routinely use Political Graveyard as a source of information, then that might be something. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The History Files [ http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/ ]

Hey Does Wikipedia considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be tertiary. You could probably drill down to the sources using this. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

InddedIndeed, it is? From the very first swift look, the main sources mentioned by The History Files are worthy. Allow me to say that your comments under-explain what your're looking to highlight?

Thanks to you, I've just had a good look at WP:TERTIARY, and I end up concluding that Wikipedia encourage the use of scholarly tertiary sources.

Again, we're struck over the same -- Does Wikipedia considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you be more specific regarding how you would like to use the source? Which article? For what statements? Etc. My point was that although tertiary sources are ok, if we can provide a secondary source then that could be better. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable for history. The articles are introductory overviews, and there is no indication that they are all scholars. That's the general principle; if per Sitush you want to make a more specific enquiry we will consider it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's about page also notes that it accepts contributions from anyone.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tertiary sources are acceptable; obituaries are commonly used in GA articles (and probably FA ones; didn't check). Whether they can be used depends on author, publisher and content cited. In this case the publisher is not an RS (seems pretty much close to user-generated content based on strong sources). I think we should directly use the sources they mention; the site is useful for research purposes, and looks good enough to be used in the external links section. Churn and change (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)