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

Kissan support services Private Limited (KSSL)

Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include:  Sports  Security Services  Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff)  Janitorial Services &  Canteen Maintenance

The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL)

References

Using Parlamentní listy.cz as a source

An editor is using this source [1] for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.

Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP [2], which Google translate [3] appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2#Synopsis_..._single_source.

Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles [4].

Skagway, Alaska

Regarding your section of the history of Scagway, Alaska, my father and I are primary sources, living direct descendants of William Moore whom this site notes as the captain and host to miners and travelers in the area. Currently, there stands the Moore Family Cabin that served miners while they searched for their . The issue with written piece is that William Moore's son is "Ben;" this is in error, as his son's name was William Hunter Moore, my grandfather (not Ben). We request a change and update to further add credibility to your information. IMG_3007.JPG I've attached a copy of s genealogy chart for further reference, but you may Jon Arthur Moore, William's son, if you need further evidence of originality. 1 (775) 622-2631 Thank you. Cheryl Moore — Preceding unsigned added by 166.171.249.221 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Looks to have been resolved. We can this discussion. [[ |DaltonCastle]] (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?

A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If only we had a policy on reliable sources that editors could consult, and some sort of noticeboard where they could discuss the specific application of those rules to more difficult, specific, or nuanced questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of WP:BLP? Is the question a matter of WP:MEDRES? How old is the publication? Are there newer sources that have more up to date analysis? Does it have a reputation for scandal and rumor mongoring? Is there a conflict of interest in this particular story that weighs against other criteria? When it makes mistakes, what corrective actions does it take? When it makes mistakes do other reliable sources cover the mistake? Are they covering it because it is a rare event or because mistakes are the stock in trade of the publication?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Locality could be a factor into expertise, which is one of many considerations when it comes to reliability. Locality can also be a source of bias, which does not affect reliability but can affect how an article should frame any claims. I've written an essay at Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines that goes into more detail. Rhoark (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?

Newspaper	Country	Age (years)	Does the source have a good or bad reputation for -										Do other sources		Another column
			Checking facts	Accuracy	Editorial oversight	Reporting on this subject	Correcting its mistakes	Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours	Preferentially reporting rare events	Conflict of interest	9	10	Report contradictory facts	Report mistakes by the source	Category 1	Category 2
Daily Mail	UK	65	bad	bad	gooda	bad	good	bad	good	bad	?	?	Yes	Yes	?	?
Daily Express	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Daily Telegraph	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
The Guardian	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find a formulaic approach to something that simply does not lend itself to formulas. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I'm not sure I understand your point - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am close to calling an RfC on this but I would like to be aware of the possible consequences. So, I am repeating my question to you - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment People seem to think there is a hidden agenda here - to set things in stone so that there is no point to this Noticeboard. There is no hidden agenda. What I am trying to achieve is some sort of general consensus which can be published as a reference guide so that editors can quickly see that a source might be challenged. Even if this is something like "Tabloid newspapers are generally considered as poor sources and better sources are almost always preferred". I don't understand the reluctance to do something like this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with such proposed 'blacklists' is that they lead to arguments to the effect that anything not on the list can be used as a source for anything. That isn't the way it works, and we don't want to give credence to such simplistic thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are identifying the Daily Mail as unreliable, they are most likely right. It is sometimes right, because even they can't be wrong all the time, but they are very frequently wrong, and deliberately so. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [5] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No. That violates WP:BEANS. The salient fact is that the Daily Mail is usually only reliable on things that are not worth including in Wikipedia. And if we do use them as a source for some trivia, we are attracting clicks to adjacent content which is usually either grossly unreliable or simply creepy (the phrase "all grown up" for example is a hallmark of their obsessive sexualisation of very young women). Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail didn't get a poor reputation for reporting on the number of dogs killed at an annual festival, if has a poor reputation on everything, especially anything relating to a regime which does not match its ideal (which is somewhat more libertarian than either Thatcher or Reagan). It probably didn't fact-check the number. The Indie might have, but also is quite likely not to have done. That kind of number has a tendency to be speculative and to originate with a group with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Is an entry in Who's Who (UK) evidence of notability

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander (Scottish entrepreneur), it's been asserted that an entry in the British Who's Who (UK) is commonly accepted as evidence of notability and that the subject should considered notable because he has a 145-word entry here.

But under WP:GNG, notability requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources. An autobiography, for example, would not contribute to notability even if published by respected publisher. You can't become notable just by talking or writing about yourself, no matter where you get it published. You have to get other people to do it.

And that's the rub in this case. From [6], Each biographee supplies the original information for their entry and is then sent an annual proof for updating. Our editors also monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions. The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical, its integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research. The subject's entry's only 145 words. We didn't find much else in the press or other sources and I doubt they did, either. So it seems likely that what they published was written in entirety by the subject and received zero independent fact-checking to see that whatever the subject claimed could be supported by other sources.

At the AfD, I asked if there anyone could cite a consensus here at WP:RSN regarding British Who's Who entries as evidence of notability. If there is one, I intend to accept it, not relitigate the issue, but I would appreciate a pointer to the relevant discussion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

clearly, the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who can be a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability. Also, not the case here but beware Who's Who scams. --ℕ ℱ 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you are in wrong nioticeboard. Nobody disputes that British WiW is a reliable source.

That sais, If a modern person is notable to get themselves into WiW without string attached, there should be plenty reliable sources. However we are talking about a 1871-1934 person and we must judge more carefully. In this particular case nothing in the article suggests the person's notability, sources close to none, and hence WiW cannot help. Please keep in mind that notability are guidelines. They may suggest that a person may be notable, and AfD is the place to decide this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an entry in WW (which is certainly a reliable source - I don't think any serious student of British biography would dispute that) is a good indicator that someone may be notable, but it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability. Many individuals, for instance, were included in earlier editions just because they were members of the landed gentry. Such people were notable in those days, but would probably not be considered inherently notable today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter was inconclusively discussed at WT:Notability/Archive 12#Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc. I rather agree with the other people responding here. I think an entry provides evidence of notability but the evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Also, we need enough verifiable information for an acceptable article, which Who's Who may not provide by itself. Anyway, even multiple reliable references only lead to a presumption of notability and editors may ultimately think the subject does not warrant an article. Thincat (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Lumia Icon and 1520

Are the following sources reliable, and do they support the inclusion of Nokia Lumia Icon and Nokia Lumia 1520 in the "related" field in each others' infoboxes?

• http://www.wpcentral.com/lumia-icon-review
  • "For all intents and purposes, the Lumia Icon is a Lumia 1520 jammed into a smaller, more nimble device."
• http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nokia-Lumia-Icon-vs-Lumia-1520-vs-Sony-Xperia-Z1-specs-comparison_id52493
  • "Nokia Lumia Icon is finally upon us as a Verizon exclusive, and with it the prayers of Lumia 1520's awesome specs but in a more manageable body, have seemingly been answered."
• http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/verizons-new-windows-phone-flagship-the-nokia-lumia-icon-reviewed
  • "It's like they took the other flagship, the Lumia 1520, and shrunk the screen."
• http://www.windowscentral.com/green-nokia-lumia-1520-reportedly-coming-att
  • "Right now the most advanced Windows Phone device is a tie between the Nokia Lumia 1520 and Lumia Icon. They pack nearly identical tech, just in different packages."
• http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/news/item/19300_Verizon_exclusive_Nokia_Lumia_.php
  • "In technology terms the Lumia Icon is essentially a smaller sized version of the Lumia 1520"
• http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2014/02/14/see-hear-youve-missing-nokia-lumia-icon
  • "The new Nokia Lumia Icon, like its slightly larger cousin the Nokia Lumia 1520 ..."

Indrek (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ars Technica probably is, I don't think much of the others. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree on Ars Technica as only good source from those listed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Using Bandcamp for sources in musician BLPs

I've seen arguments over whether or not Bandcamp can be used as a reliable source for a discography, with the argument that it meets the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. (eg: Talk:Ceschi) I disagree, however, on the simple premise that an artist's self-published website should not the arbiter of what is determined to be of encyclopedic importance. If a release is important, it will be listed in Billboard or Rolling Stone. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

famousscientists.org

Is that really a reliable source for information on famous scientists? Maybe I am overreacting, but articles like "Top 10 Scientists’ Beards" and "7 Scientists Who Died Violently" don't feel very scientific. The articles look well-written (by whom?), but I would appreciate some additional opinions on their reliability. I am currently not looking at a specific problem, just asking for a general assessment. GermanJoe (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The author or authors of the work have not been identified, so there is no way to know if they are experts or have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I imagine that anything you find on that website can be found elsewhere in reliable academic sources. - Location (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @Location:. Digging a bit deeper, I found that most of the usages have been spammed in December 2011, and a few good faith references were added over time. I have removed those usages as clearly against WP:RS and WP:EL. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Pledge to Peace"

In the 1983-Present section of the Prem Rawat article, I'd like to add a statement after: In 2011, he spoke again in Brussels at the conference, "Peace and Prosperity. Founding Values of the European Union."[94]: There he introduced the „Pledge to Peace“, which was signed by Rawat and Pittella as well es by delegates of public and private organisations. The signatories obligated themselves to report on their efforts for the promotion of peace at the annual international „Day of Peace“, held by the UN on September 21st. and offer a number of sources for that, part of which is in Italian. One editor demands all sources are supposed to be in English or, if not, translated, but I understand guidelines say, that is required only when sources are quoted or cited (see the dispute on the article's talk-page). Is the statement still valid? If we just use one source, which one do you consider most reliable? Here are the sources:

1. http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/the-pledge.html
2. http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/
3. http://magazine.azsalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AZS-Mag2015-WEB.pdf
4. http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-uk
5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-peace-prem-putnikovic?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo
6. https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/
7. http://www.monrealepress.it/mp-palermo-i-medici-siciliani-firmano-il-pledge-to-peace-8001.asp
8. http://www.lasicilia.it/articolo/carceri-pagliarelli-di-palermo-sottoscrive-pledge-peace
9. http://www.vivimazara.com/portale/eventi-e-appuntamenti/mazara_cm_-prem-rawat-ed-il-sindaco-cristaldi-rilanciano-il-messaggio-del-pledge-to-peace.html
10. http://www.lasiritide.it/article.php?articolo=5043

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs)

Sources can be in other languages, but it is reasonable to request translations at least of passages that are meant to support claims in the article. On the other hand, fulfilling such a request is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Whether material should stand on a page while verifiability of a translation is in question should be guided by consensus and how BLP or exceptional the claim is. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! In that case, I suggest https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/ , which seems to be an independent, signed article in a regular publication. Should the translation of the relevant passage be written in the article or in a footnote? Also, I suggest http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/ for a list of signatories, which is bilingual (Italian and English). Please comment.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For what I understand of the Italian (and after having given them a number for easy reference):

1. self-published [7]
2. self-published
3. Not journalism: written by a surgeon in a free medical magazine (and/or the same source as #6 as that newspaper is the one with which the magazine is distributed once a month for free)
4. same website as #1 (self-published), and at one of it's "blog" pages
5. self-published
6. article regarding Rawat meeting local politicians, barely anything about the Brussels event, no source for "Pitella" and everything that follows that.
7. not really relevant for the proposed content (Italian doctors signing the "Declaration of Brussels" without mentioning any of the detail in the text that is proposed for insertion in the article)
8. same as previous, apart that it gives a date for the "Declaration of Brussels", and apparently a wrong one
9. non-journalistic local news aggregator (per its disclaimer), apparently reproducing a press release. Also, the article has no real information on the content that is proposed for sourcing.
10. local news report, with less than half of the content of what is proposed for sourcing contained in the article

Not nearly enough sourcing for the proposed content, seems too promotional on the whole. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis, for the numbering! I can't really see why you identify #2 as 'self-published' by the subject or a dependent organisation. Mentions Pitella, too, as well as the other signatories, which information would be lost if we ignore the source. For sourcing the contents of the 'Pledge to Peace' we can best use #1, as Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. #10 may be regional, but it is independent, public and author-signed. A date is not mentioned in my proposed edit. Generally I think the statement can be referenced maybe not comprehensively by a single source, but completely by evaluating the synopsis from several of the above sources. It is then sufficiently sourced and would certainly add to the article's informational yield.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Source #2 (cerisdi) is self-published as defined at WP:SELFPUBLISH, and as it is apparently not self-published by the subject of the article it can "Never" be used "as third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer" (bolding as on that policy page). It can simply not be used as a source at the Prem Rawat article.

Source #1 is self-published by an organization associated with the subject, but contains claims on others ("signatories"...), is unduly self-serving & containing exceptional claims ("report yearly" – where is such report ever mentioned in a reliable third-party source?), and has WP:UNDUE issues, so no, not enough to base such encyclopedia content on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help me understand. How is #2 (cerisdi) self-published? It appears to me rather like a platform for public announcements. And #1 is obviously self-published, but the list of signatories is confirmed in an RS (cerisi).The content of the PtP is not extraordinary, but it is what it is, otherwise there would be no point in mentioning it at all. Where is it undue and self-serving? The PtP may not be front-page news, but when it is mentioned publicly, it is treated like a fact. Just found: The PtP is referred, too, in this independent publication: http://saddind.co.uk/oldham-council-becomes-first-in-uk-to-sign-pledge-to-peace. We could use it as a source, what do you think? I additionally propose to link the Day of Peace internally. Also, I would like to have some assessments from other editors on this issue, please.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "platform for public announcements" – argh, how can anything be more self-published than a "platform for public announcements"? Besides the layout of the website is "Blog" style, the announcement was posted by an account with the same name as the website (& clicking on that name links to the homepage), there appears to be no editorial control apart from that account (apparently no peer or other review over what that account edits), clicking around on the website tells it is "in the process of being developed" (less than half of its purported pages developed), and no accountable person mentioned (in fact all anonymous edits),... CERISDI appears to be a private or commercial initiative, or whatever, that self-publishes on its own website, without any history of fact-checking overview or whatever, which fails about everything Wikipedia expects of a reliable source.

That also crumbles your second argument that the first selfpublished source is "confirmed" by the totally questionable one... Please take this a bit more serious. The requirements are at WP:V, and WP:RS, and per these requirements there's really nothing here that should be added to the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So how do you flush http://saddind.co.uk/oldham-council-becomes-first-in-uk-to-sign-pledge-to-peace, while you're at it? You have not addressed my questions about your logics of "undue" and "self-serving", instead you accuse me of not being serious. Why so aggressive? Please assume that I respect WP:V and WP:RS as much as you do, and they are of course open to a certain amount of interpretation, that's why we have this discussion here, no need to bully me. There might after all be something we could agree on. I think, for NPOV's sake we need some more voices here. Doesn't a 'board' imply a minimum of diversity?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

somethingpositive.net for Something Positive

SP is a borderline notable webcomic, with a relatively large article sourced almost entirely (though never inline) from the strips themselves. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be a thing, as RS guideline says self-published self-referencing sources should only be used if "The article is not based primarily on such sources." & "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.", however removing the unsourced info would mean blanking pretty much the whole thing outside the lede, which I'm sure an admin would revert regardless of policy if carried out by an IP. 92.26.141.6 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• What's the evidence this is even notable? I found no reliable sources online whatsoever. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute as Primary Source?

Hello,

I am the Executive Assistant for this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHINE_Medical_Technologies. As you can see it is up for deletion. As you can also see I have a WP:COI statement on the talk page. As I am re-doing the article, I am wondering if this is considered a primary source because the interviewer called the CEO and took direct quotes: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=mol&pag=dis&ItemID=109211

Thank you for your help. Humbly, PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary for the CEO's statements; secondary for any claims about the company made by the interviewer. Not WP:MEDRS in either case. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Online source for biographical information?

Does anyone have suggestions for a good free online source (or sources) for biographical information about celebrities? I usually end up doing newspaper searches for obituaries, but that is a hit-and-miss type of activity. It would be nice to have one source to which I could go regularly to obtain information if I am writing an article or verify information if I am editing. (Of course, it needs to be reliable enough to use for Wikipedia citations.)Eddie Blick (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

TVbythenumbers reliable?

One user's recent edit updated Naked and Afraid's viewers' numbers in several charts. The editor added this website as a source throughout the page. Before reverting his good faith contribution, I wanted to get confirmation that the website used for support is not a reliable source. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Meatsgains (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused as to how this has become an issue. TVBythenumbers is widely used across every TV show page on Wikipedia and is universally accepted among like every editor on this website to be reliable. I made the effort to fill in the missing ratings and sourced from what is known to be a reliable website and find this on my talk page? Thankyou lol. I'm not going to say anything more than this. Though to be fair, TVBythenumbers was used long before I sourced the latest ratings on the page. There's like 3 seasons worth of ratings sourced from there, so singling out my edits seems a little strange.Haqua121 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm questioning the reliability of the source, not specifically your edit. Can you provide other TV show pages using TVbythenumbers as a source? Meatsgains (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are 1000s if not more show pages on Wikipedia that use it. Just type in your fav ABC, NBC, Fox, CW, CBS and or Cable series and sure enough all the ratings will have TVBythenumbers attributed to them. I hope that helps. Haqua121 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for another set of eyes and opinion on sharylattkission.com as a reliable source

I see a source at https://sharylattkisson.com being used on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in a way that seems contrary to what most of the press is saying and when I went to the site, I had concerns about using it as a reliable source. But I always like to give the benefit of the doubt, so I'd love to have more eyeballs go look at the site and see if they agree. For me it's a self-published site without any understanding of the publishing policies and would probably fail WP:RS AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Acceptable - the author is an established person in the field of journalism and politics (bio shows career in major media, two books from respected publisher), so it passes by that part WP:UGC. It also passes because the article text is simply attributing something as being what her opinion is about it, so passes due to WP:SELFSOURCE. The article does portray her view of the Washington Post next to a Tampa Politifact view about the out-of-context point which ties to a transcript of the exchange -- so her opinion is not standing alone or wildly exaggerated authority either, although that's more balance than RS. To me it seems the cite to her webpage about what she said is pretty clearly acceptable in this case. Markbassett (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sharyl Attkisson's work for CBS would generally be regarded as a reliable source, but her self-published post-CBS writings are not usable on wikipedia (except under WP:ABOUTSELF exceptions), since her credibility has been questioned by multiple sources, eg [8]. Though the issue is moot since the source is not usable, note also that the wording "Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson detailed how" falls afoul of WP:SAY. Abecedare (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are Fire.org and New York Post Reliable Sources.

A couple of editors have argued that Fire.org is not a reliable source because it's "an advocacy organization" and/or "biased", and that the New York Post is "a tabloid". The context of the deletions on that basis are here and here. Looking for feedback/guidance.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just my opinion but : The first part -- NYPost is #6 in the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation. The second part -- Fire.org is an advocacy group. The Coastal College part is just harder to find a RS for as a community college is just not going to get the attention that Stanford does. The policy tied only to it could be self-substantiated by cite to coastal.edu itself. A third party story about it is also at Washington Examiner story, but that seems a conservative tabloid. Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The story on the Costal College is pretty new, but is there a policy on whether a conservative paper is not a reliable source because it's conservative? I suppose it could matter on the slant, but the same could be said about Salon.com or the NYTimes which tend to be on the left.Mattnad (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Also the Atlantic Covered Stanford's policies [9], but there's an editor arguing it's an "editorial". My read is it's an article, but even if it were an editorial, is it a reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NY Post is certainly a reliable source. But there may be special circumstances for a particular article. This is probably nearly the same for Fire. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Other editor" here. I think I should clarify: the question I've raised is really whether FIRE's interpretation of sexual assault standards at Stanford can be presented as fact. The claim originates with that organization, but is repeated in a New York Post opinion piece written by a FIRE affiliate. Its also quoted (again, attributed to FIRE) in an essay by Conor Friedsordorf of The Atlantic. To my mind, all three sources really originate from the same place, and none of them can be called "reliable" sources for that statement of fact because none of them actually attempt to independently verify it. Nblund (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agreed to offer attribution, but here's a point but Nblund didn't mention. Fire included a copy of the Stanford policy which says basically what they say it did. The other sources had opportunity to read that same policy themselves. It's a bit presumptuous to say that neither the NY Post or the Atlantic didn't check any facts, even when providing credit to Fire. If it's covered in Reliable Sources, are we supposed to second guess them? I read the same policy included by Fire and so did Nblund. Here's what it states, [10], "A person is legally incapable of giving consent if under age 18 years; if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol;". Even though Nblund read it, and the other sources had it easily available, Nblund still claims nobody checked facts.Mattnad (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

FIRE interprets this to mean that the policy "states that students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree.". This is an interpretation, and its one that is disputed elsewhere.

News sources, even generally reliable ones, do sometimes quote things without providing a fact check. For example: this CNN article quotes Donald Trump's Obama birthplace conspiracy beliefs without directly repudiating them. Those claims don't become reliable just because they were quoted in a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund - NYPost is a RS choosing to carry the content about FIRE and Stanford -- which was the question here at RS/N. It seems also carried in RS Atlantic and RS Wall Street Journal (Taranto piece on Drunkeness and Double Standard) and probably other places. This forum is just for RS/N, wording it is a different matter, more suitable for the article TALK. Markbassett (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking about how to word the statement, I'm questioning whether any of these sources can be used to offer FIRE's interpretation as a fact. How do you figure that the NY Post editorial page is an RS here? You mentioned circulation numbers, but I don't see that criteria anywhere in the RS policy. The policy clearly states that these determinations are context-dependent, so I don't entirely understand how you can give a blanket declaration that any of these sources are reliable.

"Carrying" content is not the same as verifying it, all three of these sources are opinion pieces which essentially just quote FIRE's interpretation of the policy. Can you explain how this is distinct from the CNN example I listed above? Nblund (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol

Hi, I have added a section in Ubiquinol about its therapeutic uses. My previous edits were reverted by User:Alexbrn for using primary sources, so based on his remarks I added new content with secondary sources that base on a wide range of primary sources and are published by well known publishers. This source [11] for example is based on 28 references! it is pretty much secondary. I have been reverted again without explanation of why any of my sources are not reliable. The only reason given is "poorly sourced". The editor is not willing to discuss so I am seeking input from other editors on sources. I have used the following sources in this edit:

Ubiquinol has been used and tested in a therapeutic context in a variety of patient populations, primarily in patients with congestive heart failure or on statins. The increased bioavailability theory of ubiquinol has been cited as the reason behind some studies having shown ubiquinol providing a greater than three-fold increase over ubiquinone in mean plasma CoQ10 levels in a population of congestive heart failure patients(1) (2) (3). Statin medications block the body’s production of cholesterol via the same metabolic pathway that creates CoQ10, resulting in the unintentional side effect of lowered CoQ10 during statin-therapy. This has led many physicians and researchers to call for supplemental ubiquinol therapy during course of statin therapy. (4) (5) (6)

1. Faloon, William. Conventional CoQ10 Fails Severe Heart Disease Patients. Life Extension Magazine February 2008. http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2008/2/conventional-coq10-fails-severe-heart-disease-patients/page-01
2. Payne, Anthony G. Natural Health Support Measures for Congestive Heart Failure. Healingcare4u. http://www.healingcare4u.org/CongestiveHeartFailure.html
3. Health Research Direct. Latest Studies: Nutrient Reverses End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure Symptoms. October 28, 2011. http://healthresearchdirect.com/2011/10/congestive-heart-failure-symptoms-improve-with-ubiquinol/
4. Allen RM, Vickers KC. Coenzyme Q10 Increases Cholesterol Efflux and Inhibits Atherosclerosis Through MicroRNAs. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2014; 34: 1795-1797
5. Cohen S. Abnormal Heart Rhythm? The Heart-talk you and your doctor need to have. Huffington Post. May 2, 2011.
6. Werner, J. Statin side effects on ubiquinol. Natural News. October 13, 2014.http://blogs.naturalnews.com/statin-side-effects-ubiquinol-levels/

Please tell me if they are reliable or other wise what is wrong with the in that case what is needed. I can make constructive contributions only if I have specific objections to my edits not editors who revert and are not willing to discuss. --Committed molecules (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As has been said to you in the Article Talk page, health content needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. These sources aren't. They're on a spectrum between respectable primary research and some are the worst kind of fringe crap we try hard to avoid (e.g. NaturalNews). Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why you are calliing it and every source in general as crap without logic but even if I agree with you on natural news, please tell me how is this one crap? Or Huffington Post? They are not primary references themselves. They are based on primary references which is why they are secondary. I will like a comment from a sensible editor on the reliability of the sources. I have presented six sources for my update. --Committed molecules (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I said they're on a spectrum. To quote MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". The point is "Life Extension Magazine" (which appears to be a sales front for the supplements you're boosting) is waaay adrift of the sort of respectable mainstream academic sourcing that is described. Alexbrn (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Alexbrn. These are insufficiently good sources for the claim. If the studies have indeed been conducted, they must be published in scientific journals. Find and use them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Committed molecules, you are writing here as though you have not read MEDRS which is the guideline for sourcing health content in Wikipedia. This place is not a wild west; you need to read and understand the policies and guidelines and follow them. Please read it, and take it on board. Thanks. None of those sources are OK per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables

The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination.[12][13][14][15] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.

There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.

GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure whether they are. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.

Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No institution is perfect, and we have no insight into the exact ins-and-outs of how every fact printed by the GRG was obtained and checked-- any more than you do for the Washington Post. But the same is true of everything printed in any "reliable source." If you don't like the GRG as a source of reliable age-of-death information, what in the world would you replace it with? The major newspapers use GRG. Robert Young, who has done the fact-checking for GRG since 1999, is also the current Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records since 2005, so that's where THEY get their info also. So who are you going to use, if not Young? I challenge anybody who disagrees to carefully read the GRG process, which is the background here: [16] That process is described in Young's chapter in the peer reviewed Springer publication H. Maier et al. (eds.), Supercentenarians, Demographic Research Monographs, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_15, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010. SBHarris 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a link to the verification procedure. Do news organisations use GRG tables or other information from the GRG? If they use tables, which ones do they use? Note that news organisations referring to the GRG does not automatically make the GRG tables reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. If uninvolved editors determine that some number of the GRG tables are not reliable sources, and a replacement reliable source cannot be found, the content currently supported by those GRG tables would have to be removed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: first we need to know what uninvolved editors think about whether these tables are WP:RS. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Just going to point out: The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. The GRG is the scientific organisation which does the initial work to verify people's ages. Why the debate about whether it is reliable or not is still going on I don't know.

Regarding the debate about which tables are reliable: If a list article includes pending cases, and the pending cases table is cited, what's the issue? Unverified claims are listed at List of oldest living people with news articles cited. Should they not be included? As long as it's made clear that they are not verified, what's the problem? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The debate is going on because a reliable source on Wikipedia may be different than what the news considers to be reliable. Moreover, news articles are referring to the GRG, not its tables, and we're looking at the reliability of its tables here. That the GRG is considered an authority (although holding up the Daily Mail as proof of that somewhat undermines your point) does not mean that the tables the GRG generates are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. And again, if a table is found not reliable for birth/death date and age information, it can't be used as a source. If other supporting reliable sources don't exist, then that information must excluded. I wish someone other than WP:WOP members would comment on this issue; please could an uninvolved editor comment? Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've unarchived this section as we really need some help on this issue. Please, could editors comment on whether the GRG tables - specifically, Table E (where entries are fact-checked by the GRG) and Table EE (where entries are not completely fact-checked) - are reliable sources for birth/death dates in articles on supercentenarians? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Muslim population growth

Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Ahmadi is a controversial subject within Islam as Ahmadis are considered heretics by mainstream Islam. Using a Christian source is just fanning the flame. I hope Wikipedia won't take part in it. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's a Christian sources does not make it unreliable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on its article, World Christian Encyclopedia looks to meet our guidelines on reliable sources. It's published by Oxford University Press. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I also mentioned other reasons. You have to look it in the context I mentioned it in. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the controversy of the status of Ahmadis, it is probably good that a non-Islamic source is used; there's less chance of bias related specifically to Ahmadis. Since the article does not contrast Christians to non-Christians, I see no reasons not to use WCE. Other concerns, such as whether Ahmadiyya should count as an Islamic movement (it self-identifies as one) are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WCE is not a neutral source in this situation and context. Muslims and Christians have a long history of conflict. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting our article: 'One study found that the WCD's data was "highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates" but the database "consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets".' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion seems to think the source is reliable, with that one qualification. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "Christian source" argument has already been addressed and dismissed, but to elaborate more: The encyclopedia is labelled Christian in the sense that it is of interest to Christians, not out of ecumenical alignment. It is published by a secular printing press. Your concern about Ahmadi self-identification being used in the spirit of cultural relativism reveals what your real concern is here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is that this statement is perfect example of Internet trolling. A perfect example of improper source for this article. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. You got your answer. The source is reliable. What more do you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to beg you for anything. Jjkajaja (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You presented your arguments, and those arguments were shown to be flawed. Repeating those arguments verbatim doesn't suddenly make them right, nor does it fix the flaws or hide them. If anything, repeating the argument and not paying attention to the responses to those arguments is closer to trolling than anything else in this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a solid argument. I have no doubt about. Take it or leave it. Jjkajaja (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

We took it and showed the massive flaws with it. You either failed to understand that, or you don't care. Either way, your options are now:

• Provide arguments
• Find with our refutations (instead of just repeating your original argument)
• Accept your arguments are flawed
• Go some other site.

Repeating initial argument without addressing its flaws only looks foolish. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)