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

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

Immigration Think tanks Reports

• Center for Immigration Studies===

Dubious source labeled hate group by SPLC I am doubtful its reliable for much. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Public Policy Institute of California

I have no idea about this source other than our article . The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like reports from unknown, partisan think tanks are analogous to press releases: SPS that are occasionally picked up by the mainstream media. Off the top of my head: treat as SPS unless the information has been otherwise reported. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely but There are a variety of think tanks (even some partisan ones) that have been found to WP:RS.. Its always been case by case with them. Thats why I am asking about these two in particular The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As with many sources, I would think they are reliable enough for some assertions and unreliable for others. What assertions are being sourced to them? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, CIS (The hate group mind you) is claiming that immigrant cause more crime and attacking Public Policy Institute of California because it doesnt find immigrants to be crime inducing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So are either reliable sources for immigration statistics? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Like other partisan sources, they need to be used with care and attributed in the text when used.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Will I am not sure that it even meets the bare basics of RS to make assertions! It seems odd to let a white supremacist organization to be a source on immigration! Becuase you know they are such big fans of Hispanics! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:QS says questionable sources with extremist views should only be used in articles about themselves. I can see where some of the better partisan think tanks could be considered reliable, as judged by the fact that mainstream media will often report their research. From WP:IRS: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." I would think that anyone wanting to use extremist sources would need to show that they have been used as sources by accepted, high-quality sources such as mainstream media. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One problems is that the SPLC labels a lot of groups as "hate groups", and there reasons may have nothing to do with the reliability of the groups as sources. I'm very familiar with CIS and its related organizations. My concern about their reliability is not that the founder or board members have made racist remarks, but that they are highly partisan and committed to ending "mass" immigration. So their numbers are suspect. OTOH, they are often treated with respect by reporters and commentators, and are frequently cited in news articles. For that reason I don't think we can easily dismiss them as unreliable. If a case could be made that they are demonstrably unreliable, for example their facts are often incorrect, then that would disqualify them as a source. Even then, though, they may still have a significant POV which might need to be included in articles for NPOV, if only as an opinion. I think the bottom line is they should be used with care and attributed.

PPIC is another matter. It may be too obscure to have a reputation for accuracy.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Such groups are clearly reliable for their own assertions and positions: eg "'Cyans Go Home' said 99% of crime is committed by cyan people". But the underlying figures, if correct, would have a better source anywaysuch as government statistics. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a big article on the founder of CIS in today's New York Times: "The Anti-Immigration Crusader".   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

pagat.com

The website pagat.com is used extensively as a source for articles on card games. For example, it's the only source for Hokm which is so hard to source that I initially thought it might be a hoax. However the discussion persuaded me otherwise. The site appears to be a self-published source by John MacLeod, who is acknowledged as an expert. My question is whether this site is reliable for sourcing an entire article. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source?

(I believe I am one of the most active editors in the general area of card games. The question arose in a discussion between me and Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus.) The site is currently linked to from 337 pages, and more than half of them are in article space. So I would guess that it is linked to from roughly 200 articles. In my experience it is of key importance for developing card game articles because it contains information about the distribution of games, and about game variants, that cannot be found. Such information is regularly added without sources by anonymous editors, and it is impossible to source unless pagat.com happens to have it as well. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I want to make sure that we get a decision now that I can really rely on with my continued work in this area. At first I am focusing only on the question whether the site is a reliable source or not.

For me there is no doubt that pagat.com is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of John McLeod who is an expert on the history, rules and distribution of card games by virtue of having co-authored an influential two-volume scholarly book and being regularly quoted as such an expert.

• Dummett, Michael; McLeod, John (2004), A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 1, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6447-6
• Dummett, Michael; McLeod, John (2004), A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 2, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6449-0

The above book is the most important single source for the following book:

• Parlett, David (1990), The Oxford guide to card games: a historical survey, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-214165-1.

The latter scholarly book (note the publisher) also includes numerous comments and footnotes such as: "I am indebted to John McLeod for helpful additions to the train of thought at this point." Another footnote in that book reads as follows: "McLeod, John, 'Ulti', in JIPCS (May 1976), p. 15. McLeod tells me that many such methods of ending games are to be found throughout what was once the Austro-Hungarian empire." (These are just examples taken from the first 2 of 23 chapters.) JIPCS refers to the Journal of the International Playing Card Society, of which a much more recent example can be found here. The journal is probably not peer-reviewed, but to the best of my knowledge no peer-reviewed journal exists that would be appropriate for the publication of technical articles on card game history.

Some other high-quality books that cite pagat.com as a source or recommend it for further reading in general or on specific topics:

• Parlett, David (2004), The A–Z of card games (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860870-7.

From the introduction: "Researches [...] have revealed that every country [...] harbours local communities, often quite small, who play games or variations unique to their region or locality, such as All Fours and Don in Britain. These are well described as folk games, not being recorded in books and subject to no universally accepted set of 'official rules'. [...] Fortunately, they are now recorded and regularly updated by regular contributors throughout the world on John McLeod's award-winning 'Pagat' web site, where you will also find further information on most of the games described in this book, as well as many more that are not." The introduction ends with a "useful links" section that has pagat.com first (the other three useful links being http://www.davidparlett.co.uk, http://i-p-c-s.org and http://www.playingcardsales.com). There are further URLs from pagat.com in the body of the book, where Parlett did not have the space to describe a game in detail.

• Parlett, David (2008), The Penguin Book of Card Games (3rd ed.), Penguin Books, ISBN 978-0-14-103787-5.

From the preface: "The exploration of card games has become a particular pursuit of the International Playing Card Society, founded in the late 1960s originally as a forum for playing-card collectors. Many field researchers are members of the Society, and report their findings in its bi-monthly Journal, known as The Playing-Card [or JIPCS]. [...] The most important [among the card game sites] is the Pagat website, <http://www.pagat.com>, conducted by John McLeod, a prominent member of the IPCS and himself a well-travelled field researcher. Its intrinsic authority is constantly enhanced by the contributions of interested and knowledgeable players from all over the world, making it a living, growing, interactive encyclopedia of the cybersphere. [...] Many thanks are due, and are duly rendered, to John McLeod and Andrew Pennycook, with whom I have shared much information and discussion over the years, and both of whom read various drafts of the text and rescued me from a number of errors."

• Kastner, Hugo; Folkvord, Gerald K. (2005), Die große Humboldt Enzyklopädie der Kartenspiele, Humboldt Verlag, ISBN 978-3-89994-058-9.

This German encyclopedia of card games (including historical ones) has the following recommendation in its foreword (my translation):

"The following links are in any case much to be recommended, in particular the Card Games Web Site by John McLeod: (1) The Card Games Web Site (2) The English Playing Card Society -- The World of Playing Cards (3) The House of Cards (4) US Playing Cards". As for Parlett's books, there are deep URLs to pagat.com from various individual game descriptions. Hans Adler 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone believes I may have made up the quotations above, you can also see what David Parlett has to say at http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/histocs/ . Hans Adler 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can it be used as the only source?

Now this is a more difficult question, so I would like to address it separately. In the case of Hokm it is (almost) our only reliable source, but no doubt that's because as an English encyclopedia we have trouble locating and understanding sources in Farsi or Arabic, which I guess are the most likely languages of books discussing the game. Our page Iranian folklore lists Hokm as one of four games traditionally played in Iran. For more detailed information about card games played in Iran see http://www.pagat.com/national/iran.html . There are several online servers where you can play the game:

• http://www.varagh.com/varaghftp/dev1/Varagh.html?
• http://www.hokmgame.com/
• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hokm-Baz/57621291043

This is not the kind of topic that we should drop just because we have only one reliable source talking about it in English. In this particular case the game also happens to occur with a 2-paragraph description under Whist Variants in Parlett's Penguin Book of Card Games. The description is independent from McLeod's (Parlett cites an Iranian email correspondent) and omits some details, but is fully consistent with McLeod's version.

Parlett's approach of describing the game as a whist variant rather than as a separate game is reasonable. Giving it its own article also seems reasonable to me given the relative prominence which this game appears to have in Iran and the international character of this encyclopedia. Notability in the sense of WP:GNG cannot automatically be presumed just because a game has a page in pagat.com, but in many cases it follows from McLeod's information that reliable sources in the original language are likely to exist, though hard to find. Hans Adler 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MacLeod does seem like a good source to use. And it seems fine to use MacLeod as the sole source for Hokm, for the reasons you give. As an experiment, you might try Googling it in other languages.[1] TimidGuy (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally search in the languages I can read and also in the original language. But with Hokm it's tricky. The original name is حُکْم. I can search for that by using copy/paste, but then I can't even tell whether the sites I find have anything to do with card games, and if they do whether they are related to this game. (Not to mention reliability assessments.) After all, it's a normal Farsi word that also means trump and arbitrator. Hans Adler 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet we have someone on the project who can read Farsi fluently. I'm not sure what Wikiproject would be best to contact, but you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. I'm sure someone with this skill would find it an interesting project to help you with. Otherwise I agree, McLeod sounds like an expert source - usable despite self-publication.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Under WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." McLeod seems fine, and I don't think its a concern even if he is the sole source on a particular game. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks to Hans Adler for such comprehensive documentation. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are These sources reliable

I have presented these sources that are referenced for the article Iranian Azaris below you can also see the context in which they were used at. Please can you comment on weather the use of these sources is okay.

Claims of Cultural Suppression

Some human rights watchdogs have made claims that the Azeri minority in Iran has government restrictions which encompass both cultural and political activities. These restrictions are also imposed upon organisations that primarily target social issues.This opinion was stated by Human Rights Watch.

Source: www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/iran HRW report on Iran]

Amnesty international along with Human Rights Watch also believe that there is political pressure faced all by the ethnic minorities of Iran; although Azeris constitute a greater influence in the government they are still said to be target to arrests, detainment and imprisonment due to their political activities.

Sourced: Amnesty International Report Human Rights Watch Report

"In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists." this opinion was stated by Human Rights Watch Report.

Source:

Human Rights Watch Report

As claimed by Amnesty International; these political activities include public disobedience such as boycotts. One boycott conducted in "Iranian Azerbaijan" resulted in the detainment of 15 people. There are further claims of detainment that include the action of torture such as in the case of Mohammad Reza Evezpoor who was reportedly been tortured in his 3 days detainment. This still remains controversial so must be approached with caution.

Source:

Amnesty International

In addition to this United Nations Office of the High Commissioner For Human Rights states in its view that the 1996 Mr Chehragani, an Azeri candidate for March 1996 Parliamentary elections from Tabriz emphasised that Article 15 of the Constitution on use of local languages. “He subsequently faced police interrogation, torture, arrest and disqualification from the ballot. This led to widespread clashes in Tabriz.”

Sourced from:

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Sub-regional Seminar Minority Rights: Cultural Diversity and Development in Central Asia (Bishkek, October 2004)

Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Human right watch has been discussed earlier here : Human right watch and changing a whole article about culture and geography according to that reports is disputed .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International's report about a political activist , can't be used to show all of his ethnic group are under pressure . I think the report can be used in his own article : Chehragani.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as that thread shows, there is a strong consensus position here that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are reliable sources generally. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if their description or detals of it are disputed/contested there might a need for a direct intext attribution ("according to amnesty ..."), but amnesty is usually reliable and definitely not fringe, so there's no good reason to block its citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the sources are reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion. Less sure that they are reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are notable advocacy organizations, but their advocacy is often very controversial. Their opinions are often noteworthy enough to be included in articles that relate to human rights issues... however discussion of their opinion should definitely be phrased as being opinion, and not stated as unqualified fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--makes sense. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we essentially agree here, that's why I wrote, it depends whether the content is contested/disputed (which is the case here anyway). So in the given article amnesty should get an intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have problem with these sources in terms of there is no author. Wikipedia WP:RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". On News organizations: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others". For example lets one of these amnesty reports, it states:

• [2] "Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that

the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. . Article 15 of the Iranian Constitution permits 'the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools... in addition to Persian'.". The first sentence is a wholesale generalization and here is a newsreport (with a reliable author) that contradicts the amnesty sentence: [3]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". Note, the wholesale generalization of Amnesty international. It uses "Iranian Azeris" as if they all think the same way.

• The second contradiction is that Amnesty does not understand Article 15 of the Iranian consitution. It states: "The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian. "[4]. Thus article 15 in the constitution actually allows only one language as medium of education for all government funded schools, that is Persian.
• Given that Amnesty international is not a specialist source and generalizes many times, and also it cannot verify anything in the ground, and tends to hyerbole, I would treat it as unreliable unless it has authors who are experts in the field. It uses terms not carefully and generalizes possibly the opinion of a few to represent a whole group. Most of the time though, it could just be a college student writing a report based on some organization that it gets information from. I believe unless the authors are known (both amnesty and the sources they get the information), then there is a lot of room for mistakes.
• Note there a Wiki article Criticism of Amnesty International: [5] "University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who spent several years as an Amnesty International USA Board member, claimed that aspects of organisational continuity and survival came ahead of human rights aims. He stated "Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."".
• Overall, I think if several full university professors have summarized a situation than it is much more reliable than amnesty international. I am not rejecting amnesty outright, but if sources from university Professors describe a situation in more detail, then amnesty international which has no author should not be given weight in an article. Only in articles where academic study of the subject is lacking than I believe amnesty might be a necessary option.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Having been involved in many articles and discussions involving Human Rights Watch and Amnesty as sources, I think the consensus position, in a nutshell, is that they are reliable sources but their statements should always be attributed to them. They have come up again and again, here and on many talk pages. That is, in my view, largely because Wikipedia attracts so many advocates for the states and groups that are criticized by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty for human rights abuses, violations of international law, and many other issues, but I digress. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

@Khodabandeh14:

An "author" doesn't have to be a person, but it can be an organization as well. I.e. press releases by organizations are "authorized" without necessarily naming a particular author. Also there a few well established, reliable newspaper/journal that traditionally may not name individual authors (Der Spiegel for instance used to do that iirc) as well as reliable tertiary sources (various encyclopedias). In such cases where an individual author is not given, you have to look at the reputability/reliability of the publisher instead.

There seems to be consensus that Amnesty can be cited but that it requires an intext attribution. Since you said yourself you would dismiss amnesty completely (just consider it less reliable/reputable that a few others sources), can't the conflict be resolved by simply citing amnesty with an explicit intext attribution?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What if their view is an overwhelming generalization and directly contradicts newsreports? As I said, I see no academic person writing these reports but rather college students obtaining reports from unknown organizations. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if various sources disagree the common approach to integrate both (or several) view points into the article (unless they are fringe)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here let me illustrate again. Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[6]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". It seems unlike amnesty, the guy in RFERL has done some field work. Note how amnesty generalizes the whole situation by speaking on behalf of millions of people. How does amnesty gauge the opinion of Millions of people? Amnesty has no author (who is writing the report) and lacks any specialization on the topic. If some sources contradict amnesty, we should give weight to the stronger source and not include amnesty as a weight issue. My main issue is that not only amnesty is making a gross generalization but there is no author who writes the report. It seems that an Encycloapedia should at least reference an actual author/writers (rather than vague organization) when it comes to discussing controversial matters. Until I figure out how amnesty international can gauge the opinions of millions and speak on their behalf, I find the report to simply be unencycloapedic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dismissing highly notable and widely respected sources like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Inbternational is not a realistic option available to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there is only a requirement to use reliable/reputable sources, there is no requirement mandating that individual human authors have to be identifiable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"As per the sources you brought from above, it is again news organizations without authors. All of them from "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" but no authors were mentioned. Wikipedia is not a place for piling up random news source. For example, one does not fill the article on Kurds in Turkey with thousands of reports from various new sources." As said by Mr Khodabandeh. This is a radio station which clearly contridicts a well-known human rights watch dog but still if we were to take this radiostaion as a reason as to not including other groups we would need to incorparate the very same reports made by the radio staion and these are:

Azeri-rights protesters demand Khatami apology

Detentions after Azeri rights chants disrupt Iran rally

Ethnic Azeri bloggers imprisoned in Iran

Relatives say ethnic Azeri activist held without charge in Iran

Iranian group concerned over detained Azeri activists Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, if the authors are not academics, then it is hard to verify the accuracy of their statements. For example when talking about oppression, According to Shaller and Zimmerer in the Journal of Genocide Research, the leadership of Young Turks planned to eliminate Kurdish identity by deporting Kurds from their ancestral land and displacing them in small groups. In this era, the Kurds suffered from deportations and death marches and forced Turkification. The Young Turks partially implemented these plans in WWI and 700,000 Kurds were forcibly removed where approximately 350,000 of these displaces Kurds perished. These Kurds were forced by the young Turks to go on death march resembling the Armenian marches which was part of a plan to eliminate Kurdish identity. The movement has also been seen as the cause for the policy of "Turkification" which Turkey has attempted to impose on its ethnic minorities such as the Kurds until 1991. In an attempt to deny their existence, the Turkish government categorized Kurds as "Mountain Turks" until 1991.. However, amnesty international is not a peer reviewed journal and lacks any peer-review mechanism.

• I have three questions:
• First is what happens when amnesty international which has no author contradicts other news sources and academic books with authors?
• Second can amnesty make a generalized statement when it contradicts other news sources that have authors(like RFL). Amnesty states: ""Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north-west of Iran, and who speak Azerbaijani Turkic, have over the past 15 years or so been demanding that the Iranian authorities respect their right to be educated in the medium of their own language. "". Here is a newsreport from RFE:[7]: "Over the last two months, I have interviewed more than 80 people, mostly from Tabriz, Ardabil, Khoy, and Tehran. The people I spoke to worked in bazaars or as nurses, as government employees and housewives, computer traders, lawyers, students, medical doctors, and laborers. But I found only five who said they were very interested in seeing education in Azeri Turkish in Iranian Azeri schools.". So which statement is correct?
• How can one verify the information of amnesty international when it does not get vetted through any peer review academic process? And does one used amnestry reports from say 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago and how much weight and space should they be given in an article?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You see Khodabandeh your question can be reversed to; what happens when indivicual scholars contradict group reports from well known human rights watch dogs? I would say Human Rights Watchdogs should take presidence due to the fact that their reports are subject to verification and that they are written with a group. However you forward that scholars should take presidence. This I belive where opinion comes in, and ones own interests. Its for this reason both sources should be included. You have said about news sources contridicting the human rights reports, however you denied the BBC editorial report which stated that Azeris are suppressed to a certain extent. As said we should include all sources which are reliable or recgonised to be so irrelevant of the fact that some contradict others.Thank you, regards. Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) The amnesty international source is not from 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. It is very recent. To add to this ethnic status does not change over night, it is a slow moving process.

• An author-less report from Human Rights NGOs, which are mainly based on agenda-driven activists' "he said, she said" can not be used to suppress or contradict reliable academic sources written by experts, historians and specialists in a field. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Did not understand what you said, but HRW or amnesty is not subject to any academic verification and that is an invalid claim. Many times, political pressure groups send false reports to these organizations and these writeups are done by college students with no serious aademic background. I do think on such controversial matters, serious academic studies by Professors who have done years of field works takes precedence over random websites with no verifiable academic peer-review mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Random websites, so you are calling BBC, Amnesty International, United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch random, well I have nothing to say to that... These sources are humanitarian not political, please support your claim. Please also support the claim that said these sources are written by college studets. You dismissing these well known internationaly accepted sources, it does not look good. I will not be responding after this as its getting late. Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Human rights reports are tertiary sources at best, as they're author-less and usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So they could be treated as reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion, on pages dealing with the individual subject in question, or Human Rights pages like "Human rights in ____". But to cherry-pick random author-less lines from these types of sources, presenting them as statements of facts even-though they openly contradict scholarly works, and use them as a soap-boxing/advocacy tool on various tangibly related topics, as Tugrulirmak has been doing, not only violates WP:RS, it's also clear infraction of WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe, and WP:SOAP. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I consider myself tolerably familiar with our sourcing policies, and I do not recall ever having seen a single sentence in any of them that says anything remotely like "Sources that name the author are better than sources that don't".

I can name dozens of top-quality sources that don't name their authors and are unquestionably acceptable. (Nearly everything on nearly all government websites, for starters.) These "author-less" reports are acceptable sources for Wikipedia's use, and the persistent inability to hear that suggests that the real problem is that certain editors don't agree with the sources' contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and editors who are apparently not familiar with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the genuinely baffling extent of considering them fringe probably should not be commenting about their reliability and mode of usage. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• My main point of contention was that is some of these reports contradict perceptions of actual newsreports from other sources or contradict viewpoints of Professors, what should be done. Given weight to these sources or dismiss them? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculas first my edit was reverted by Kurdo777 on the grounds that "rv - per WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP - this is neither the place for this, nor are these claims supported by acadamia, and stuff about particular incidents belong WikiNews, or a Human rights page" however we discussed here that the sources were reliable and perfectly reliable for a page which also features ethnic status of Azeris in Iran. Then about 17 minutes later an administrator called Khoikhoi (who I belive is also Iranian) put an edit block on the page due to "edit warring" this block was made coincidentally made after Kurdo777's revert of my contribution. I'll let you conclude whats happening here...Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What we do Khodabandeh is include two equaly reliable sources inside the article irrelevant of the stance they are taking. This means include the scholars and the Human Rights Watchdogs. Then let the reader decide. Simple as that.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tugrulirmak`s latest inflammatory comment, labeling other editors "Iranian" etc (falsely too, but that is not the point), goes to the heart of the problem with his edits. He is an ultra-nationalist POV-pusher (a quick glance of his editing history, his denial of Armenian genocide, his white-washing of the Grey Wolves, his soap-boxing userboxes etc, would put that in perspective for you ) here to battle his perceived enemies in Armenians, Iranians, Greeks, Kurds, etc. This is a classic case of a nationalist user engaging in WP:Battle and WP:Soap. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry if calling someone Iranian is offensive, I had no such prior knowlege; I was just trying to describe the correlation between the reverts conducted on my edits and the people who did them, I apologies. However the fact that I made a mistake does not grant you an invitation to personaly attack me. I do deny the Armnian genocide for I have evidence to back this up (if you wish to have an extended discussion please post on my talk page or better yet the Armenian genocide article) same goes with other topics. That being said however, I do not deny the other oppinions that were presented to me, I belive they should also be featured on wikipedia. I hope you did not mean to call me an ultra-nationalist and I forgive you if you didn't for you have no idea of my political beliefs and irrelevant of what they are, mine do not have a presence in wikipedia.Attacking me personaly will not help us resolve this issue so please refrain from doing so. We need contributions from each side to resolve this, not damaging comments.Please do not reply here again as I fear the true aim of posting here which is to check reliability is being lost in our discussion. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia , we are not going to push for ultra nationalistic and partisan point of views . As other editors have mentioned earlier , the reliable human right reports may be used only in Wiki articles that deal with corresponding title and not as a pressure tool in pushing for anti national sentiments . Don't know what was the reason , but user Tugrulirmak not only has especial points of views in Armenian genocide , but he wrote about my ethnic group in Iran(Azeri) as fishes ! [8] and in response of my objection he said he write it to "lighten up the mood" ! [9] . Anyway , we tend to edit in Wikipedia without prejudice and without tendency to push for Pan- ideas ... neither Pan-Turkism nor any other Pan idea WP:SOAP.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the "ultranational viewpoint" here is, the promotion or the suppression of the assessment of human rights organizations?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism is a point of view that states all of the Turkic language groups in other countries are under pressure and they should unite and build a unified state to protect them from continuous harm of the other ethnic groups .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal national sentiments of editors are an irrelevant distraction. Everyone has to comply with policy and if they don't they will eventually get themselves blocked. It's about the sources and their usage at the Iranian Azaris article. These sources are very obviously notable, reliable (with attribution) and pertinent to the issue of the status of Azaris in Iran according to reliable sources which we are obliged to reflect. To try to exclude these sources on the basis that they should go somewhere else is frankly nonsense. These matters are clearly within scope of the article since there is already a section dealing with them. It even contains the statement "claims of de-facto discrimination". If an article is to deal with such matters, as is apparently already the case, and to do so in a policy compliant way, it's simply not possible to exclude the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most prominent sources on the planet for this kind of information, and then claim to be complying with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually "personal national sentiments " can only go so far in Wikipedia. Somebody denying the Holocaust, should not and will not be taken seriously here in Wikipedia, the same also applies to editors who deny other well-documented genocides, and treat other editors, sources and subjects based on "genetics closeness" to their own. There is something fundamentally wrong with the editor in question, and pointing it out, is in line with WP:SPADE. Overall, what you are suggesting above, is not what the editor in question is after. He just wants to turn the page into a WP:COATRACK, and dump whatever cherry-picked material that suits his own POV, regardless of relevance or weight. Otherwise, I see no problem with adding a couple of attributed lines from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to the already-existing section dealing with the ethnic status, as long as the weight is proportionate and appropriate. If a particular claim is contradicted by several academic secondary sources, then it should be treated as a minority viewpoint. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are not to take the sources I give seriously due to me not believing in a "genocide" then go ahead you would also be excluding the whole of Turkish community also... In addtion to this the sources are not connected to me so how can my own "bias" effect the sources I present. Lastly calling me a biast or "ulta-nationalist" is just absurd I belive other sources can be included like those scholars so how does this nuetral stance make me extream in your eyes. Stop attacking or I will have to make a complaint. If you want to attack anythign attack the sources I present and come up with valid reasons as to why they are not a good choice.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is a fundamental problem in my opinion when the user (Tugrumimak) called a Professor that was born in Brooklyn and is of non-Iranian background as Iranian. I quote him: ". Now if we were to investigate the reliability of Nikki Keddie we can see that she is an Iranian professor..." [10]. Note the said person is also not Iranian [11]. Wouldn't such a person have much more qualification to summarize about this issue than a random report from AI (which should be treated as a primary source that needs secondary analysis)?
• No one has answered my question though (I am asking some uninvolved in the article), when it comes reliability and claims, "exceptional claim require exceptional sources". When there is several scholars, professors in major universities contradicting AI or doing a fine job summarizing the situation, how does one treat something like AI which might get its report from fringe groups or contradict these sources? Doesn't WP:Weight go with the Professors/scholars rather than an organization which is not peer-reviewed and has been criticized by scholars [12]. I am not saying to dismiss AI, but on a topic which might have political fringe groups making claimns to AI, One should consider current scholarly viewpoints from universities and give them the most weight. Also AI is almost like a primary source (if its claim is valid and sometimes it is just a random report about something that could have been outdated by now) and secondary sources (peer-reviewed publications, professors , etc.) should make a summary. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My own fictitious "political agenda" or "bias" does not apply on wikipedia. I, or you present sources and we discuss them. For all I care some can be an extreamist; what I care about is the reliabilty and the relevance of the sources presented to me and so should every one. Trying to invalidate certain sources by invalidating me does not realy work as I have no connection with the sources.About the professor, I said she might not be as reliable due to the fact that she is Iranian and I stand by it. We would be fools to think that ones own national sentiments do not apply when drawing scholarly conclusions, one still bears a vested interest no matter how represt it may be. I would draw the same conclusion if the author was an Azeri or a Turk. And according to Alborz I called Azeris fishes, now why would I defend someone I called fishes, no reason( although may aim was realy to lighten up the mood). Khodabandeh as I am sure you are aware wikipedia does not quote wikipedia as a source as it is deemed unreliable. Lastly, we have stagnated our discussion upon me, and Amnesty International. However one can see, quite clearly that I have presented two other sources UNHRC and HRW if we can also reach a certain stand on their reliabilty it would be good also.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Professor from UCLA who is a full professor is more reliable than authorless AI with no academic peer-review process. See WP:RS. Second she is not Iranian but your accusation of her as being Iranian shows complete bias and disregard for Wikipedia policy on account of not understanding WP:RS. I stand by my case that on a complicated matter, one should use secondary sources rather than alleged tidbits by political advocacy group, when the two come into conflict. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are """as""" reliable as each other. Both must be included. Saying AI a large well-known organisation is not reliable is just absurd.Tugrulirmak (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please cite relavent wikipedia policies where it says academic institutions are as reliable as AI! No they are not. As far as I know, you accused a Professor from UCLA who was not Iranian to be of Iranian background and claim people in academic institutions are biased due to their background. Both claims can be dismissed , see for example taner akcam and are not part of wikipedia policy. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

reliable to be mentioned in which article ? Do you have problems in mentioning them in a human rights article ? or the problem is about adding a whole chapter to the article of Iranian Azaris?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not adding a whole chapter. We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports. As said on talk page the article covers the treatment of Azeris in the Pahlavi era and now so the reports are relevent to the article.

by adding the signs of == == there will be a headline in the page . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you have read what I said correctly I talked about extending the Ethnic Status in Iran section not making a new section here is the quote "We already have a chapter concerning their ethnic status. So we extend this chapter to include these reports". Next time please do read correctly.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am asking for a third party opinion and I will repeat. Is Professor from UCLA who is a full professor or similar academic institutions more reliable than the authorless(in terms of having a real person with a known academic background) AI with no academic peer-review process. See WP:RS. I want to quote WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". I would consider AI as a primary research paper and when it comes to conflict with secondary academic sources, I believe the secondary academic sources should be given more weight. I am asking for third person opinion on weight issues rather than if AI is RS or not. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly are we discussing the reliability of the professor, NO. Secondly did I say she is unreliable, No (if I had you made me change my mind almost a month ago). AI is a secondary source HRW is a secondary source BBC is a secondary source UNHCR is a secondary source. Again are we talking about the reliabilty of the professor, NO. We are talking about the reliabilty of the above sources. Stop trying to veer the discussion to where you want it to go to. You said it yourself "you consider" well thats just your point of view. They are reliable as many discussions have prooved them so. Again you are only saying AI i have provided 3 sources yes 3. These are if you have not yet seen: AI, HRW and UNHRC. You are asking for weight? I would say international sources are pretty hefty in their weight, but go ahead ask away and we shall see the reply. Lastly don't bring up the professor again for we are not discussing her nor me.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please watch WP:NPA. I asked for a 3rd party opinion. And yes you did call a Professor who was not Iranian as Iranian and tried to show has biased. AI has no academic qualification and it is an advoacy organization. And yes, it does matter to the discussion to see which has more weight, AI or Professors of universities. We are talking about WP:weight, between academic institutions vs AI. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not made personal attacks to anybody I belive it is me who is under personal attack from 3 editors, however I shall take this lightly and assume they do not mean the things they said. I would like a link to your request on 3rd party opinion I will be greatfull.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again with the professor? We are not discussing weight here we are discussing reliabilty of three sources UNHRC, AI and HRW. She is Iranian as the wikipedia article on her states so, for the record I am talking about the wikipedia article before your deletion of the statement which read "Nikki R. Keddie is an Iranian professor of Eastern, Iranian, and women's history" so yes she is Iranian. Now which has more weight, indivicual scholars or large global human rights organisations? I say both, both are as reliable as each other and thus both should be included.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats because you do not understand the term and you also thought the article about fish DNA is talking about Azeris. I'll explain it for you. "Iranian Professor" in the Wikipedia article meant Professor of Iranian studies. Just like Arabic Professor could also mean Professor of Arabic. Iranian Professor could also mean Professor of Iranian studies. Turkish Professor could mean Professor of Turkish studies. It simply requires the person to understand the context although it could be confusing. Else, in fact she is not an ethnic Iranian and you can check her biography on the UCLA page. Individual full professors publishing from reliable universities have much more weight than AI as clearly noted in WP:RS, which mentions academic sources and publishers to be the best sources on subjects. AI is not a global organization as it does not have office in most place. As per "Both are reliable as each other", no they are not. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, they are not clearly as reliable. WP:RS gives more weight to academic sources (Full Professor of Iranian studies for example) above AI website and also when summarizing a situation, it is best to use academic sources rather than making OR based on AI. As I said, I will wait for second opinion from someone not involved in tis issue. The main question to them: "What happens when you have bunch of academic full professors who summarize a situation in more detail than AI and they offer a different viewpoint which contradicts AI. How does weight work here". In my opinion, vverall, a Professor of Iranian studies (not Iranian ethnic background as you claim) has more weight as it is specialized source in the area over advocacy organizations. Because the former has done a more detailed study where-as the latter, is not even academic organization and has no peer-review vetting of its writing. I will wait for opinion from other non-involved users on this point. I'll wait for a 2nd opinion from non-involved users on these topics as it is general policy matter, not just particular to the specific article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you take me for an idiot, a simpleton that doesn't know the difference between "Iranian professor" which means Professor of Iranian origins and Professor of Iranian Studies, please do not insult me. I am not liable if the information presented to me was wrong which was the fact that she is Iranian. So I withdraw my analysis on her however that is not to say I was unjust with the former information I had to get to the conclusion I had. Now then if we are finished discussing a professor we are not even supposed to discuss here. If we look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS we can clearly see both the sources are as reliable as each other, failure to notice this is a grave flaw indeed. We can clearly see that Human Rights Watchdogs have more resources, people and organisation to aquire more evidence to draw a conclusion upon however I also take your point on the scholar and belive they should be included also. In order to keep nuetrality in the article we must include sources that represent the other stance, and if the sources are as well reputed as Amnesty International, Human Rights Wach and United Nations Human Rights Comission it would be a against the notion of nuetrality.Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims based on not-so-extraordinary sources

A claim is being in the article on the History of Medicine that Avicenna described bacteria and viruses back in the early Middle Ages [13]. While the claim is sourced, and the source on first inspection appears reliable, the issue here is that the claim is quite extraordinary, but the source is not. How could someone in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years before the invention of the microscope, perform such a feat? The existence of viruses wasn't even guessed at until the late 19th century. The claim about Avicenna is thus extraordinary, and such claims should be sourced only to the highest quality, specialized sources. The source used does not provide an explanation of how Avicenna achieved this, and moreover does not appear to specialize in the history of medicine. I thus believe that it the source used is insufficient to source such an extraordinary claim. A second opinion would be very helpful. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of microorganisms was hypothesized for many centuries before their actual discovery, please see Microbiology#Ancient. According to The Middle East: a humanistic approach, Michael W. Kamell, Andrews Pub. Co., 1973, "Al-Razi wrote the first treatise on small-pox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness". Other sources indicate Al-Razi's "On Smallpox and Measles" was the first accurate description of smallpox and measles. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is an extraordinary claim, and contradicted by hundreds of sources.

The actual quotation appears to say, "Notable in the field of medicine is one Abu Bakr Alrazi (932) who wrote the first treatise on smallpox. He was able to isolate this virus and find a method for curing the illness."

It is uncertain what is meant by "isolate this virus". The technology of the time had no possibility of doing what we currently mean by that phrase. It certainly does not mean "the first descriptions on bacteria and viruses," which is the text proposed here. Even if this older book made exactly that claim, I'd say that it would be WP:UNDUE. Any single text could contain an error; when all the others tell a different story, then one obscure source should just be ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you response WhatamIdoing. More extraordinary claims are made here [14] here [15] and here [16] (particularly the bit about the discovery of the immune system and "modern" surgery - in the middle ages no less). I'm not sure these sources pass the test for the magnitude of the claims. Athenean (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the involved editors, sources and formulations of those claims, I'd be rather skeptical. Imho all claims need to be checked by someone with expert knowledge and access to those sources (and better more reputable ones). I agree with WhatamIdoing that the sources look formally ok at first glance, but WP:UNDUE might have to applied here as far as the content is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kmhkmh, I don't think you are respecting WP:AGF by telling other editors to be "skeptical" of me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While skepticism of editors may be uncalled for, skepticism of the sources and their claims is perfectly justified. The added material definitely needs to be double checked by knowledgeable experts. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"May be" uncalled for ? I don't know this Kmhkmh and he doesn't know me, we've never talked before and I don't recall anyone complaining about my use of sources. Either he's rude or racist to slander me based on the area of my work. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We've had a couple of editors who have found it necessary to add content to the effect that Medieval Muslim scientists made lots of major discoveries that did not become accepted until the late 19th and early 20th century. I've seen edits to this effect to the medicine article since 2007 at least. I think that in most of the cases, this seems to be a WP:WEIGHT problem. Even if this point-of-view exists, the sources are not actually stating this clearly (or they are difficult to access). I know that in modern medicine there is a fashion to attribute medical discoveries to Hippocrates, Galen or Aretaeus, sometimes taking significant liberties with the original sources. This is no different. Even if the ancients described a transmissible disease that was later found to be viral, that does not earn them more credit than Peyton Rous.

Could I encourage these editors to avoid the risk of historical revisionism and respect mainstream POV here? JFW | T@lk 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more doubtful claims in the article are sourced to the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Is this a reliable source? It is not indexed on PubMed, and the Society clearly has it is one of its aims "[b]ringing to light the contributions of Arab and Muslim physician to the history of medicine and to promote public awareness of these contributions. This is to be achieved through encouraging more research and academic studies of earlier Islamic Medicine"[17]. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal of published material on Avicena's writings, including bibliographies such as this. Here is his A treatise on the small-pox and measles in English translation by William Alexander Greenhill. Page 30 of that translation is quite astonishing.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought p 29 [this edition's page numbering, not the numbers in the margin] was more interesting: "Now the Small-Pox arises when the blood putrefies and ferments, so that the superfluous vapors are thrown out of it..." p 30 blames it not only on the natural process of children getting older, but on "pestilential, putrid, and malignant constitutions of the air." I saw no indication that it was even identified as a contagious disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that is a primary source, on which we shouldn't rely anyway. The question here is whether sources such as the Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, which seems to be a partisan-advocacy type source, are sufficient for the claims made in the article, or whether this is a case of WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A partisan/advocacy source is usually not reliable for topics in which it is partisan. If there were RS saying that it's an accurate publication, then it could be used. Also, it's not an extraordinary source for the claims it's making. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OP's claims that JISHIS is not reliable are unfounded. The journal has been cited by numerous peer-reviewed journals including:

Springer: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4162434k8mv6150/references/

Harvard: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2007HisSc..45...65R

Reproductive BioMedicine: http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483%2810%2960719-5/references

Online Journal of Health Ethics: http://test2.ojhe.org/index.php/ojhe/article/viewArticle/129

Besides, the claim cited from JISHIS is not really extraordinary. This is the bit that was cited from JISHIS . Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources:

• Saul S. Friedman, Professor of History at Youngstown State University, where he specializes in ancient and modern Middle Eastern studies:

"Most significant, the Canon warns of the danger of contagion through contaminated water. Like ibn al-Khatib, vizir in Granada, and ibn Khatima, who lived through the Black Death of the 14th century, Avicenna warned the spread of disease was not the result of fate, but physical contact, and pollution". (A history of the Middle East by Saul S. Friedman)

• "The modem germ theory appears to be based on the observation of Avicenna who has discussed in detail that unless a bodily secretion is contaminated by foul foreign earthly body no infection can take place". (Studies in Arabic and Persian medical literature, Calcutta University [on label: sole agents: Luzac, London], 1959 - Medical - 173 pages)

• The famous physician, ibn al-Khatib said in a work, The Plague:

"… the existence of contagion is established by experience, study, and the evidence of the senses, by trustworthy reports on transmission by garments, vessels, ear-rings; by the spread of it by persons from one house to another, by infection of a healthy sea-port by an arrival from an infected land…by the immunity of isolated individuals and …nomadic Bedouin tribes of Africa…It must be a principle that a proof taken from the Traditions has to undergo modification when in manifest contradiction with the evidence of the perception of the senses" (Ibn al-Khatib, cited in Meyerhof, 1931: 340).

Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dumping irrelevant sources here is meaningless. I don't see anything in the above about the claim of Avicenna's describing bacteria and viruses. Anyway, that issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. Moving on, the question is now whether the following equally extraordinary claim [18] can be sourced to: Bashar Saad, Hassan Azaizeh, Omar Said (October 2005). "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review", Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2 (4), p. 475-479 [476]. Oxford University Press. This would be a wonderful source for the subject of traditional Arab herbal medicine, but I do not think it is appropriate for claims about "the discovery of the immune system, introduction of microbiology, use of animal testing" and so forth. Athenean (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a response to those who claimed such claims were extraordinary at the time. The "Tradition and Perspectives of Arab Herbal Medicine: A Review" was published by Oxford University Press. I think you need to explain why you said "the references used therein are dubious" on the talk page of History of medicine when referring to this article ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is published by. A review of Arab herbal medicine may be a good source for Arab herbal medicine, but not for claiming the discovery of the immune system and microbiology by Muslim physicians in the Middle Ages. Again, it is a question of WP:UNDUE. Everything else is a distraction. I'm also more interested in the opinion of others, I already know yours. Athenean (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If Al-Andalusi's sources check out, there would seem to be good published sources on this. Are there other good sources saying otherwise? Also this might be a case where citing Avicenna directly at least in this discussion may help clarify matters. If the secondary sources are in doubt it may help to check the primary source. Lambanog (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IP possibly adding false sources?

Perhaps someone should double-check if the sources 212.56.25.159 has continually been adding are valid and verify the content, as they've been warned about doing this before, and have also been accused of being a spam-only IP. I don't know whether these sources are reliable or not so hopefully with this notice someone can take action if need be. -- œ^™ 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you give the sources, and preferably the assertions they are being used to support, then it will be possible to comment on their reliability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at a few. In the cases I looked at, an addition is made to the bibliography of the page. The work added is real, recent, relevant and (in general) academic. No assertion is added to the text of our page; it's just the bibliography. I can't see any commercial connections among the books and articles being added. So the anonymous editor seems to be doing just what we would want, making our pages better documented than they were before. (Items added to a bibliography need to be useful, as these appear to be, but not guaranteed reliable: none of us could do that.) A larger sample might give a different impression, but this looks OK to me ...

[A moment later:] No, I see now, the problem is that these items are added to "references" but, as an earlier warning pointed out, there is a "convention on Wikipedia ... that "references" are only those sources actually used to write the article". The anonym's mistake is probably to add these items to "references" rather than to start a "further reading" section. Even that might be over the top for us since, according to another warning, "it is not an aim of WP to provide full bibliographies on subjects". (Quotes from here). Nice try, anonym. Andrew Dalby 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, the thing is he's been warned about adding these to "References" as opposed to "Further reading" yet he's ignored or disregarded the warning and still continues doing this. I'm conflicted now as to whether this user is unintentionally being disruptive and whether to take action or if the 'references' he's adding actually verify parts of the content then we should let him carry on. I can't tell without looking up the sources, and don't know the reason for his ignoring the warning. -- œ^™ 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find it difficult to comment further because I'm not comfortable with the other guidelines being applied here. A good encyclopedia should certainly have bibliographies listing recent, relevant items as these appear to be. If they don't support the content now, they will help anyone who wants to improve the article later. It could be that our guidelines don't quite strike the right balance between referencing all possibly controversial assertions (like an academic paper) and providing fruitful lines for further work (like a good encyclopedia article).

If I'm being too pessimistic there, and there's no guideline problem, then the right solution, albeit time-consuming, would seem to be not to delete these added bibliography items but to put them under "Further reading" or "Bibliography", not "References". It's not surprising if a shy contributor finds this difficult to grasp: our guidelines may be clear, but our observable practice is inconsistent. Andrew Dalby 09:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Editing policy should apply. Problem is there are editors that are prone to strictly interpreting lesser guidelines such as WP:External Links. This is the result of the lack in content creators and the proliferation of editor enforcers that flit from article to article instead of being dedicated to actually building a few. Lambanog (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

I have been objecting and challenging a biography written about a living person, Vito Roberto Palazzolo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo), written by a man called Don Calo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonCalo). The discussion has been happening recently at Palazzolo's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Answering_wikipedia.27s_requirements_in_BLP.2C_Verifiable_Sources.2C_Association_Fallacy_and_Lead

Personal motive

I have been gathering information on Vito Roberto Palazzolo for 3 years now with a view to writing his biography. I have nothing to gain by writing anything (in a book or in Wikipedia) idealizing him or getting him off the hook of his detractors. My single aim is to discover where the fire started that created the smoke, to wit: either Palazzolo was involved in illegal money laundering activities with the Mafia in 1981 and early 1982, or he is the victim if a conspiracy. I am looking at both options and both sides.

The subject

Apropos my plan to write a book: He is an interesting subject in many ways: as a Swiss Banker he was enormously successful and ran the fiduciary arm of one of the world's most prestigious banks; as a Sicilian he arrived on the scene at the bank when some of his inherited clients were laundering money (through Swiss banks) for the the heroin smuggling ring known as the "Pizza Connection", which was famously bust by Rudi Giuliani then Mayor of NY. Palazzolo was accused of many things in many courts thereafter, including money laundering, Mafia membership, drug running and even murder, but was never conclusively sentenced for anything except "dolus eventualis" in Switzerland in 1985, a conviction pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. But the allegations - from Sicily in Palermo - never stopped coming and pursued him even as far as South Africa where he lives now. There is even High Court narrative that mentions an unhealthy and illegal working relationship between Sicily and the Department of Justice in South Africa.

Conspiracy and transparency

What I am saying is that he is an interesting subject for a biography, highlighting many areas, as you can see. His life as a free man, however, defended by the rule of law (now in SA as well as Italy and the European Court of Human Rights), hangs in the balance. It is conceivable, that, given the court evidence over nearly 30 years, Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy and only an open and transparent rendition of his case, with all cards on the table, can either clear his name or indict him.

The media, Don Calo & Wikipedia

But that is not what he is getting in the media and so, by default, Wikipedia. Don Calo, who writes the Wikipedia biography of Palazzolo, uses only media articles as his source. Primarily scurrilous newspapers like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Independent. And so when people go to Wikipedia, the first port of call for knowledge about anyone or anything in the world, they get a biased, indeed, slanderous view of a man who, from the point of view of the High Courts in Switzerland, Italy and South Africa, is innocent. That may not be so but he must be given the opportunity in court, the media and at Wikipedia, for a free and fair trial.

All I am asking is that because this is a highly complex and long running affair, Palazzolo gets better treatment from Wikipedia. By which I mean specialist and comprehensive and fair, which one man reading the tabloid press, cannot do.

See below a few of the Points I have made in regard to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and fairness in respect to a living person.

Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.

Significant Coverage - In Notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.

Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.

Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.

Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."

Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.

Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.

Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.

Weasel words abound in Don Calo's article ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated")

Palazzolo “is regarded as a notorious Mafia ‘banker.’”

Palazzolo “is considered to be a member of the Sicilian Mafia.”

“The (FBI) considered [Palazzolo] to be one of the top seven in the Sicilian Cosa Nostra.”

Miss-use of Primary sources

Trial transcripts - We are advised not to use "trial transcripts and other court documents", because they are primary sources. Hard to understand how a court judgement, which is an in depth study of the rights and wrongs of any subject, and is not directly involved in the subject, is inadmissible.

Secondary sources - are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Surely then a court case, which analyses the subject (Palazzolo), is a secondary source.

Affidavits - Surely affidavits written by lawyers (who have to be professionals with integrity, by definition) about the subject, are admissible as secondary sources? There could be no more judicious and balanced document then an affidavit of this order.

These are just a few pointers regarding my contention with Wikipedia's article on Palazzolo. I have a great deal more on this subject, which is very complicated. What else would you like me to present to you and how can we lay this ghost to rest, because a living person is very insulted by the singular, one-sided, ill-informed line that Don Calo (Wikipedia) is taking.

Fircks (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has posted related requests several times on the BLP noticeboard, most recently here, where he was advised to express his concerns to the Wikimedia Foundation and said he would do so. He has also reportedly posted at WP:AN/I. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded here on the advice of Bbb23 (I suggest you take your contention to WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

I went into the Wiki foundation page and was informed that: "Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website". So I expressed my concerns by sending an email to [email protected]. I could post a copy here but don't want to take up too much space repeating my case. In the meantime I am discussing the article with Bbb23 and Don Calo, who has today weighed into the conversation.

Fircks (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearly articulating this general issue. It's something that we'll need to deal with in the policies and guidelines at some point. I've seen many instances where the media report accusations but not the subsequent exoneration. I think it's fair to use a court judgment as a source. I can see the rationale for not using civil complaints and criminal charges, transcripts, affidavits, etc., since those typically represent a point of view of one side or the other. But the judgment should be acceptable, and, I would think, weigh heavily in regard to establishing appropriate weight to views. But one would need to be cautious about making any interpretive claims. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Court filings such as complaints and docket sheets are completely banned as sources in biographies of living persons by WP:BLPPRIMARY, as they should be. Contrary to your statements above, affidavits also should fall under this ban. Any-one can claim anything in an affidavit, and they have no more veracity than complaints (which like affidavits are sworn in some jurisdictions). Judge's opinions are frequently argued to be banned under the same policy. I have argued elsewhere, and there is some agreement by other editors, that a judge's opinion (at least in a court of general jurisdiction) should be treated by us as a secondary source, as it represents the judge's synthesis of the witnesses and documents, much as an article in a mainstream newspaper or magazine represents such a synthesis of primary sources (except in many cases the judge's opinion will be in greater depth and more accurate). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your informed opinions. I realize that Palazzolo's case comes out of left-field, it is unique and requires special handling and to have been able to bring it this far, to you, is testament to wikipedia's credibility.

I know that trial transcripts are not allowed, according to your rule book. I don't want to hammer my case relentlessly but, given what has happened to this man, Palazzolo, and how it has happened, we have stumbled upon something both unique and important. When his story is written, Wikipedia and the given world view on people with unique biographies, will make up a large chapter. So I wish to point out that:

• What better judgement can you get on a person (good or bad) than a court judgement, which has to take in all views and circumstances and is utterly transparent? Is there a more balanced view? I would believe the interpretations of a high-minded Judge (with reservations about the infamous Italian/Sicilian judiciary),whose motive is justice, before that of a journalist, whose motive is to tell a ripping yarn (much of the time). And they don't come more ripping than the Mafia. Especially if it includes a multi-millionaire aristocrat like Palazzolo who, until that day in 1982, hadn't even got a parking ticket.
• What better rationale can be applied to a person than an informed affidavit written by an expert in his or her field and a world class lawyer to boot? Such an affidavit is a highly informed version of what the media writes up, as a secondary source, anyway.
• I want to interpret as little as possible, but give the bare facts of his case, in a manner that the newspapers do not. I would put both the allegation or charge, and the verdict. You must understand that Palazzolo has absolutely no fear of a transparent debate where they can throw everything they have at him, but this ongoing stream of allegations that come out of Palermo and ridden by the media and, sadly therefore, Wikipedia, is unbearable.
• Where should I go from here?

Fircks (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Zurf Military Aircraft

See previous discussion at [19]. User:AircraftZurf is continuing to cite his own website "Zurf Military Aircraft" in numerous Wikipedia articles:[20], [21]. In the previous discussion here, I encouraged Zurf to cite the original news stories, rather than his compilation and analysis of the news stories at his website. In the website, Zurf compiles and analyzes news reports, and it looks like a useful compilation of information, but I have grave doubts that at the present time it qualifies as a citeable reliable source, by Wikipedia standards. But there is no editorial staff listed, and no byline is provided; it is anonymous. No evidence has been presented that the website is treated as a reliable source by news organizations. I found no mention of "Zurf Military Aircraft" in a Google News archive search. I do not want to proceed with any sanctions against the user, or with deleting all the references cited to the website in numerous Wikipedia articles, without a wider consensus as to whether it is permissible for a user to cite his own website as a reference in Wikipedia articles. I have informed User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source, totally unusable for other articles outside of Zurf Military Aircraft. Zurf uses a lot of copyrighted images without permission and he does not cite his sources. An effort should be made to remove all Zurf cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So Zurf should stick to citing only the original news stories, and not citing his website which compiles and analyzes them? Is it correct to simply remove text referenced only to his website, or should the text be left with a "citation needed" tag when it is noncontroversial and likely citeable to the original story in turn accessible from his website? Edison (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for a user to cite his own website: He did it, didn't he?

Probably what you mean to ask is whether it is permissible to do so. The answer is yes: See WP:CITESELF and WP:SELFCITE (those very similar shortcuts point at different pages, by the way).

Is this the best approach? Probably not. It might well be WP:REFSPAM (and WP:LINKVIO, too) and better sources are likely available. If you know that the original news story supports the statement, then I would simply substitute the original news story.

For myself, I wouldn't fact-tag any statement that isn't on the WP:MINREF list. You will have to use your best judgment to decide when a tag is needed or helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did someone before you use the word "possible" as you imply? All I see is discussion of whether it is "permissible." Should we have to follow around behind Zurf, everytime he cites his website, and go there to find the news story which might back up his statement in Wikipedia? I don't think that is a reasonable request or a productive use of other editors' time. Edison (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is bad judgement & bad form IMO. How do readers here know what's factual & what's opinion? How do we know if any of it has a basis in fact? Nor do I think it should be incumbent on us to clean up after somebody who can't even respect copyright. (Leave off the wholesale copying of DANFS on WP, I don't expect to win on that one...) Junk it all & slap him with a warning. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In favor of Zurf, he seems to be well informed about military aircraft, and certainly spends a lot of time compiling info on his website. He can be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, if only he will refrain from citing his own website, and instead cite the news stories directly. Binksternet has spent considerable effort removing cites to the Zurf website from Wikipedia articles, since the consensus appears to be that ""Zurf Military Aircraft"" is not presently citeable in Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Zurf has the makings of a good contributor if he cites his sources rather than himself. Also, if he heeds WP:NOTNEWS and quits adding conjecture about future possibilities. The encyclopedia is far more about what has happened than what may happen. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This has the feeling of self-promotion of his personal website Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it does look very self-promotional and spammy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sports123.com

This site is a sport archive which is used on many articles of Wikipedia (not only English Wikipedia but other languages' too), specially Asian Games related. I just want to know is whether this site is reliable for sourcing. Bill william compton^Talk 00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Inside the Actors Studio

The following assertion is in the Dave Chappelle article: "He also said the rumors that he was in drug or psychiatric treatment only persuaded him to stay in South Africa." The source is: "Dave Chappelle". Inside the Actors Studio. Bravo. 2006-02-12. No. 10, season 12.

This is what WP:RS says (I think this is the relevant part):

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

What does it mean to be "properly cited"? Is the cite above good enough? And what does it mean by an "archived copy"? If the episode were available on DVD, would that be sufficient?

Finally, this is not just a piece of background biographical information. If untrue, it's arguably a BLP violation. Does that change the analysis?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Actors studio is quite reputable, the citation above looks essentially ok to me, but it might be a good idea to add the time into the video where the statement occurs (similarly to giving the page ina book). If an online copy of the video or its transcript exist you might add that as a convenience link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What about satisfying the "archived copy" requirement?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's available on DVD, then the "archived copy" requirement is met. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to Google Books

I saw an above reference to a convenience link, and wondered what our policy was on adding direct links to text in searchable editions at Google Books. If these are added alongside a proper citation, are they considered good practice? The links are ugly but the one-click access to source material is fantastic.

Example:

• "Feeling Unreal: Depersonalization Disorder and the loss of the self" By Daphne Simeon and Jeffrey Abugel (2006) Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-538521-2, p. 144. Google books.

Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 04:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent policy seems to be WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is equivocal but militates against linking to an online third party source (not the publisher's own website) unless that is the only source of the work. However, I would say this is a widely disregarded policy, as links to Google Books seem to be common (and I have seen editors accused of hiding their sources if they found information on Google Books and only cited to the paper copy). One interesting sidelight is that particular pages in Google Books don't seem to be consistently available to different users, so what one sees may return a "not available" message to others. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting archived thread from this noticeboard in which editors are generally favorable to using links to Google Books but there is some dissent about links to particular pages ("deep links"). Someone points out that clicking on the ISBN itself brings up a Google Books link. A re-read of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT suggests it wasn't written with Google Books in mind, but with paywall databases and those requiring someone else's account to access. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't provide so called convenience links. It means you shouldn't cite the online database instead of the original journal publication and you shoudn't link inconvenient (=false) convenient links, that are not publicly accessible or purely commercial. However public accessible convenient links of cited (print) reference are generally welcome and this is by no means restricted to Google Books. Preprints of journal papers are often available on arxiv.org or university pages. Online copies of books are also available on archive.org, project Gutenberg and various university libaries. Google books links are used quite often but not all authors like him (I do though), because although they are public, it is not guaranteed that all users can read them (the access depends on the local copyright situation in which you reside and Google sometimes blocks repeated access based on your IP or changes the exact sides being available in preview). Nevertheless usually the Googble Book link is usually accessible for many readers/editor and does indeed offer a great opportunity for "1 click verifications". However when you use Google Book links you should not use the ugly and confusing search link, but instead use the page link [http://books.google.com/books?id=ONLyq-mVLuIC&pg=PA144 Google books] (Google books) or even better the available template {{Google books|ONLyq-mVLuIC|online copy|page=144}} (online copy, p. 144, at Google Books)--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about that template. Thanks, Kmhkmh! Andrew Dalby 11:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Not sure if I just have bad luck with that particular Google book link or whether it is generally not accessible. But assuming for now it is general issue, I'd like to add one should only add Google book links if at least a limited preview available, providing a link without a preview is somewhat pointless (anfd just a hidden Google Promotion).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be an example of different results for different folks. It took me to a search page for three or four occurrences of "Suzanne" in the book, and I was able to click through to see p. 144 in full. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found books that I could look into once and can't look into now; and, likewise, books that others can and I can't. I guess the links are still handy if some people can. But I agree, it's a bad idea to add the link unless the editor concerned has tested it to see full text or preview. Andrew Dalby 14:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great responses and links. Thanks. It sounds like {citebook} with a url is ideal. Maybe no deep link, since preview is inconsistent. OTOH concern about url's being inconsistent and ISBN's link to GBooks already. So though not necessary, it can work if done right. Sounds good. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather give the user more info than less, even if not all are able to make use to it. I generally link to the main page for the book, that is the page from which you can get the preview, but sometimes will do a deep link. No one has really brought up the issue to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom House

Is it acceptable to quote Freedom House as a reliable source in the article Northern Cyprus? After much wrangling have managed to tone down the language to the following:

"Freedom House has classified the perceived level of democratic and political freedom in Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000 in its Freedom in the World report. [22]

However, I am still of the opinion that Freedom House cannot be used as a reliable source for the following reasons:

1. It is an advocacy organization concerning human rights.
2. 80 per cent of its funding comes from the government of the United States (the United States has military bases in Turkey, and Turkey has maintained a military occupation in the northern part of Cyprus since 1974).
3. The ratings that are being issued, concerning the quality of democracy (and human rights), do not appear to take reality in to consideration (for example, there is no consideration for the owners of the vast majority of land and property, as acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the displaced persons who were displaced during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and who are not allowed to return to their homes and who have no right to vote despite legally owning most of the land and property in "Northern Cyprus").
4. Even use of the word "perceived" which explains that the rating is based on perceptions and not the actual situation legitimizes a rating which has no bearing on reality.
5. Not even the enclaved are considered. The enclaved are christian Cypriots who remained in villages after the invasion (pockets of christianity within an occupied muslim territory) and their freedom of movement is severely restricted to the point that individuals who leave these villages for hospital treatment are not allowed to return to their homes by the occupation regime. More information about the enclaved can be read at: http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2880&subject=standalone  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do think that Freedom House can be used as a source in this article. Freedom House's "Free"/"Partly Free"/"Not Free" ratings are often cited in the media, not just in the United States but internationally as well. [23] However, that is not the same thing as saying that it is the last word on the subject. If other human rights organizations rate Northern Cyprus less free than Freedom House does, then those could be mentioned in the article as well. But I don't think the fact that some believe Freedom House may have gotten this particular rating wrong means that we should reject their use as a source (not necessarily the only one) on this topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Can http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org be cited as a source concerning the human rights of Northern Cyprus? It is another human rights organisation.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

    Freedom House is relatively highly regarded; they do seem independently-minded and I can't think of a sane reason why they would distort their rating of northern Cyprus in particular. None of those three points would apply to http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org - the clue is in the name and on their front page. Presumably the reliability of Freedom House was questioned because they do not wholly agree with your own assessment of the situation; nonetheless, they're worth using in the article. bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    • • My assessment is irrelevant. Freedom House has issued a rating that Northern Cyprus has a better quality of democracy and "freedom" than Turkey when the government of Northern Cyprus is under military occupation by Turkey (fully confirmed and disapproved of by the United Nations). Moreover, the displaced persons of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus who were the vast majority of the population of the territory that is now occupied by the Turkish military have no right to vote despite being the legitimate owners of the vast majority of the land and property (as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights). What I find difficult to accept is that there is an organisation called Freedom House (that is 80 per cent funded by the government of the United States which itself has military bases in Turkey) that ignores both the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights to arrive at an absurd assessment. Moreover, the terminology used in the rating, which is described as "free", ignores the fact that the displaced persons are not allowed to return to their homes or land (and this is enforced by the government of Turkey and the Turkish military). Freedom House discredits itself with this assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like one of our regular "admissibility" vs. "weight" disputes. I agree with Nipsonanomhmata that majority funding by the U.S. government (if correct) would put the independence of the organization into question, but it is being referenced for its own opinion, not an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, the best compromise is to cite it in the wording given above, balanced by well sourced opposing viewpoints. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I also suggest that it is noted in any citation that Freedom House is 80 per cent funded by the United States government and that this may have a bearing on the assessment.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a general principle that statements about funding of an organization are made in some sort of way in order to discredit its statements. Meanwhile, "lobbyforcyprus" appears to be a substantially non-neutral viewer of Cyprus, as its name and content both indicate. [24] says: since its inception has campaigned against the invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing and destruction of the cultural heritage of 37 per cent of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey. ... Lobby was founded by the UK-based Cypriot refugee organisations Ayios Amvrosios UK, Anglo Akanthou, Lapithos & Karavas UK and a number of concerned individuals, who believed that any settlement of the Cyprus issue should not legitimise Turkey’s illegal occupation of the northern part of the island and that all refugees must have the right to return. ... What Lobby stands for: As a cornerstone of Lobby’s campaign policy are the 3Rs: Removal of all Turkish troops Repatriation of all colonists Return of all refugees to their homes and lands without restriction or precondition.

There is no way that an organization with such a mission statement could remotely be considered a reliable source on the topic of freedom levels in northern Cyprus. Collect (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet Lobby for Cyprus does not receive majority funding from any government unlike Freedom House. Lobby for Cyprus represents the displaced persons of Cyprus and that is where they get their funding from. What you are saying is that the displaced persons of Cyprus, who are prevented from living in their own homes and on their own land by military occupation and are also prevented from voting from their own homes, cannot be considered independent but an organisation mostly funded by the government of one nation can be considered independent. So much for "freedom" and "independence". The only reason that you cannot use Lobby for Cyprus as a source is because it is a primary source. It is a primary source with the views of those that were displaced. However, Freedom House also has majority funding from a primary source that was involved in the steering of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Yet, Freedom House itself is not considered to be a primary source even though it is based in the same country that majority funds it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you making the assetion that the situation in northern Cyprus was directly funded and backed by the US government? I fear that this is a case where you seem to think WP:TRUTH is on your side. WP uses NPOV, however. Collect (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic. This can be discussed somewhere else if you really need to. Besides, we have already agreed that it is alright to quote Freedom House, even though it is 80% funded by the government of the United States.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bosma" in "Plan Dalet": is it possible that a peer-reviewed scholarly article is not a reliable source?

In the article Plan Dalet some editors dispute that an edit is from a reliable source, although this edit is based on an article in a scholarly journal. It so happens that I'm the author of the article, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that the journal "Holy land Studies" is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and that WP:SOURCE says: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.". Whether I'm a chemical engineer or not is not relevant. What counts is that I'm also a historian and that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It is not up to wikipedia-editors to question the expertise of peer reviewers.

see also the talk page

see also the "Holy Land Studies" website

my proposed edit:

According to J.C. Bosma Plan Dalet and the question of Zionist intent should be seen in the context of the "contradictions of Zionism". Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation:

Ben-Gurion and the military leadership did not send their troops to destroy or "occupy" Palestinian villages without an explanation and legitimation. The troops were ordered to "move to State Dalet for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet". Plan Dalet and its stated defensive rationale were referred to and therefore automatically provided a framework that legitimated these orders. ... the politicians need not worry about the moral side of this, because these actions were justified by a defensive military plan.

Bosma investigated the military logic of Plan Dalet and points out seven aspects of it that are inconsistent with the stated defensive purpose.

• J.C. Bosma, "Plan Dalet in the context of the contradictions of Zionism", Holy Land Studies 9 (2), 2010, p. 209-227

There should really not be a dispute here, because it is obvious that a peer reviewed scholarly article should be considered a reliable source. JaapBoBo (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In the section Jaap wants to include this, we currently have the views of Walid Khalidi, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Henry Laurens, Yoav Gelber and David Tal. J.C. Bosma has apparently only published this one article in the field of History, and his expertise is Chemistry.

So there are two questions here. Is anything published in a scholarly journal automatically considered RS, and if it is, should the opinion of someone who has no known expertise in the field be included with these well known professors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The second question is not good. I have a known expertise in the field, because it is recognised by the editors of "Holy Land Studies" during the peer-review process. Well known experts on the subject, Nur Masalha and Ilan Pappe (one of the six), are on the editorial board. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The source can probably be considered reliable, but given the fact that the author isn't a historian it may be WP:Undue weight to mention it. Remember, there are other policies and guidelines which can limit inclusion besides RS. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So Blueboar, you agree with me on the question of RS?

Regarding "Undue weight", that is another discussion, but of course if my article had not been a worthy addition to what was already published, it would never have been accepted. JaapBoBo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since I am not an expert on the topic, I can't "agree" that it is a reliable journal. All I can say is that it seems likely to be reliable. To me the undue weight issue is potentially more critical, but you are correct that that is a different issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could figure out both issues here, that would save everyone some time and effort later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this constitutes an undue weight issue rather than a reliable source issue per se, and would gently suggest to JaapBoBo that, in spite of what he says, the fact that he's the author of the article is relevant here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing absolutely and automatically gets a free pass as a reliable source. Peer-reviewed scholarly journals are generally assumed to go to the top of the pile, but there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals and there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals -- there's a difference between The Lancet and the Southern East Carolina College Review of Cultural Studies, for instance -- and there is difference between statements of fact and statements of contentious political interpretation. If there is good reason to believe that the author of an article has a dog in some fight, that slides the reliability quite a ways downward on the scale. I am confused about what Holy Land Studies is... it apparently is this, where I see that the first article listed is named Liberating Jewish History from its Zionist Stranglehold, which sounds kind of political... it looks to be partly a political journal. Is it? Middle East politics is a fairly contentious subject. I would first ask the editor using the ref: Do you assert that Holy Land Studies is essentially a disinterested scholarly research journal free of political bias? Well, is it? Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary souce OK for music genre? In lieu of alternatives for obscure band

On the article for the band Nokturnal Mortum, we kind of got into an edit war over a certain musical genre being added to the infobox. The problem here is that this is a) an obscure band so sources are nil, b) they're from Ukraine so [English] sources in general are nil, and c) obscure metal bands in general aren't talked about in major RS's like publications, so the realm of e-zines is where one typically resorts to editorials or interviews, etc. Anyway, the dispute is whether the genre "NSBM" should be listed as a genre. Now, this band is, in my experience, always mentioned in online discussions for NSBM bands and their earlier lyrics are blatantly and obviously national-socialist in nature. Now, I found this interview with the band leader in which he clearly states that the band's musical style is "national socialistic Black Metal". I also found another interview with NSBM band, here, where its stated that "The brightest bands of nowadays NSBM / Racial Pagan Metal scene surely are: NOKTURNAL MORTUM". Now, I understand the second is a secondary source from an e-zine, but it does establish that this genre tag is commonplace, IMO. The first is a primary source, but in line with WP:RS policy, it is only used in a "straightforward and descriptive" manner. So are either of these sources alright to use? Currently one editor is blanking these sources saying primary sources aren't allowed, while another involved has opined that it should be allowed for this band given the circumstances.

Despite the 2:1 'consensus', things are still getting blanked, so just looking for another opinion here on policy? --Львівське (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wen Wei Po

Wen Wei Po is a Chinese newspaper based in Hong Kong allegedly with PRC government background. Currently there is a content dispute on Ai Weiwei here. My argument is, Wen Wei Po cannot be considered as Reliable Source based on this:Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996, and Hong Kong Journalists Association Annual Reports Annual reports on the state of freedom of expression & media self-censorship in Hong Kong. Please advice. Arilang ^talk 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(I'm one of the editors involved) That study was conducted in 1996. That was 15 years ago. How...how is that useful, apart from being a historical record? For all we know, it could be even more pro-China today, or less. Secondly, that survey says that it is (quote) 'Pro-Beijing Chinese-language daily founded in 1948'. I can say the same about most Western media, they are 'Pro-Western'. It has, 'allegedly', PRC background (according to Arilang). That is not solid evidence. I mean, BBC has UK government background and we are not questioning that... Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All nations control their media, but mass media corps are still taken as RS at wikipedia even if they are openly propagandist such as the VOA or Radio Free Asia. If you find another RS which disagrees with Wen Wei Po than you should attribute what each one is saying within the text.Passionless -Talk 07:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)